HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2404-2879CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Monday, April 22, 2024
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
14.Independent Police Auditor's (IPA) Report of Review of Investigations Between July and
December 2023 and Police Department Use of Force Report for July - December 2023
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: City Manager
Meeting Date: April 22, 2024
Report #:2404-2879
TITLE
Independent Police Auditor's (IPA) Report of Review of Investigations Between July and
December 2023 and Police Department Use of Force Report for July - December 2023
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
in the second half of 2023. For reference, the prior IPA report was published in September 2023
as an Informational Item1. The Police Department’s website lists all past Independent Police
Auditor Reports, here2. Attachment A contains the IPA report for investigations completed
between July 2023 and December 2023. Per Council direction, the Police Department also
shares use of force information through a report provided alongside each IPA report, included
here as Attachment B and covers the same time period. The Police Department’s responses to
IPA report recommendations are included here as Attachment C.
1 September 2023 Independent Police Auditor Report:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/police-department/accountability/ipa-reports/june-2023-
independent-police-auditors-report-and-papd-use-of-force-report.pdf
2 Palo Alto Police Department Accountability Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Police/Accountability
Independent Police Auditor Reports Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Police/Accountability/Independent-Police-Auditor
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:
Mike Gennaco
Phone: (323) 412-0334
Email: Michael.gennaco@oirgroup.co
Or mail to:
OIR Group
1443 E. Washington Blvd., #234
Pasadena, CA 911
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City’s Independent Police Auditor activities are not a project under section 15378(b)(25) of
the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (administrative activities that will not result
in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Independent Police Auditor's (IPA) Report of Review of Investigations Between
July and December 2023
Attachment B: Police Department Use of Force Report for July - December 2023
Attachment C: Police Department Responses to IPA Report
APPROVED BY:
Ed Shikada, City Manager
1
INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITORS’ REPORT
[Review of Investigations Completed as of November 30, 2023]
Presented to the Honorable City Council
City of Palo Alto
2024
Prepared by: Michael Gennaco and Stephen Connolly
Independent Police Auditors for
the City of Palo Alto
2
Introduction
This semi-annual report addresses cases that were completed by the Palo Alto Police
Department ("PAPD") in the second half of 2023, as reviewed by OIR Group – the City's
Independent Police Auditor.1 Consistent with the expanded scope of work developed by the
City, the report covers internal investigations into allegations of officer misconduct, certain
qualifying use of force incidents, complaints raised internally by employees alleging
misconduct by fellow employees, and supervisory evaluations of instances in which PAPD
officers pointed a firearm while engaging with a member of the public.
Much of this report is devoted to a lengthy discussion of an excessive force incident that
eventually resulted in both administrative and criminal investigations and ultimate charges. It
involved the circumstances of a particular arrest and use of force that had criminal, civil, and
administrative facets. The incident dated back several years but was slow to work its way
through the various judicial and administrative proceedings. The last of its components was
only finalized near the end of 2023, when a supervisor – who had retired during the
pendency of the Internal Affairs review of his conduct – ended up pleading guilty to a pair of
misdemeanors. Meanwhile, the discipline processes for some of the other involved officers
had also just reached their resolution.
As we describe, several factors contributed to the protracted nature of the process, including
the civil litigation, the criminal investigation and prosecution, and the post-disciplinary
arbitration procedures. One of these, unfortunately, was a disappointing delay in PAPD's
internal recognition of the incident's severity after the involved sergeant and other on-scene
officers failed to report the sergeant’s use of unreasonable force or the contemporary
allegations of such made by the detainee. As explained in detail below, even though the
involved and witness personnel had a responsibility to report the force and the detainee’s
complaint and did not, PAPD’s review protocols that should have identified serious concerns
with the underlying arrest also did not do so; it was only after a private surveillance video
1 OIR Group is a team of police practices experts that operates out of southern California and has
been involved in the independent oversight of law enforcement for more than 20 years. It is led by
Michael Gennaco, who is a former federal prosecutor and a nationally recognized authority in the
field of police oversight. www.oirgroup.com
3
was provided to the City by the detainee’s lawyer that the officers' actions became the focus
of a formal Internal Affairs investigation. And even then, the Department held its decision-
making on potential administrative charges for months after its internal investigation had
been completed.
Between the excessive force at the outset of the incident, the failure of the involved and on-
scene officers to fully report the incident and the slowness of the Department's recognition
and resolution of it, the case reflected poorly on PAPD – despite the ultimate firmness with
which it imposed (or sought to impose) accountability on involved personnel. Our lengthy
discussion of the case features recommendations that hopefully will contribute to improved
future responses should the Department be faced with a similar circumstance.
The report also includes the discussion of a matter that had become the subject of civil
litigation. We review the Department's administrative investigation into different aspects of
this arrest, which raised procedural questions and prompted both accountability and
changes in agency protocol.
The other misconduct allegation from within this reporting period was not supported by the
evidence. At the same time, we found it to be worthy of further, non-disciplinary attention –
which PAPD creditably provided. It was a good reminder that these cases are ideally a
forum not only for the redress of policy violations but an opportunity for constructive
enhancements to future performance.
This report also includes two cases from a new category within our scope. When the City
Council re-evaluated the role of the IPA as part of the post-Floyd police reform movement in
2020, it pushed for an expansion in the types of PAPD internal reviews that were to be
subject to independent scrutiny. One significant addition was the inclusion of what are
commonly referred to as "HR complaints" – allegations of workplace-related misconduct or
mistreatment that are generated by employees against other members of an organization.
The prior thinking was that such investigations, while clearly significant, fell outside the
realm of matters that the public considered most salient when it came to concerns about
police misconduct. The counterargument, though, is these kinds of intra-agency conflicts
can provide a meaningful window into leadership, culture, and accountability – all of which
have implications for broader operational effectiveness.
Accordingly, these cases are now part of our review mandate. Both completed
investigations that we cover here were coordinated through the City's Human Resources
management and were handled by an outside investigator to promote the objectivity of the
process. Both resulted in findings that relevant policies had not, in fact, been violated. But
the inquiries were also an occasion for a constructive consideration of the dynamics
underlying the original complaints.
We remain cognizant of the extra responsibility that our expanded scope of work has added
to the duties of our liaisons within the agency. We appreciate PAPD’s cooperation and
patience in providing us with the materials we need and responding to our inquiries. More
4
importantly, we are grateful for the willingness of PAPD management to go beyond the letter
of its obligations and engage candidly with us regarding individual cases and larger agency
trends.
5
External Complaint Investigations
Case 1: Allegations of Excessive Force, Failure to Report, and
Additional Misconduct
Factual Overview:
On the date of the incident, a PAPD Officer (Officer 1) followed Mr. Gustavo Alvarez2 while
he was driving a vehicle. Mr. Alvarez drove to his residence and parked his car in his
carport. Officer 1 called out to Mr. Alvarez that he was being detained but Mr. Alvarez did
not heed the officer’s instruction and entered his residence. Officer 1 requested assistance
and was soon joined by several other officers (Sergeant Wayne Benitez3, Agent Thomas
DeStefano4, Officer 2, and Officer 3). Eventually Sergeant Benitez kicked in the front door of
the residence, removed Mr. Alvarez, and arrested him.5
PAPD Police Reports
In the police report prepared by Officer 1 on the date of the incident, he describes observing
a vehicle that he recognized from a prior contact. According to the report, Officer 1 was
aware that Mr. Alvarez had a suspended license, but he was not able to see whether the
owner was driving. Officer 1 followed the vehicle, and it soon parked outside a residence
that he knew to be Mr. Alvarez’s residence.
The report indicated that Officer 1 saw Mr. Alvarez exit the parked vehicle, at which time the
officer called out to him and told him he was being detained. According to the report, Mr.
Alvarez was non-compliant with the officer’s instruction and walked inside of his residence.
Officer 1 then returned to his car and called for assistance.
Agent DeStefano, Officers 2 and 3, and Sergeant Benitez responded. The report indicated
that they attempted to convince Mr. Alvarez to come outside, but that these efforts were met
by Mr. Alvarez’s “verbal taunts” from the threshold. According to the report, at this point
2 Ordinarily, the IPA does not identify complainants in its reports. However, because the identity of
Mr. Alvarez, the victim in this matter, has been widely and publicly disseminated by government
entities, including the City of Palo Alto, we have chosen to include his name for purposes of clarity.
3 Ordinarily, the IPA does not identify subject officers in its reports. However, because the identity of
former Sergeant Benitez has been widely and publicly disseminated by government entities,
including the City of Palo Alto, we have chosen to include his name for purposes of clarity.
4 Ordinarily, the IPA does not identify subject officers in its reports. However, because the City of
Palo Alto has publicly identified former Agent DeStefano, we have included his identity for purposes
of clarity.
5 As detailed below, all criminal charges lodged against Mr. Alvarez were eventually dismissed.
6
responding officers approached the residence, Sergeant Benitez kicked the door open, and
Mr. Alvarez was taken into custody. The report does not contain any description of the
arrest itself. The report indicated that after Mr. Alvarez was taken into custody, an
automated inquiry indicated that Mr. Alvarez’s license was indeed suspended.
The police report describes locating drug paraphernalia on Mr. Alvarez’s person and
transporting him to PAPD, where Officer 1 conducted a Drug Abuse Recognition
examination. The report indicates that, after receiving the Miranda advisement, Mr. Alvarez
acknowledged ownership of the drug paraphernalia but refused to consent to a blood test.
Sergeant Benitez’s supplemental report indicates that he responded to aid Officer 1 once
Mr. Alvarez had gone into his residence. The report indicates that Sergeant Benitez
observed Mr. Alvarez standing in the open doorway of his residence while “acting like a
juvenile” and repeatedly calling “come and get me”.
According to Sergeant Benitez’s report, he and Agent DeStefano approached the door and
Mr. Alvarez “suddenly stepped back inside and shut the door.” Sergeant Benitez wrote that
he tried to open the door and found it locked. Sergeant Benitez reported that he then told
Agent DeStefano he was going to kick the door open.
The supplemental report indicated that Sergeant Benitez then kicked the door twice, with
the second kick causing the door to open. Sergeant Benitez wrote that once the door was
open, he saw Mr. Alvarez in the doorway, and he grabbed him at the front of his shirt and
physically pulled him outside. Sergeant Benitez’s report indicated that he and Officer 1 put
Mr. Alvarez on the hood of his car where he was handcuffed. Sergeant Benitez’s
supplemental report concludes by noting that “no other force was used.”6
Civil Litigation
Mr. Alvarez filed a claim approximately 5 ½ months after the incident. It alleged that officers
had unlawfully detained him, used excessive force during his arrest resulting in injury, and
prepared false police reports. Approximately 8 ½ months after the incident, the City sent a
letter to Mr. Alvarez rejecting his claim. The PAPD criminal investigator was informed that
approximately 10 months after the incident, a PAPD command staff member mentioned
having reviewed the officers’ in-car video recordings7 but without being able to see any use
6 Officer 3 prepared a supplemental report indicating that he was assigned to take a perimeter
position with no involvement in or view of the arrest. Neither Agent DeStefano nor Officer 2
prepared a report setting out their involvement.
7 This incident preceded the Department's adoption of body-worn cameras for patrol officers. The
Department's vehicle-mounted cameras had, however, been in use for several years. That "Mobile
Audio Video" system is referred to below as "MAV."
7
of force from that footage. As detailed below, it is unclear whether that review was spurred
by the civil litigation.
Approximately 14 months after the incident, the attorney representing Mr. Alvarez provided
the City Attorney’s Office with excerpts of a private surveillance video which depicted
aspects of the arrest, including an unreported use of force by Sergeant Benitez that aligned
with Mr. Alvarez's allegations.
Shortly after PAPD’s review of the video, Sergeant Benitez was placed on administrative
leave pending the completion of an Internal Affairs investigation into the incident.
Approximately three weeks after providing the video to PAPD, Mr. Alvarez filed a federal
lawsuit against the City. It tracked the allegations set out in his original claim and further
alleged that threatening and discriminatory remarks were made toward him.
Several weeks later, the attorney provided to the media the excerpts from the home
surveillance video that he had provided to PAPD. This generated significant local coverage
and ensuing civic concern.
Twenty-one months after the incident, the City settled the law suit. The settlement required
a payment of $572,500 to Mr. Alvarez and his attorneys, a public apology from Sergeant
Benitez, and sworn police officer training on dealing with the LGBTQ community.
Home Surveillance Footage
As noted above, Mr. Alvarez’s attorney had provided five segments of video and audio
captured from a surveillance camera outside the residence. At the time of the initial
segment, Mr. Alvarez’s vehicle is already parked in the carport adjacent to the residence
and is occupied only by an unidentified male8 seated in its front passenger seat. Officer 1 is
depicted standing on the driver’s side of the vehicle, while Mr. Alvarez is partially depicted
standing in the front doorway area of his residence. Mr. Alvarez can be heard repeatedly
asking Officer 1 about whether he knew for sure it was him driving. The footage records
Officer 1 repeatedly telling Mr. Alvarez that he is “detained” and directing him to come to
Officer 1’s patrol vehicle. After inquiring whether the officer has a warrant, Mr. Alvarez can
be heard shutting the door of his residence as he says, “You cannot come into my house.”
The segment ends with Officer 1 returning to his nearby patrol vehicle.
The second segment begins with Sergeant Benitez, Officer 1 and Agent DeStefano
approaching the front door of the residence. By this time, the vehicle is now unoccupied.
Officer 2 can be seen standing between the front of the residence and the passenger side of
Mr. Alvarez’s parked vehicle. As Sergeant Benitez reaches the area of the front door, he
can be heard saying, “We’re here now. Come on out,” as he knocks on the door. Agent
8 This individual was not identified by PAPD during the initial encounter or subsequent investigations.
8
DeStefano states, “Come on out. Or we’re going to kick the door in.” Mr. Alvarez replies
from within, “Do you have a warrant?” Agent DeStefano responds: “We don’t need one.”
Sergeant Benitez then asks, “Wanna boot the door?” Agent DeStefano responds in the
affirmative and tells Mr. Alvarez to “Get the fuck out.” Sergeant Benitez is then observed
kicking the door twice. After the first foot strikes the door but before the second strike, Mr.
Alvarez is heard saying, “I’m coming out.” As this is occurring, Agent DeStefano draws his
handgun to a low-ready position and Officer 1 is seen removing and readying a pair of
handcuffs. Agent DeStefano then points his gun in the direction of the doorway of the
residence from which Mr. Alvarez emerges.
Sergeant Benitez is then seen stepping forward toward the doorway, and out of the
camera’s field of view. Agent DeStefano holsters his handgun and steps forward. Sergeant
Benitez and Agent DeStefano are observed pulling Mr. Alvarez out of the doorway by his
arms or clothing and placing him chest down on the hood of his vehicle. Sergeant Benitez
is positioned on the left side of Mr. Alvarez’s body, Agent DeStefano is positioned on the
right side of his body, and Officer 1 is behind Agent DeStefano’s right shoulder, leaning over
the hood from the front bumper area. As Mr. Alvarez is being pulled out toward the vehicle,
Officer 2 steps toward the door in an apparent effort to address another person in the
doorway. He remains in this position with his back to Mr. Alvarez throughout the ensuing
arrest.
As he is being pulled out, Mr. Alvarez can be heard saying “pendejo” which is Spanish for
“asshole.” Sergeant Benitez replies, “You think you are a tough guy now?” As he says this,
Sergeant Benitez’s right arm abruptly moves toward Mr. Alvarez’s lower back or waistline.
Because the arm is completely obscured by Agent DeStefano’s body, it is unclear whether
the sergeant’s hand is open or closed and whether or how it makes contact with Mr.
Alvarez. As Mr. Alvarez remains chest down over the hood of the car, Sergeant Benitez
and Agent DeStefano are seen trying to gain control of Mr. Alvarez’s hands behind his back,
while Officer 1 is observed attempting to apply handcuffs to Mr. Alvarez.
Sergeant Benitez then uses what appears to be his open right hand to strike the back of Mr.
Alvarez’s head and presses his head down against the hood. As he does so, Sergeant
Benitez tells Mr. Alvarez to shut up. Mr. Alvarez responds by saying, “He just hit me.”
Officer 1 successfully applies the second cuff to Mr. Alvarez’s wrist. During the arrest,
Officer 2 can be heard saying twice to those inside the residence, “leave the door shut,”
which is followed by the sound of a door closing. Sergeant Benitez again says to Mr.
Alvarez, “You think you’re a tough guy, huh?”
Once the handcuffs have been applied to Mr. Alvarez, Officer 1 is seen disengaging from
Mr. Alvarez and walking towards his patrol vehicle. At the same time, Agent DeStefano is
depicted disengaging from Mr. Alvarez, stepping back, and transmitting via his radio that Mr.
Alvarez had been arrested, while Officer 1 is walking away. Sergeant Benitez is observed
putting his right hand into the center of Mr. Alvarez’s back and Mr. Alvarez is heard telling
the sergeant to stop pushing him.
9
Sergeant Benitez is then observed grabbing the back of Mr. Alvarez’s jacket with both of his
hands in an apparent effort to stand him up. Almost immediately, Sergeant Benitez is seen
pushing Mr. Alvarez chest down onto the area of the hood that abuts the passenger side of
the front windshield. As he does so, Sergeant Benitez can be heard to say, “You think you
are a tough guy? Huh?” It appears as if Mr. Alvarez’s chest makes contact with the hood of
the vehicle while his face appears to make contact with the windshield. Once the sergeant
stands up Mr. Alvarez again and begins escorting him along the passenger side of the
vehicle, Mr. Alvarez can be heard to say, “I’m bleeding.” Sergeant Benitez can be heard to
say, “You’re going to be bleeding a whole lot more.”
A third segment of the surveillance footage shows what appears to be Mr. Alvarez’s father
exiting the residence and asking in Spanish for the officers to look at his broken door.
Officer 2 replies, “That’s so sad,” and instructs the father to go back inside.
A fourth segment of the surveillance footage shows another sergeant who has come on
scene (Sergeant 2), and Agent DeStefano asking the remaining residents for the keys to Mr.
Alvarez’s vehicle for purposes of towing it away. After Sergeant 2 backs Mr. Alvarez’s
vehicle out of the carport, Sergeant Benitez enters the carport and asks Mr. Alvarez’s father
if he speaks English. Sergeant Benitez asks another man if he speaks English and when he
says he does, he explains to the father that Mr. Alvarez was arrested for driving with a
suspended license and that Mr. Alvarez was required to open the door when asked to do so
by police. Sergeant Benitez tells Mr. Alvarez that the officers were lawfully entitled to force
entry when Mr. Alvarez refused to come out and said that the father was lucky that he was
not also arrested. The father asked if a warrant was required, and Sergeant Benitez tells
him no.
A fifth segment of the surveillance footage is from the next day and shows an Acting
Lieutenant and a Spanish-speaking officer talking with a man at the front door of Mr.
Alvarez’s residence. It appears as though the purpose of the visit was to provide the
residents with information about how to file a claim with the City relating to the damage to
the front door as a result of the officers’ forced entry. Again, the two PAPD employees
advise the residents that they had the right to force entry into the residence.
Other Recordings: Post Arrest Interactions Between Mr. Alvarez and PAPD
In a MAV recording from Officer 1's vehicle, Mr. Alvarez tells Officer 1 after arriving at the
station that he did not come out of his home when directed to do so because the police did
not have a warrant. Later, during the trip to the jail, Mr. Alvarez tells Officer 1 of the
presence of cameras at his residence.
A camera also captured video and audio footage in the police station. A review of that
footage depicts Mr. Alvarez and Officer 1 when at some point Mr. Alvarez tells Officer 1 that
his teeth hurt. Mr. Alvarez further tells Officer 1 that an officer hit him in the tooth today.
Officer 1 does not probe further but tells Mr. Alvarez that they are going to get him checked
out.
10
Later in the sequence, Officer 2 arrives in the area and Mr. Alvarez tells him that he is not
hurt “right now” but that somebody had hit his face and that his chin hurt. When the officer
suggests that he was hurt as a result of being placed on the hood of his car, Mr. Alvarez
repeats that “somebody hit me in the face.” Officer 2 asks Mr. Alvarez if he wanted a medic
to see him prior to going to jail, but Mr. Alvarez says he is “good”.
Sometime later, Officer 2 asks Mr. Alvarez if he was in a fight earlier. Mr. Alvarez says he
was not and asks why the officer is asking. Officer 2 refers to the disheveled appearance of
Mr. Alvarez’s clothing and Mr. Alvarez replies, “That was you guys”.
Finally, although Sergeant Benitez’s car was not positioned in a way to recover any video of
evidentiary value, his wireless microphone did capture audio that tracks the surveillance
camera discourse described above. In addition, the audio captures Sergeant Benitez
having an interaction with Mr. Alvarez after he is being searched and placed in the back of
Officer 1’s vehicle. During that discussion, Sergeant Benitez suggests that Mr. Alvarez
apologize to the officers for his behavior, which he ends up doing.
Sergeant Benitez’s recording equipment also captures subsequent comments made by him
on scene. At one point, Sergeant Benitez is heard remarking as follows:
See how much they behave when we put our foot down. How quickly they behave
when we put our foot down and that’s what we don’t do enough of. There’s a time.
Ya. This car is definitely going. We’re going full court. And if dad comes out, he’s
getting his ass going to jail too. Amazing how well behaved they become.
When one of the occupants of the residence approaches Sergeant Benitez and says
something inaudible, Sergeant Benitez says, “If you want to talk to us, you speak English or
bring somebody that speaks English.” When the tow truck driver arrives, Sergeant Benitez
mentions to the driver that Mr. Alvarez was “gay”. The Sergeant Benitez tells the driver:
“We’re not gonna get shit on out here by these frickin’ low lifes that are, you know, defying
us, running from us.” Later he tells the driver: “We’re not backing down. We’re not going
away and getting a warrant and [coming back] another time.”
PAPD Administrative Investigation:
The emergence of the private surveillance video fourteen months after the original incident
prompted the Department to consider the necessity of additional investigations considering
the criminal and administrative accountability issues it presented.9 The first of these to
9 In addition to the criminal and internal affairs investigations, the FBI informed PAPD that it had also
opened a criminal investigation into the incident and issued a subpoena to the City for records.
However, no apparent active investigation was conducted by the FBI and five years after the
incident, it advised PAPD that the five-year federal statute of limitations had run and accordingly, it
would take no further action. PAPD requested that the FBI provide that closure determination in
writing, but the Bureau declined to do so.
11
begin was an Internal Affairs investigation, which PAPD initiated soon after the surveillance
video was provided. The following is a synopsis of that investigation and the evidence that it
produced:
Mobile Activated Video Audit Logs
One of the investigators assigned to the internal investigation reported that he reviewed the
Mobile Activated Video (“MAV”) audit logs for officers involved in the incident. These logs
showed that, the day after the incident, Officer 2’s MAV was accessed by the Acting
Lieutenant who had arrived at the scene after Mr. Alvarez had been taken into custody.10
Officer 1 Interview Statements
In his administrative interview, Officer 1 stated that he did not recall Sergeant Benitez using
force on Mr. Alvarez because the incident had occurred eighteen months prior11; he also
asserted that he was focused on Mr. Alvarez’s hand and placing handcuffs on him. When
shown the video during his interview, Officer 1 said that it did not appear that the handcuffed
man was resisting when Sergeant Benitez pushed him into the windshield, and that the
force appeared to be unreasonable. Officer 1 further stated that he did not hear Mr.
Alvarez’s remarks about him being hit and bleeding or Sergeant Benitez calling him a tough
guy and suggesting that he would bleed a lot more. Officer 1 said that after hearing the
sergeant’s statements, he believed they were unnecessary, inappropriate, and
discourteous.
Officer 1 further said he did not recall Mr. Alvarez telling him that he had been struck by an
officer or that he was injured. When shown the footage of him doing so, Officer 1 said he
had no independent recollection of Mr. Alvarez’s statements to him. Officer 1 stated that he
should have, per PAPD policy, included in his report the fact that Mr. Alvarez was offered
medical treatment and declined the offer.
Agent DeStefano Interview Statements
In his administrative interview, Agent DeStefano stated that he responded to the incident,
and he recalled that after Mr. Alvarez was grabbed by Sergeant Benitez, he recalled Mr.
Alvarez “actively resisting” efforts to get his hands behind his back to be handcuffed. Agent
DeStefano said that he recalled Mr. Alvarez “trying to pull away” and “throwing his weight
around.” Agent DeStefano said he did not see Sergeant Benitez deliver any blows to Mr.
Alvarez. Agent DeStefano said he did not hear any of the officers say anything to Mr.
Alvarez other than Sergeant Benitez saying: “You think you’re a tough guy now?” at some
10 Although this significant fact was cited in the investigative report, it would have been helpful if the
investigator had also included information about the logs of Officer 2 and the other involved officers.
11 As with the other subject officers, fourteen months of that delay was due to PAPD not learning
about the surveillance video, and two months was due to Officer 1’s attorney not being available for
the interview.
12
point. Agent DeStefano described Sergeant Benitez as “agitated” and “going off” but said
he couldn’t recall any additional remarks by the sergeant.
After being shown the video, Agent DeStefano said that because he could not determine
whether Mr. Alvarez was resisting Sergeant Benitez nor the exact blows or strikes delivered
by the sergeant, he could not offer an opinion about whether the force was reasonable.
Agent DeStefano did concede that a use of force report should have been prepared.
Agent DeStefano said that the sergeant’s statement that Mr. Alvarez would be "bleeding a
lot more" violated policy because it was discourteous and unprofessional.
Agent DeStefano said that he recalled sending a message to another officer who had not
traveled to the scene that “the fuse was lit”. Agent DeStefano said that his reference was to
Sergeant Benitez’s “tough guy” remark and agitation with Mr. Alvarez’s behavior.
Officer 2 Interview Statements
In his administrative interview, Officer 2 stated that he had his back to the other officers
because he was dealing with the other residents and telling them to go back inside when the
other officers were bringing Mr. Alvarez into custody. Officer 2 further stated that he did not
hear any of the verbal interaction between Mr. Alvarez and Sergeant Benitez during the
arrest.
When shown the video, Officer 2 described the strikes and push by Sergeant Benitez to Mr.
Alvarez as “not something [he] would do” and stated that they “did not look appropriate.”
Officer 2 said that the push into the windshield appeared to be motivated by “anger” as
opposed to any resistance. Officer 2 said the statements by Sergeant Benitez to Mr.
Alvarez were inappropriate, unprofessional, and disrespectful.
Acting Lieutenant Interview Statements
In her administrative interview, the acting lieutenant said that she responded to the incident
after she heard “a door was kicked.” She further stated that when she arrived, Mr. Alvarez
had already been placed in a police car. The acting lieutenant said that she thought she
walked over to look at Mr. Alvarez but was not sure if she spoke to him at the scene. The
acting lieutenant said she may have talked to Mr. Alvarez, but that he was not cooperative.12
Although Sergeant Benitez’ MAV recordings pick up him advising the acting lieutenant of the
incident including the comment, “they’re all behaving now,” advising her that “Dad was
pretty much of an a-hole too” and telling one of the residents, “You want to talk to us speak
English or bring somebody who speaks English,” she indicated in her interview that she had
no recollection of those comments being made.
12 The MAV recordings showed that the Acting Lieutenant remained on scene for approximately eight
minutes.
13
According to the acting lieutenant, she called her supervisor about the incident. The
supervisor instructed her to contact the residents and inform them of how to file a claim
regarding the door. The acting lieutenant said that she then advised the on-scene
sergeants of this direction. However, instead of complying, the sergeants took the occasion
to chastise the residents for Mr. Alvarez running from the police. The acting lieutenant
produced a text to her supervisor about this discussion:
Much to the irritation of [Sergeant Benitez], the damaged door jam folks now have a
card and a case number to contact the City Attorney if they choose. It was not
mentioned originally as I previously thought, a chastising about running from the
police was given instead.
The Acting Lieutenant said in her interview that had returned to the residence herself and
advised the occupants about how to file a claim for the damaged door. She believed she
had learned about the “chastising” from her review of Officer 2’s MAV but was not positive.
The Acting Lieutenant said that approximately a month after the incident, she attended a
meeting with peers and a third level supervisor. The Acting Lieutenant said she brought up
this incident at the meeting including the irritation that seemed to be emanating from
Sergeant Benitez. The Acting Lieutenant said that she had also seen several videos of
Sergeant Benitez’ MAV recordings of other traffic stops where he was “verbally rough”.
While according to the Acting Lieutenant, the stops did not show violations of policy, she
was concerned that Sergeant Benitez’s conduct should be addressed as an “early
intervention”. According to the Acting Lieutenant, she was advised by her supervisor that
she should just “leave it alone”, that it wouldn’t be addressed, and not to watch MAV’s
anymore.13
***
The tow truck driver was also interviewed but stated that he had no recollection of any
statements that Sergeant Benitez made to him.
Sergeant Benitez was initially scheduled for an interview, but he indicated that he was not
going to participate in the investigation.14
Within eight months of the commencement of the Internal Affairs investigation, all
investigative work had been completed. However, over two years passed between the
13 We have been advised that the new direction to supervisors that they stop reviewing MAV
recordings as a routine part of supervisory responsibilities emanated from the highest levels of
PAPD’s administration.
14 As noted above, Sergeant Benitez was placed on administrative leave after the surveillance video
of the incident was presented to PAPD. He also declined to provide a statement to the criminal
investigator. Sergeant Benitez resigned from the Department approximately 19 months after the
incident.
14
initiation of the case and the completion of the investigative report, finalization of the
executive review process, and filing of administrative charges against the involved officers.
It had been over three years since the incident.
Two of the officers who were charged with administrative violations appealed their discipline
to an arbitrator. It took another 2 ½ years before the arbitrators issued their findings and the
proceedings were completed.
Criminal Investigation
We have been advised that after PAPD reviewed the surveillance video, it discussed the
matter with representatives of the District Attorney who initially indicated no interest in
PAPD's pursuing of a criminal investigation. After Mr. Alvarez's attorney released the video
and it was publicized in the media, the District Attorney apparently revisited the issue and
requested that a criminal investigation occur.
As a result of this request, but some 18 ½ months after the incident, PAPD opened a
criminal investigation into the incident and then forwarded the completed report to the
District Attorney for review. Most of the on-scene officers (Sergeant Benitez, Agent
DeStefano, Officers 1 or 2) declined to provide statements for the criminal investigation. As
detailed below, after PAPD's review was submitted, a DA investigator conducted additional
investigation.
In addition to the information provided to internal affairs investigators, the Acting
Lieutenant15 who arrived after Mr. Alvarez had been detained was interviewed by the PAPD
criminal investigator and she said that she was at the station when she heard the officers’
radio traffic. The Acting Lieutenant said that she didn’t feel the information she heard over
the radio matched up, so she drove to the scene. When she arrived, she was advised about
the event by Sergeant Benitez. The Acting Lieutenant said that Mr. Alvarez had a “little
thing” above his eye but that Sergeant Benitez said that it was an old mark. The Acting
Lieutenant said she did not photograph Mr. Alvarez on the night of the incident.
The Acting Lieutenant described asking Mr. Alvarez if he would like assistance with
anything, but that Mr. Alvarez did not wish to engage. The Acting Lieutenant described
being specifically told by Sergeant Benitez that there was no use of force. The Acting
Lieutenant then called a supervisor to report the incident.
Agent DeStefano had approved Sergeant Benitez’s supplemental report even though he
was of subordinate rank to him. Asked about this, the Acting Lieutenant said that it was not
15 The Acting Lieutenant is no longer employed by PAPD.
15
“good” if a person of lower rank “approves” a report written by a sergeant but that she has
seen that happen.16
The Acting Lieutenant also said that she met a woman sometime in the first half of year
2019 who came to the police department and wanted to talk to the Chief. The woman
wanted to complain about how the police were treating people in the neighborhood. The
Acting Lieutenant said that the woman was accompanied by a friend that she later realized
was Mr. Alvarez. The Acting Lieutenant said that as the conversation was ending, Mr.
Alvarez said he even had some video.
The PAPD criminal investigator also obtained PAPD car to car messages from the incident
date. Included in those messages was one from Agent DeStefano to Agent 3 (who did not
respond to the scene of the incident). The following messages occurred approximately
three hours after Mr. Alvarez’s arrest:
Agent DeStefano: You missed out – the fuse was lit tonight.
Agent 3: That’s my favorite thing ever… I saw it go off before when I was brand new
and I was like this is what its like in Los Angeles.
Agent DeStefano: Yup… it happened tonight.
The PAPD criminal investigator also reviewed a MAV recording from Sergeant 2’s vehicle.
It captures a conversation between Sergeant 2 and Agent DeStefano in which Agent
DeStefano says that Mr. Alvarez “pissed off the wrong sergeant”.
The PAPD criminal investigator reviewed a MAV recording between Officer 2 and Mr.
Alvarez. During that recording, Officer 2 asks Mr. Alvarez if he needs a medic and Mr.
Alvarez replies that he does not. Mr. Alvarez is also heard to say: “Somebody hit my face,
that shit hurts”, “Ya, somebody hit me in the face”, and “The camera can probably prove
that.”
The PAPD criminal investigator recommended forwarding his report to the District Attorney
for consideration of the following charges: Peace Office Filing a False Report, Assault Under
Color of Authority, Battery.
An investigator from the District Attorney’s Office conducted further investigation regarding
the incident after receiving the materials from PAPD. As part of that investigation, the
investigator reviewed the MAV of Sergeant Benitez. In addition to the statements identified
by the Internal Affairs investigator and discussed above, the investigator reported that after
Sergeant Benitez stated “You’re gonna be bleeding a whole lot more,” he had added,
“What’s wrong? You’re not so tough now?”
16 To its credit, PAPD revised its protocols to prevent this from happening on a going forward basis.
We discuss this change below.
16
The DA investigator further noted the following statements by Sergeant Benitez and
captured by his MAV: “So we’re going to tow the car too. It was used in the commission of
the crime. No leniency here.”
In addition to the statements referenced by the PAPD investigators, the DA investigator
noted the following statement from Sergeant Benitez: “We put our foot down and they’re all
behaving themselves now.”
In addition to the statement referenced by the PAPD investigators, the DA investigator noted
the following statement from Sergeant Benitez to the tow truck driver: “I think they’re trying
to get the keys from the guy… this guy…. Flaming assholes in this family.”
In referencing the comment made by Sergeant Benitez to the tow truck driver about Mr.
Alvarez being gay, the DA investigator noted that the comment is followed by laughter.
In reviewing Officer 2’s MAV recording, the DA investigator noted the following dialogue
between Officer 3 and Officer 2:
Officer 2: Hi, How are ya?
Officer 3: Good.
Officer 2: Something finally happened.
Officer 3: I know we can actually do something for once. Changing of the guard
around here.
Officer 2: Only because we have a new Chief. So we can actually be cops again.
Officer 3: (Laughing) I know.
The DA investigator noted that later, when Officer 3 began to conduct an inventory search of
the car prior to it being towed, Officer 3 is heard to state:
Let’s see what kind of disgusting stuff he had in here.17
In reviewing Agent DeStefano’s MAV recording, the DA investigator noted that Agent
DeStefano is laughing when recounting the incident to Sergeant 2. The sergeant is then
heard to say: “The fuse was already lit earlier today, dude”.
In reviewing Sergeant 2’s MAV recording, the DA investigator noted that Sergeant 2 asks
Mr. Alvarez’s family for the key to the vehicle. The DA investigator indicated that the
recording picks up the following exchange that appears to be between Sergeant 2 and
Agent DeStefano (who is laughing).
17 This comment, even though not communicated to a member of the public, is entirely inappropriate
for Officer 3 to have made. If PAPD has not addressed the impropriety of this comment with Officer
3, it should certainly do so.
17
Wrong person to say that to. You know [Sergeant Benitez] was going to fucking tow
that shit. Lucky he didn’t get [put to sleep].
The DA investigator noted that it was unclear who is saying what, as only Sergeant 2’s
microphone is unmuted.
The DA investigator reviewed the recordings from the camera at the PAPD police station.
He noted that Officer 1 asked Officer 2: “Do we need to get him checked for all the
scratches?” Officer 2 replies: “Is that from us or something else?”
The DA investigator notes that later Officers 1 and 2 have the following exchange:
Officer 1: I don’t want to get turned around from jail.
Officer 2: Why?
Officer 1: Because of the scratches.
Officer 2: Pull his shirt up… He doesn’t know about it.
Officer 1: My question is should I just go straight to Stanford?
Officer 2: This isn’t an injury that requires going… Just a scratch.18
The DA investigator further noted that the recording from the PAPD station camera showed
Mr. Alvarez continuing to touch the right side of his face while he was being processed. The
investigator wrote that at one point, Mr. Alvarez puts his finger into the right side of his
mouth and looked at the finger.
The DA investigator noted that the PAPD station camera captures this exchange between
Mr. Alvarez and Sergeant Benitez:
Man: I’m taking this to trial. I’m not scared of you guys.
Sergeant Benitez: Well, you should be afraid of the police.
Man: I am. I’m not afraid to go to court.
The DA investigator’s report further indicated that Officer 1’s MAV video featured Agent
DeStefano in the PAPD parking lot. According to the DA investigator’s report, Agent
DeStefano sees Agent 2 and walks toward him, smiling. The report indicates that Agent
DeStefano can be heard saying: “Don’t light the fuse” and “The fuse got lit” as he walks past
Officer 1 and towards Agent 219. The report further indicated that Officer 3 joins in the
18 The reference to getting turned around from jail is apparently a concern that the jail would not
accept an injured individual until he receives medical attention and is cleared to be booked. The
reference to Stanford is the local hospital where injured arrestees are routinely sent for examination
and treatment.
19 Agent 2 is no longer employed by PAPD.
18
conversation. According to the report, Agent DeStefano can then be seen “acting out” the
incident. The report indicates that Agent DeStefano appears to grab, then slam his hand
down on a patrol vehicle with enough force for the hit to be picked up on Officer 1’s
microphone and then slaps his hand down a second time.
The DA investigator reviewed the above-reported message exchange between Agent
DeStefano and Agent 3 (who did not respond to the location). In addition to that reported by
the PAPD criminal investigator, the DA investigator noted the following exchange:
Agent 3: Amazing, I love it… that’s a 100% real cop’s cop right there. We got to 8720
later. I want to hear it and to tell you what I saw before. Allegedly.
Agent DeStefano: Let me know.
As part of the investigation, the criminal investigator received materials from the attorney
representing Mr. Alvarez in the civil litigation. One document noted as received was a letter
from Sergeant Benitez to Mr. Alvarez, dated approximately 21 months after the incident.
The letter states:
I am sorry for my actions during the arrest of Mr. Alvarez. Regrettably, I lost my
composure and hope the settlement allows Mr. Alvarez to move forward with his life.
Sincerely, [Sergeant Benitez]21
Twenty-seven months after the date of the incident, the District Attorney’s Office announced
that it would not be filing any criminal charges in the case due to a lack of evidence.
However, one week later, the DA’s Office announced that it would be reconsidering the
matter in light of a newly discovered and liberal statute of limitations. Four months after that
announcement, the DA’s Office reported that it had filed criminal charges against Sergeant
Benitez. He was charged with two misdemeanors: assault under color of authority and
falsifying a police report.
Fourteen months after the charges were filed, the now-former Sergeant Benitez pleaded
guilty to those charges. As part of the plea agreement, former Sergeant Benitez was placed
on one year probation and required to attend both anger management classes and LGBTQ
sensitivity training.
PAPD Administrative Review: Investigator's Findings and Conclusions
Thirty-eight and a half months after the incident, the lead Internal Affairs investigator
authored a memorandum setting out the findings for the case.
20 87 is a radio code indicating to meet up.
21 As set out above, the apology letter was apparently written to fulfill a requirement of the settlement
agreement in the civil litigation.
19
Sergeant Benitez
The internal investigator reviewed the evidence and found that after Mr. Alvarez had been
handcuffed, Sergeant Benitez forcefully grabbed Mr. Alvarez by his jacket to stand him up
and began to walk him back toward the patrol vehicles. The investigator found that
Sergeant Benitez then abruptly and forcefully pushed Mr. Alvarez’s upper body into the
hood and windshield area of the vehicle. The investigator noted that as he did so, Sergeant
Benitez said, “You think you’re a tough guy, huh?”
The investigator concluded that at the time this occurred, Mr. Alvarez was no longer
resisting (if he ever was) and was not an imminent threat to the officer or others. The
investigator reasoned that the statement by Sergeant Benitez supported the idea that the
sergeant was acting out of frustration or anger and not using a technique designed to gain
control in response to resistance. The investigator noted that Sergeant Benitez’s statement
that Mr. Alvarez was going to “bleed a whole lot more” belied any argument that the
sergeant was dispassionately using force to overcome any resistance. The investigator
concluded that Sergeant Benitez’s force was unreasonable and unwarranted.
The investigator further found that Sergeant Benitez failed to document his use of force in
his police report, as required by policy. The investigator noted that Mr. Alvarez told
Sergeant Benitez he had been injured, but the sergeant failed to include this fact in his
report. As a result, the investigator found that Sergeant Benitez authored a report he knew
to be misleading. The investigator further found that Sergeant Benitez failed to notify a
ranking supervisor who arrived on scene later of his use of force, also contrary to PAPD
policy.
The investigator noted that while handcuffing Mr. Alvarez, Sergeant Benitez told him to “shut
up” and that once he was handcuffed, Sergeant Benitez taunted him by calling him a “tough
guy.” The investigator further observed that when Mr. Alvarez said he was bleeding,
Sergeant Benitez replied by stating that he would “be bleeding a whole lot more.” The
investigator found that the statements were not made for any legitimate purpose and found
the comment about “bleeding a whole lot more” to be tantamount to a threat. The
investigator found that Sergeant Benitez’s comments were discourteous and disrespectful in
violation of PAPD policy.
Additionally, the investigator found that Sergeant Benitez commented negatively about the
people residing in the area when speaking to the tow truck driver. The investigator found
that the remark was innately derogatory and supported a finding that Sergeant Benitez used
derogatory language in contravention of policy.
The investigator concluded that the following policy violations should be sustained as to
former Sergeant Benitez:
• False or misleading report
• Unreasonable force
20
• Discourteous treatment of the public
• Derogatory language
• Failure to report force.
Officer 1
The investigator found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Officer 1 saw or
heard the force and statements by Sergeant Benitez. However, the investigator noted that
Mr. Alvarez after the incident repeatedly advised Officer 1 that he had been struck by an
officer and that his tooth hurt. The investigator pointed out that PAPD policy requires
supervisor notification when an individual alleges being struck, and that Officer 1 had not
done this.
The investigator noted that while Officer 1 offered Mr. Alvarez medical treatment (which Mr.
Alvarez declined), Officer 1 failed to document Mr. Alvarez’s complaint of pain or injury and
his subsequent refusal of treatment. The investigator noted that Officer 1 conceded that his
failure to include this information in his report to be a violation of policy.
The investigator found that the following policy violations should be sustained:
• Failure to report a use of force
• Failure to document an offer of medical treatment and refusal.
The investigator found that the following potential policy violations should not be sustained:
• Failure to intercede or timely report
• False reporting.
Agent DeStefano
The investigator found that Agent DeStefano was in the immediate vicinity of the use of
force. The investigator noted that after Mr. Alvarez had been placed in handcuffs, Agent
DeStefano observed that Sergeant Benitez had pushed Mr. Alvarez back down onto the
vehicle. The investigator noted that Agent DeStefano concluded that Sergeant Benitez had
done this to overcome further resistance from Mr. Alvarez. The investigator noted that
Sergeant Benitez’s report did not mention any use of force. The investigator concluded that
even if Agent DeStefano did not recognize the force as unreasonable, he had witnessed it.
He then reviewed and approved Sergeant Benitez’s report, which failed to properly
document this force. As a result, the investigator concluded that Agent DeStefano
knowingly approved a report that was inaccurate and unacceptable.22
22 The fact that a subordinate officer “approved” a report written by a supervisor was not expressly
addressed in the investigation. This was because unfortunately, it was allowed at the time per policy
and practice. As discussed in more detail below, a policy change prohibited the future continuation
of that practice.
21
The investigator noted that as Sergeant Benitez’s was kicking the door open, Agent
DeStefano drew his weapon, which appeared at one point to be pointed at Mr. Alvarez. The
investigator further noted that Agent DeStefano assisted Sergeant Benitez in controlling Mr.
Alvarez on the hood. The investigator concluded that contrary to PAPD policy, Agent
DeStefano failed to document pointing his firearm at a person as well as the force he
employed to handcuff Mr. Alvarez.
The investigator found that the following policy violations should be sustained:
• Failure to document a use of force
• Failure to document a pointing of firearm
• Inadequate supervisory report review.
The investigator found that the following potential policy violation should not be sustained:
• Failure to intercede or timely report.
Officer 2
The investigator found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Officer 2 saw
Sergeant Benitez’s excessive force as he had his back toward the incident when the force
occurred. However, the investigator found that Mr. Alvarez had told Officer 2 that he had
been struck by an officer and that his tooth hurt. As a result, the investigator concluded that
Officer 2 violated PAPD policy when he failed to makes the required supervisory notification
in response to an allegation of being struck by an officer.
The investigator also found that Officer 2 offered medical attention to Mr. Alvarez but failed
to prepare a report documenting the complaint of pain and his officer of treatment. The
investigator noted that Officer 2 conceded that his failure to include this information in a
report was a violation of policy.
The investigator found that the following policy violations should be sustained:
• Failure to report a use of force
• Failure to document an offer of medical treatment and refusal.
The investigator found that the following potential policy violations should be unfounded:
• Failure to intercede or timely report.
Executive Review of Completed Investigation
Thirty-nine months after the incident, the command staff member assigned to conduct the
first level review of the matter noted that the failure of the incident to be discovered by the
Department in a timely fashion eroded the community’s trust in the Police Department and
precluded PAPD from addressing it in a manner more contemporaneous to the event’s
occurrence.
22
The initial reviewer disagreed with the investigator’s conclusion relating to Agent DeStefano
and found that the officer did fail to promptly report an unreasonable use of force by
Sergeant Benitez. The reviewer concurred with the finding Agent DeStefano more likely
than not observed Sergeant Benitez abruptly and forcefully push Mr. Alvarez chest-down
onto the windshield/hood area of his vehicle. The reviewer found that once Mr. Alvarez was
lifted off the hood of the vehicle by Sergeant Benitez and standing upright, the video shows
Agent DeStefano’s head in direct line of sight of what was occurring. The reviewer also
found that as Sergeant Benitez began his motion to slam Mr. Alvarez on the
windshield/hood of the car, he told Mr. Alvarez “You think you’re a tough guy?” and that
Agent DeStefano’s head was fixed toward Sergeant Benitez and Mr. Alvarez.
From there, the reviewer differed from the investigator in an important respect: namely,
whether there was clear evidence that, at the time Sergeant Benitez used this force, Agent
DeStefano recognized that Mr. Alvarez was no longer resisting and did not appear to pose
an imminent threat. To the reviewer, it was more likely than not that Agent DeStefano
recognized the force as not only having occurred, but also to have been unreasonable.
The reviewer further found that Agent DeStefano later reviewed and approved Sergeant
Benitez’s falsified police report that failed to document this force, knowing that the report
was false and inaccurate.
The reviewer found that another factor supporting this finding was Agent DeStefano’s failure
to document any of his actions and observations at the scene; including the force he himself
used to take Mr. Alvarez into custody. The reviewer concluded that this failure by Agent
DeStefano was to minimize his role in what occurred in the carport area. The reviewer also
found important Agent DeStefano’s subsequent “re-enactment” of Sergeant Benitez’s
actions as further evidence that he observed the sergeant’s excessive force.
The reviewer also found that Agent DeStefano had ample opportunity to report the force to
an acting lieutenant and another sergeant who both arrived on scene within minutes of the
incident. The reviewer noted that subsequent video shows Agent DeStefano in the
immediate presence of the acting lieutenant and having multiple conversations with the
other sergeant, but that he declined to report his use of force or Sergeant Benitez’s use of
force to them.
The reviewer found that Agent DeStefano’s statements, actions, and demeanor throughout
this incident revealed a clear lack of professionalism that reflected unfavorably upon the
Department. The reviewer found that the investigation, including information about Agent
DeStefano's subsequent descriptions to colleagues, provided insight into what Agent
DeStefano thought about this incident: that what happened to Mr. Alvarez was amusing and
provided an entertainment opportunity to be shared with others. The reviewer noted that
Agent DeStefano laughed at the scene while telling another supervisor about what
happened to Mr. Alvarez, commenting that Mr. Alvarez had “pissed off the wrong sergeant,”
sending a message to another officer that he “missed out” because “the fuse was lit tonight”
23
and then “acting out” the incident on the hood of a patrol car after saying, “Don’t light the
fuse.”
The reviewer noted that even though Sergeant Benitez was no longer employed by Palo
Alto as a sworn police officer, the Department chose to proactively complete the analysis
and findings portion of the allegations against him. Consequently, the reviewer did a full
assessment. This included a finding that the sergeant had failed to exercise self-control
during the incident and noted that his actions resulted in criminal charges.23 The reviewer
found that, in addition to his criminal behavior, Sergeant Benitez’s statements, demeanor,
and attitude failed to uphold Department expectations and standards, especially as a senior
sergeant. The reviewer cited Sergeant Benitez’s referring to the residents of the area as
“frickin’ low lifes”, taunting Mr. Alvarez by calling him a “tough guy”, telling Mr. Alvarez to
“shut up”, threatening that Mr. Alvarez was going to be “bleeding a whole lot more”, and
describing Mr. Alvarez as gay and making fun of his behavior. The reviewer also found that
not only did the evidence support a finding that the report was misleading, but it also
supported a finding that Sergeant Benitez knew the report was false. The reviewer
concluded by indicating that, had Sergeant Benitez still been a member of the Department,
his actions would have warranted severe discipline, up to and including termination.
The reviewer noted that the incident also had provided the Department an opportunity to
revise policies, maximize the use of technology, provide training, seek input on policing
initiatives and policy reform, and engage with community stakeholders on greater
transparency and accountability, with the hope that such actions would lessen the likelihood
of a similar incident from occurring in the future. As examples, the reviewer noted the
following initiatives:
• Equipping all officers with body-worn cameras
• Requiring that reports be reviewed and approved by a person of greater rank than
the author
• Review and reform of use of force, tactics, and de-escalation
• Greater emphasis on community engagement, transparency, and accountability
• Expanding the IPA’s scope of services to provide additional oversight of Department
investigations involving force
• Training on topics that included Tactical Communication, LGBTQ Awareness for
California Law Enforcement24, Critical Incident and De-escalation, and Strategic
Communication.
23 As noted above, those charges eventually resulted in a criminal conviction against Sergeant
Benitez. That conviction had not occurred at the time the reviewer authored his memorandum.
24 As noted above, the LGBTQ training was required as one of the conditions of the agreement
settling Mr. Alvarez’s civil lawsuit. We have been advised that the training had actually already been
scheduled on PAPD’s in-service calendar prior to the settlement.
24
Imposition of Discipline and Appeals
Agent DeStefano
Approximately 40 months after the incident, Agent DeStefano received notice that PAPD
intended to terminate his employment with the agency. It advised him that PAPD had found
that Agent DeStefano had violated the following policies:
Duty to intercede
Failure to report use of force
Failure to review reports for accuracy
Failure to document his pointing of a firearm
Conduct unbecoming.
To support the termination decision, the notice also referenced an earlier 2017 suspension
of 88 hours for driving while intoxicated in a “hit and run” DUI collision.25
The notice concluded as follows:
Regarding the 2018 incident with Mr. Alvarez, you failed to document your own use
of force, failed to notify a supervisor of excessive force that you witnessed, and then
approved reports you knew to be false. Your conduct was despicable and has had
an extremely negative impact on the public’s trust in this Department. You covered
up an unjustified use of force that eventually came to light only because of Mr.
Alvarez’s home surveillance system and his pursuit of legal claims against the City.
For these reasons, termination is the appropriate penalty.
Skelly Decision: Agent DeStefano
Agent DeStefano exercised his Constitutional rights to a Skelly determination.26 The Skelly
officer declined to modify the initial determination and discipline after hearing from the Agent
and his attorney.
Arbitration Decision: Agent DeStefano
25 The Arbitrator noted that Agent DeStefano had received performance evaluations over the years of
Meets or Exceeds Standards or Outstanding, served as a field training officer, had been promoted to
the rank of Agent, and had also received multiple commendations and awards in his tenure with the
Department.
26 The "Skelly" process affords peace officers the right to have their proposed discipline be
reconsidered by a different decision-maker within the agency; an attendant hearing often features a
response by the involved officer to the proposed findings.
25
Agent DeStefano proceeded to arbitration after receiving the final discipline notice. Upon
conclusion of the arbitration hearing and five years and eight months after the incident, the
arbitrator upheld PAPD’s disposition and decision to terminate the officer.
Officer 1
Officer 1 was initially provided notice of PAPD’s intent to terminate him from employment.
The notice indicated that Officer 1 had violated PAPD’s policy requiring notification following
a use of force and his failure to document the fact that Mr. Alvarez had advised Officer 1
that an officer had hit him as well as his failure to document that Officer 1 had offered Mr.
Alvarez medical assistance.
The notice indicated that Officer 1’s failure to notify a supervisor of Mr. Alvarez’s allegations
and document his refusal of medical treatment as required by policy had a grave impact on
the Department’s ability to ensure a timely review of the incident. The notice indicated that
Officer 1’s failure to follow the rules appeared to have been a deliberate effort to make sure
the use of force was covered up.
Skelly Determination: Officer 1
The Skelly officer determined that the policy violations should be sustained, but that Officer
1 had “taken responsibility” for his actions in a meaningful way.27 As a result, based on the
findings of the Skelly officer, PAPD decided to reduce the discipline from termination to a
serious suspension.
Arbitration Decision: Officer 1
Following the Skelly hearing and final notice of suspension, Officer 1 took the matter to an
arbitration hearing. The arbitrator ultimately imposed a more than five-fold reduction of the
suspension.
During the arbitration, Officer 1 did not dispute that he had violated the policy violations set
out in the notice. However, the arbitrator found that the following “mitigators” made his
violations not egregious and not deserving of a significant suspension:
• Officer 1 was relatively inexperienced.
• Officer 1 was not familiar with all of PAPD’s rules.
• Officer 1 accepted responsibility for his actions.
• Officer 1 did not believe Mr. Alvarez’s allegations that he had been struck by an
officer.
• Officer 1 was remorseful and had rehabilitated himself.
• Officer 1 had no prior disciplinary history.
27 While Officer 1 did admit that he failed to follow policy relating to his reporting requirements, his
almost complete lack of recall relating to any of the events of the incident calls into question the
degree to which he accepted responsibility.
26
Officer 1 is not likely to reoffend.
The arbitrator found that the officer had not deliberately tried to “cover up” the use of force
and that Officer 1 did not see the use of force when it occurred. It noted that the Skelly
officer, in reducing the discipline from termination to a significant suspension, had similarly
found that Officer 1’s actions were not deliberate or intentional. The arbitrator also accepted
Officer 1’s argument that because he was a new officer, he did not fully understand the
policies that he needed to follow.
The arbitrator concluded that Officer 1 did not deliberately fail to comply with the rules but
was only negligent. Accordingly, he completely accepted the Officer’s attorney’s
recommendation to reduce the discipline to a low-level suspension – to the point of adopting
the suspension award that his lawyer had suggested.
Officer 2
Officer 2 was initially provided notice of PAPD’s intent to terminate him from employment.
The notice indicated that Officer 2 had violated PAPD’s policy requiring notification following
allegations of injury by Mr. Alvarez as well as his allegations that he had been hit in the face.
Officer 2 was also have found to have violated policy by his failure to document his offer of
medical attention to Mr. Alvarez. The rationale for this finding was similar to the rationale for
the finding against Officer 1.
Once Officer 2 was advised of PAPD’s intent to terminate him, he decided to retire from the
Police Department.28
IPA Review and Analysis
Without question, this case certainly qualifies as the most complex and significant episode
in our tenure as the Independent Police Auditor for the City. The combination of severe
misconduct, the number of officers involved as subjects, and the halting, multi-faceted, and
convoluted process with which it was addressed lends itself to a number of observations,
which we set forth below. Additionally, we offer recommendations that ideally will provide
additional grist for PAPD in reckoning with the implications of this chapter in its recent
history.
A. The decision to conduct the administrative investigation internally was fraught and
problematic.
28 California Senate Bill 2 (Cal. Penal Code § 13510 et seq) requires police agencies to notify
California’s Peace Officer Standards and Training (“POST”) of officers who voluntarily leave employ
while administrative proceedings of misconduct are under way. The legislation is an effort to prevent
officers who leave one agency under a disqualifying cloud to find employment as a peace officer at
another agency. We have been advised that PAPD has advised POST of the circumstances
surrounding Sergeant Benitez’ retirement, and the arbitration finding against Agent DeStefano.
27
We have been advised that after the surveillance video was provided to PAPD, the decision
was made at PAPD’s highest level to keep investigative responsibility for the administrative
case within the agency, rather than delegating that role to an independent outsider acting on
the authority of the Chief. 29 If the allegation had been simply one of excessive force by
Sergeant Benitez, the case could have been well-handled internally. However, in light of the
complicated dynamics involved, there were significant disadvantages to this approach.
As described in detail above, the force used by Sergeant Benitez had not been timely
reported by either him or any of the on-scene witness officers, which created special
complexities. This enlarged the focus of the investigation significantly, and eventually
resulted in four PAPD sworn officers subject to potential termination for the force and the
failure to appropriately report it. Moreover, as explained below, the initial information and
the failure of PAPD to timely learn of the excessive force and additional misconduct by
Sergeant Benitez meant that the investigation could have (and should have) looked into
whether anyone in PAPD either learned or could have learned of the misconduct before the
surveillance videos surfaced. That inquiry would have likely required that command staff be
interviewed as part of the investigation – a problematic task for a PAPD assigned
investigator of equal or subordinate rank.
While the internal investigators assigned to the matter conducted a creditable investigation
in the face of challenging circumstances, as explained above, the initial findings as to Agent
DeStefano ended up being countermanded by the first reviewer. In essence, the PAPD
investigators were placed in a difficult position which could have been alleviated had the
investigation been referred outside of the Department.
RECOMMENDATION 1
PAPD should assign administrative investigations to outside investigators when
factors such as failure to report force, multiple involved subjects, and discovery
delays suggest inherent complications.
B. The tolling of the Internal Affairs investigation resulted in an unnecessary delay in its
completion and the accountability of involved officers.
As detailed above, it was fourteen months after the incident that PAPD was given the
surveillance video. We have been advised that, after reviewing the video excerpts, it
discussed the matter with representatives of the District Attorney who initially indicated no
interest in having PAPD pursue a criminal investigation. As a result, PAPD opened an
Internal Affairs investigation. However, we were advised that after Mr. Alvarez’s attorney
29 As we have noted in previous IPA reports, PAPD has a past practice of assigning selected
administrative cases to outside investigators; the results, in terms of the quality of the work product,
have generally been positive in our view.
28
released the video, the District Attorney apparently revisited the issue and requested a
criminal investigation to occur.
Unfortunately, there is no documentation in the investigative file that explains this sequence
of events. Guidance and interest in a criminal investigation by the prosecuting authority
should be documented and included in the investigative file, so that any tolling or
interruption in the completion of the internal investigation and review can be better
understood.
PAPD could have held its internal investigation until the criminal investigation and District
Attorney review was completed, to its credit it continued with evidence-gathering, and all the
investigative work was completed in eight months. However, instead of proceeding to a
disposition, the investigation was then held, apparently to wait for the District Attorney
review to be completed. Even after charges were announced by the District Attorney
against Sergeant Benitez, the Internal Affairs investigation continued to be held. As a result,
it was more than three years after the incident before the involved officers received notice of
PAPD’s intended disciplinary outcome. And then it took another 2 ½ years before the
arbitration hearings had been completed and the arbitrators reported their findings.
This was suboptimal in many respects. It is true that, per California statute, law
enforcement agencies generally have one year to complete an internal investigation and
notify involved officers of any intent to discipline. It is also true that the one-year clock does
not begin until PAPD has “knowledge” of potential violations of policy, and that the one-year
statute can be tolled when related criminal matters are pending. In this case, because
PAPD’s actual notice was not until it had been provided with the surveillance video and
because there were ongoing criminal proceedings, it was technically possible for PAPD to
delay resolution of the administrative matters without forfeiting its eventual right to take
disciplinary action.30
There is some argument that waiting for the criminal case to resolve is preferable, so that an
agency can use the results of those proceedings to shape its internal response or to avoid
any interference with the prosecution. However, the policy arguments for proceeding apace
with the internal proceedings in this case significantly outweigh any reason advanced to
delay them.
First, the investigation of this case was already delayed for over a year because of PAPD’s
failure to timely learn of the excessive use of force and other misconduct. Second, after the
surveillance tapes were released to the public, there was strong additional interest in
resolving pending issues as soon as was practicable. Third, while Sergeant Benitez retired
30 In fact, since the criminal case against Sgt. Benitez was not resolved until recently, PAPD could
have held the Internal Affairs disposition until then, and well into 2024. Extrapolating a similar 2 1/2-
year timeline for the arbitrators’ hearings and determinations, the internal proceedings could have
well extended to 2026 or 2027.
29
within a few months of the internal investigation being commenced, Agent DeStefano and
other subject officers continued to receive pay while the internal investigation was tolled for
another eighteen months. Finally, the delay in the administrative case meant that all the
involved officers had the specter of serious administrative consequences hanging over them
for many months.
Simply because an agency can delay an internal investigation when there are ongoing
criminal proceedings does not mean it should. In this case, once it discovered that this
incident involved serious potential administrative issues for multiple officers, PAPD should
have moved swiftly toward completing the internal investigation and review process in order
to reach dispositions relating to the misconduct of the involved officers.
RECOMMENDATION 2
PAPD should develop protocols that instruct internal investigators to document any
discussions with the District Attorney regarding potential criminal investigations into
alleged officer misconduct.
RECOMMENDATION 3
PAPD should develop protocols that call for the completion and resolution of
administrative investigations absent special circumstances, even when it could delay
them because of outstanding criminal proceedings or other tolling provisions.
C. The Internal Affairs investigation did not address missteps on the part of Officer 1 that
resulted in the suppression of evidence and dismissal of criminal charges against Mr.
Alvarez.
Through his attorney, Mr. Alvarez filed a motion to suppress evidence that supported the
criminal charges lodged against him. The court ruled in his favor in this regard, which led to
the eventual dismissal of all criminal charges. The basis for the suppression of evidence
focused on the failure of Officer 1 to confirm whether Mr. Alvarez’s driver’s license was, in
fact, suspended prior to effectuating a detention.
Officer 1 testified at the hearing that he knew Mr. Alvarez from prior dealings with him and
had been advised a few weeks prior to the incident that a fellow officer had ticketed Mr.
Alvarez for driving with a suspended license. Officer 1 testified that prior to the detention he
had run the license plate of the vehicle, which came back to Mr. Alvarez as well as the
address at which he had parked the car. However, Officer 1 testified that prior to attempting
to effectuate a detention, neither he nor any of the other responding officers ran a records
check confirming that Mr. Alvarez’s license was suspended until after his arrest.
The court found that Officer 1 lacked reasonable suspicion to effectuate a detention
because there was a failure to confirm that Mr. Alvarez’s driver’s license was suspended
prior to detaining him. As a result, the court granted the suppression motion, including the
30
drug paraphernalia and other evidence obtained during the search of his vehicle. Following
the suppression of evidence, the District Attorney subsequently dismissed all criminal
charges against Mr. Alvarez.
This issue was also raised in Mr. Alvarez’s lawsuit. And while the transcripts of the
suppression hearing and the lawsuit allegations were accessed and included in the internal
affairs investigation, the issues relating to this aspect of Officer 1’s missteps were not
addressed. Even though this performance failure was not the initial focus of the internal
investigation, investigators are trained to be cognizant that an investigation may reveal
additional potential violations of policy; if they do, the scope of the investigation should be
expanded accordingly. In this case, the procedural errors of Officer 1 should have been
identified in the investigative report and considered in determining the appropriate
disposition.
The broader issue is that, but for the excessive force allegation and surfacing of the
surveillance video, PAPD would not have learned about the potential performance
deficiencies of Officer 1 relating to the unconstitutional detention. This is because the
dismissal of the criminal case did not by itself trigger additional administrative review of the
incident.
Unfortunately, PAPD is not alone in law enforcement in failing to devise an effective
feedback system to learn when officer mistakes lead to the suppression of evidence and the
dismissal of charges. The judicial system can provide an important check when officers are
found to have violated the Constitution. It is incumbent on a police agency to devise a
system whereby such decisions are learned and, when appropriate, provide the basis for
further review and corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION 4
PAPD should instruct internal affairs investigators to ensure that any potential
performance issues are identified and addressed in the investigative report.
RECOMMENDATION 5
PAPD should work to devise an effective system so that officer performance issues
that undermine a criminal prosecution can be communicated back to the agency for
any appropriate investigation and corrective action.
D. Supreme Court jurisprudence that was decided after this case makes it questionable
whether PAPD officers currently would have the legal authority to forcibly enter a residence
under similar circumstances.
As detailed above, Mr. Alvarez repeatedly questioned whether the officers could break the
door of his residence, pull him out, and arrest him without first obtaining a warrant. Further,
as set out above, the officers and supervisors all told Mr. Alvarez and co-residents that they
31
did not need a a warrant to effectuate the arrest.31 Importantly, the law was uncertain at the
time. However, recent U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence suggests that under a similar set
of circumstances police would not have the legal authority to forcibly enter a home to
effectuate a misdemeanor arrest.
In Lange v. California, 594 US ___, (2021), the Court found that an officer who followed a
motorist who had not stopped when he turned on his overhead lights but instead went into
his garage was not justified in doing so. It held that the pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor
subject does not automatically justify a warrantless entry into a home. The Court noted that
a warrantless entry requires exigency such as a need to act to prevent imminent injury, the
destruction of evidence, or a subject’s escape, and that mere flight alone is not sufficient.
Because Lange was decided after the incident, the officers and supervisors cannot be
faulted for not knowing of the Supreme Court direction subsequently provided on the
parameters of warrantless misdemeanor entry. However, since the case has been decided,
we were interested to learn whether PAPD had advised its officers on the restrictions on
warrantless entry as set out by the Lange opinion. In the Alvarez incident, there was no
indicia of imminent injury, the destruction of evidence, or escape. As a result, the
warrantless entry by Sergeant Benitez would arguably no longer have any legal support. To
PAPD’s credit, it did advise its officers in 2021 of the import of the Lange decision in a case
law update.32
E. The decision to break the door, enter the residence, and arrest Mr. Alvarez was
unnecessary and inconsistent with progressive policing practices.
In addition to the forced entry and arrest having a tenuous legal foundation, a broader point
is whether it was necessary to do so to effectively resolve the matter. As detailed above,
the offense of driving with a suspended license had already been observed by Officer 1. Mr.
Alvarez was known to PAPD. Instead of pushing to arrest or cite Mr. Alvarez that night,
Officer 1 could have simply written a report with the salient facts and submitted it to the
District Attorney. The suspected offense was a non-violent relatively minor misdemeanor
and there was no need to effectuate an arrest that evening. Assuming the District Attorney
31 Though the issue was not expressly discussed in the investigation, the PAPD reviewer also opined
that the entry into Mr. Alvarez’s residence was lawful and within applicable policy at the time. Again,
the uncertainty of the law at that time makes that opinion a reasonable interpretation.
32 During the investigation, Agent DeStefano alleged in his internal affairs interview that there was
urgency to enter the residence with out a warrant and arrest Mr. Alvarez to prevent him from either
accessing a weapon of destroying or concealing contraband. But as detailed above, at the time that
a warrantless entry was made, Mr. Alvarez was only suspected of driving on a suspended license
and failing to respond to Officer 1’s direction after he pulled his car into the driveway. There were no
indicia that Mr. Alvarez was armed or that there was any “contraband” relating to the misdemeanor
offenses he was suspected of having committed.
32
approved the requested charge, Mr. Alvarez could have been cited and subsequent court
proceedings could have advanced without incident.
We have been advised that Officer 1 has been advised about how the situation could have
been addressed in a manner that achieved the same public safety interest while lessening
potential conflict. We suggest that PAPD continue to talk with its line officers about better
strategies that reduce potential police/community conflict yet achieve similar public safety
objectives.
RECOMMENDATION 6
PAPD should continue to identify and promote problem-solving strategies that result
in less conflict and reduce potential use of force situations.
F. The decision to tow Mr. Alvarez’ car, while legal on its face, was likely retaliatory.
A common traffic stop scenario involves an initial moving violation that leads to a detention,
during which the police become aware that the operator is driving with a suspended license.
Under that set of circumstances, the law provides officers the discretion to have the car
towed, since the driver cannot legally operate the vehicle and leaving the vehicle on the side
of the roadway has safety and other implications. Even then, though, and when applicable,
officers have the discretion to allow a passenger with a valid license to drive the car away,
thereby avoiding the need for a tow.
In this case, the scenario was somewhat unique. Mr. Alvarez had completed his trip and
had parked his car in the carport area immediately adjacent to his residence. Thus, the
normal rationale for towing the car was not present.
Nonetheless, as detailed above and captured by the MAV audio, Sergeant Benitez decided
that there would be “no leniency” in this case because of Mr. Alvarez’s refusal to come out
of his residence.33 In essence, the towing of his car (and the attendant towing and storage
charges that resulted) appeared to be retaliatory, a tax of sorts imposed by Sergeant
Benitez for Mr. Alvarez’s perceived “contempt of cop”.34 Again, this or similar scenarios
could be used as a teaching moment on effective use of officer discretion – an example of
the principle that just because an officer can take enforcement action does not mean the
officer should.
RECOMMENDATION 7
33 Sergeant Benitez can also be heard on the MAV instructing officers that the towing charges will
cost Mr. Alvarez another $135 dollars and instructing them to “go for blood” regarding their dealings
with Mr. Alvarez.
34 According to Mr. Alvarez’s civil complaint, after he was released from custody, he was unable to
pay the monies necessary to retrieve his vehicle from impound.
33
PAPD should use this or similar scenarios to reinforce to officers how their use of
discretion should be wisely employed and to avoid taking any action that could be
interpreted as retaliatory.
G. Prior to the ultimate emergence of the private surveillance video, PAPD had multiple
opportunities to learn that this incident involved a questionable use of force and other
inappropriate conduct that needed to be investigated.
As discussed above, when Sergeant Benitez used excessive force against Mr. Alvarez and
made inappropriate comments to him in conjunction with that excessive force, neither he nor
any of the other on-scene officers reported the use of force and the inappropriate
comments. Moreover, after Mr. Alvarez was arrested, and he reported to officers that he
had been hit and injured during the use of force, that colloquy was also not documented.
And it was not until fourteen months later, after the attorney for Mr. Alvarez visited the City
Attorney’s office and provided surveillance video of the incident, that PAPD’s leadership
became aware of the problematic use of force.
Unquestionably, the failure by Sergeant Benitez and other witness officers to meet their
reporting obligations per policy created challenges for the Department in
contemporaneously learning about the incident's numerous problems. However, as detailed
below, there were multiple other opportunities during which PAPD could and seemingly
should have learned about the misconduct before it finally did via Mr. Alvarez's attorney.
The Initial Response
As detailed above, after his arrest, Mr. Alvarez made several comments to the involved
officers about a camera that he thought would have captured the incident. First, as Mr.
Alvarez was being transported to the station, the MAV records that Mr. Alvarez informs
Officer 1 that cameras would have recorded the use of force. Additionally, during a
conversation with Officer 2, Mr. Alvarez tells him that the camera could prove that he had
been hit in the face. However, neither of those officers pursued any inquiry with Mr. Alvarez
about a camera possibly recording the incident or advised an uninvolved supervisor of this
information. Had they done either, it would have likely spurred further inquiry of Mr. Alvarez
and the discovery of the surveillance camera. That could have led to accessing the footage
of the incident and a timely investigation.
As also described above, an acting lieutenant and uninvolved sergeant responded to the
scene after Mr. Alvarez had been brought into custody and placed in a patrol car. And a
review of Sergeant Benitez’ MAV recordings shows that the acting lieutenant was privy to
some concerning comments made by Sergeant Benitez, either to her or in her presence.
Significantly, the MAV audit logs show that the acting lieutenant also accessed Officer 2’s
MAV the day after the incident – evidence that also could well have contributed to concern.
As detailed above, there are concerning comments made by Officer 2 on scene, including
his comment about “finally something happened”. Moreover, if the acting lieutenant had
reviewed Officer 2’s MAV in its totality, she would have heard about the discourse between
34
Officer 2 and Mr. Alvarez at the station, where Alvarez talks about being injured (though
declining an offer of medical treatment) – comments that should have triggered additional
inquiry. Because the audit logs only confirm that the acting lieutenant opened the MAV
recording and not the extent to which the recording was viewed, the most plausible
explanation is that unfortunately she did not conduct a full review of Officer 2’s MAV.
Finally, when the acting lieutenant returned the next morning with a Spanish-speaking
officer to advise the family that they could file a claim for the broken door, they could have
inquired of the occupants about whether the residence had any cameras that might have
captured the incident. However, because these potential leads were not pursued, none of
the information the acting lieutenant learned at the scene or through the review of Officer 2’s
MAV caused her to take any further action or inquiry.
Supervisors’ Meeting Where Conduct of Sergeant Benitez Is Raised
As detailed above, the acting lieutenant told internal investigators that a few weeks after the
incident, she raised concerns at a second-and third-level supervisor’s meeting about
Sergeant Benitez’s rough verbal manner as evidenced by this incident (as well as others).35
She reported to have asked whether an intervention was appropriate. According to the
acting lieutenant, after she raised her concerns about Sergeant Benitez, she was instructed
at the meeting that no further action would be taken regarding her concerns. Concernedly,
the internal investigation did not pursue this assertion by the acting lieutenant and did not
interview the supervisor who reportedly instructed her not to take any further action
regarding Sergeant Benitez. The internal investigation should have.36
RECOMMENDATION 8
When information emerges during an internal investigation about potential
shortcomings in managerial response to the underlying performance issues in the
case, those issues should be pursued through additional lines of inquiry – including
follow-up interviews of named personnel.
Filing of Civil Claim
As detailed above, the City was placed on formal notice approximately 5 ½ months after the
incident that Mr. Alvarez was alleging multiple acts of officer impropriety. In that claim, Mr.
Alvarez alleged that he was subjected to excessive force, unlawful detention, and false
35 The meeting was not convened to discuss Sergeant Benitez’ performance particularly but was
instead a regularly scheduled supervisors meeting where a number of other matters were also
discussed. During this meeting, the acting lieutenant raised the conduct of Sergeant Benitez.
36 The acting lieutenant’s report that PAPD command staff was aware of concerns relating to
Sergeant Benitez’s performance in the field was also raised at Agent DeStefano’s arbitration
hearing, yet PAPD did not apparently pursue this issue at that juncture either.
35
reports lodged against him. It is unclear when PAPD was notified by the City of the receipt
of the claim. However, assuming that the claim was forwarded to PAPD for review, it would
have afforded an opportunity for PAPD to assess the allegations and their potential
legitimacy. Had that inquiry resulted in a thorough review of the officers’ MAV recordings
and surveillance camera recordings that captured Mr. Alvarez’ complaints at the police
stations (which it minimally should have), it would have learned of evidence that went
toward corroborating Mr. Alvarez's allegations. However, whatever investigation into the
civil claim that occurred was insufficient to uncover the excessive force and other
misconduct by the PAPD officers.37 Instead, the City summarily denied the claim three
months after its receipt.
Review of MAV Videos by Command Staff Member
According to the PAPD investigator who conducted the criminal investigation, a command
staff member reviewed some of the involved officers’ MAV videos approximately ten months
after the incident.38 It is unclear what prompted this review by the command staff member,
but the timeline of events may offer a clue as to the interest in doing so. As detailed above,
the City’s rejection of Mr. Alvarez’s claim occurred about six weeks before this review of the
MAV recordings. The suppression hearing which led to the dismissal of criminal charges
against Mr. Alvarez occurred approximately a month before this MAV review. And the
attorney for Mr. Alvarez sent out a preservation notice39 to the City of Palo Alto
approximately two weeks before this MAV review, signaling that Mr. Alvarez was interested
in moving forward with a lawsuit. At the time, the command staff member who ended up
reviewing some of the MAV recordings was the designated person for addressing litigation
matters involving PAPD.
The PAPD investigator reported that the command staff member that accessed those
videos was not able to see any use of force from the car cameras. A review of the MAV
audit logs40 confirms that a PAPD command staff member did access the MAV videos of
Sergeant Benitez, Agent DeStefano, and Officer 1 – which did not capture the force incident
because of the way the patrol cars were positioned. However, as detailed above, the MAV
video/audios did provide significant indicia of a problematic incident, even if the actual force
was not depicted. This includes, for example, the inappropriate comments of Sergeant
Benitez such as “You are a tough guy” and “You will be bleeding a whole lot more.”
37 The IPA was not provided any materials related to the investigation of the civil claim.
38 This command staff member is no longer employed by PAPD.
39 A preservation notice is a request made of the City to preserve all reports and evidence relating to
the allegations in the claim.
40 The MAV audit logs create an audit trail whenever the MAV recordings are accessed and note the
name of the employee that accessed those recordings.
36
Moreover, Sergeant Benitez’s wholly inappropriate comments after the arrest to the tow
truck driver were also discernible. In addition, as detailed above, the audio and video
material from PAPD’s camera at the station and the officers MAVs also featured ample grist
for further concern (and led to the ultimate development of allegations against Officers 1 and
2).
As the internal investigator eventually did undertake months later, a full review of those
recordings would have identified Mr. Alvarez complaining that he had been injured by
officers and the fact that two responding officers had offered Mr. Alvarez medical treatment
but had not documented it. An internal affairs investigation could then have been triggered
months before the presentation of the surveillance tape by Mr. Alvarez’s attorney.
Unfortunately, the command staff member’s apparent less than thorough review of the MAV
recordings did not result in the misconduct that had occurred being discovered.
Visit by Mr. Alvarez to the Police Station
Finally, as noted above, the acting lieutenant reported that while she did not know the
precise date, some time prior to the acquisition of the surveillance video from Mr. Alvarez’s
attorney, she had met with a neighborhood activist a who raised issues about poor
treatment by police. At that time, Mr. Alvarez, who had apparently accompanied the activist
as a show of support, referenced the incident involving him and advised the acting
lieutenant that it had been captured on videotape. However, the acting lieutenant did not
contemporaneously document this fact, follow up with Mr. Alvarez to endeavor to acquire
the video, or report the communication up the chain of command. As a result, an
opportunity was lost to learn of the misconduct earlier in time.
Systemic Reform: A More Robust Response to Civil Claims
Under current PAPD protocols, had Mr. Alvarez shown up to the station and requested to
file a civilian complaint about the incident, it would have triggered an internal investigation.
Yet in this case the filing of the claim by Mr. Alvarez that was essentially a complaint of
misconduct, did not cause a personnel investigation to be initiated.
While the filing of a claim is essentially a civilian complaint with a price tag attached, existing
PAPD protocols did not apparently result in the same type of investigative response as a
civilian complaint would have done. When a claim is filed alleging misconduct on behalf of
PAPD officers, it should trigger a robust documented initial inquiry, including a thorough
review of any existing documents and recordings of the incident. If that initial review
indicates a potential violation of policy, the initial review should be transformed into a full-
blown internal affairs investigation. As set out above, in this case, a robust review of the
recordings would have identified problematic conduct and likely violations of policy. It is
unfortunate that current procedures did not afford for such in this case.
RECOMMENDATION 9
37
PAPD should devise protocols so that every claim that alleges misconduct is
thoroughly reviewed and investigated as if a civilian complaint had been received.
H. The Major Reduction of the Discipline by the Arbitrator Reviewing Officer 1’s Misconduct
Shows the Structural and Practical Defects of Such a System41
The Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA), which consists of current and
former law enforcement officials, civil rights and oversight advocates, legal scholars, and
experts in the field, recently released its annual report. In that report, the RIPA Board found
that using binding arbitration for peace officers’ disciplinary appeals raises accountability
concerns. One of the concerns identified by the RIPA Board is that arbitrators often reduce
disciplinary penalties for officers found liable for misconduct. The RIPA Board also noted
that having an arbitrator as the final say on discipline allows for third parties who are not
generally from the community to make final disciplinary decisions that overturn police
supervisors’ decisions. The report noted that, according to researchers, the tendency for
arbitrators to side with officers is likely, because police officers often have some level of
influence over the selection of arbitrators.42
In Palo Alto, any employee who is subject to formal discipline can select either an appeal
with the City Manager or binding arbitration:
If the aggrieved employee elects final and binding arbitration in accordance with this
provision, the parties shall mutually select an arbitrator. In the event the parties
cannot agree on an arbitrator, they shall mutually request a panel of five arbitrators
from the California State Conciliation Service or from the American Arbitration
Association if either party objects to the State Conciliation Service, and select an
arbitrator by the alternate strike method.
Thus, in Palo Alto, the attorneys retained to represent the police employee have significant
say in who is selected to hear the arbitration and total veto power over any arbitrator who
has upheld police disciplinary determinations in the past.
As noted above, while in Agent DeStefano’s arbitration, PAPD’s decision to terminate the
officer was upheld, Officer 1’s discipline was reduced more than five-fold by the arbitrator.
41 Because the City’s binding arbitration post-disciplinary system had a significant impact on the
eventual resolution of the administrative charges, it is incumbent on IPA to provide an independent
assessment of those proceedings.
42 See also, “Police Arbitration” Professor Stephen Rushin, Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 74:4:1023.
(2021) (Study finds that arbitrators on appeal reduced or overturned police officer discipline in 52%
of these cases. In 46% of cases involving termination, arbitrators ordered police departments to
rehire previously terminated officers. On average, arbitrators reduced the length of officer
suspensions by approximately 49%); “Police Arbitration and the Public Interest”, Professor Stephen
A. Plass, Harvard Blackletter Law Journal, Vol. 37 p 31 (2021) (The nuances of policing, require that
publicly accountable individuals (as opposed to private arbitrators) have final authority for police
discipline.)
38
In that arbitration, Officer 1 did not contest that he was liable for the policy violations alleged
but maintained that the discipline was too severe. According to the arbitrator, the basis for
reducing the discipline was that Officer 1’s failure to report excessive force was not
intentional since he did not see the excessive force at the time of the incident. While the
arbitrator found that the City had established that Officer 1’s conduct brought harm to the
Department, he found that the officer was not the “proximate cause” of the harm.
The arbitrator’s logic was misplaced: Officer 1 was not charged with failing to report
excessive force, but rather with failing to document what Mr. Alvarez had told him about
being struck and injured by an officer during the arrest. And that failure was not inadvertent;
the officer clearly failed to write what Mr. Alvarez had told him and had no justification for his
failure to do so. It is unclear what the arbitrator meant when he concluded that Officer 1
was not the “proximate cause” of the harm; certainly, Sergeant Benitez was the “actual
cause” of the excessive force harm to Mr. Alvarez (which resulted in his successful
prosecution and resignation from PAPD) but Officer 1 also certainly was a “proximate
cause” of the harm to the Department’s reputation. His failure to report Mr. Alvarez’s
complaints on being subjected to force and injured prevented the Department from learning
about the excessive force and other misconduct for months (or potentially ever, but for the
surfacing of the surveillance videos). The harm to the reputation of PAPD as a result of this
lapse, which the California Supreme Court has said is the most important factor in
evaluating discipline, was cited but not apparently weighed by the arbitrator.
The arbitrator agreed that Officer 1 knew or should have known that he was required to
document Mr. Alvarez’s statements about being injured and the fact that he was offered
medical treatment. However, the arbitrator found that Officer 1 was a relatively new officer,
and while he conceded that it was the responsibility of the officer to know the rules, the
arbitrator found that he was obviously not familiar with all of them. The arbitrator found that
Officer 1 was unaware of his duty to report that Mr. Alvarez alleged that a police officer
injured him and thus found that his conduct was negligent rather than deliberate. The
arbitrator further found that it was the responsibility of the Department to ensure that he
knew and understood all of the rules. However, the arbitrator provided no evidence that the
Department had failed in its responsibility to ensure that the officer knew the applicable
rules.
The Department’s Manual of Policy and Procedure contains all the rules applicable to this
case. New officers particularly are expected to know these rules and significant training is
provided to those officers when they become members of PAPD.
Policy Manual 106.5 is particularly instructive. It states in pertinent part:
Each member shall acknowledge that he/she has been provided access to and has
had the opportunity to review the Policy Manual. Members shall seek clarification as
needed from an appropriate supervisor for any provisions that they do not fully
understand.
39
Again, the arbitrator decided that reduction of the discipline was appropriate because the
officer was relatively new. But the arbitrator failed to note the Manual provision requiring
that officers know the rules regardless of their experience level. Most significantly, had
Officer 1 had some question about whether he needed to document what Mr. Alvarez had
told him about being struck and injured during the arrest, he could have consulted a
supervisor (as instructed by the Manual) as he was preparing his report, yet failed to do so.
Using the arbitrator’s logic, officers would be incentivized not to learn the rules so that they
could later claim unawareness of them and escape the consequences thereof.
Case law in California has repeatedly and uniformly instructed that a police agency’s
disciplinary determination should not be overturned unless there has been an “abuse of
discretion.” See Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 217-19. Courts
instruct hearing officers to give deference to the employer’s penalty decision considering
such matters as the employer’s administration of its own standards and rules. See Kolender
v. San Diego Civil Service Commission (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 464, 471. The fact that
reasonable minds may differ regarding the penalty imposed supports a finding that the
employer has acted within its discretion. Ackerman v. State Personnel Board (1983) 145
Cal.App.3d 395, 401. However, instead of being mindful of (or even acknowledging) this
direction, the arbitrator cited non-California cases to support his position.
Finally, the arbitrator decided to severely reduce the discipline (perhaps more than
coincidentally to the amount precisely suggested by the Union lawyer representing the
officer) because Officer 1 had accepted responsibility for his actions, rehabilitated himself,
had no prior or subsequent discipline, and there was little likelihood of reoccurrence.
However, as detailed above, and as noted by the arbitrator, PAPD had already reduced
Officer 1’s discipline because of these very factors. In short and in essence, the arbitrator
substituted his judgment about the appropriate outcome over the judgment of the leadership
of the Palo Alto Police Department.
Given the significance of this episode in the Department's recent history, the outcome was
especially notable and disappointing. But the questionable reasoning that apparently
formed the foundation for the decision underscores the limitations of binding arbitration as a
valid form of appeal and raises many of the issues identified by the RIPA Advisory Board,
legal scholars, and progressive policing professionals. While the great majority of
jurisdictions in California have similar binding arbitration agreements with their police
associations, others have instead a Civil Service Commission or other City maintained body
that hears the appeal. And others instead have non-binding arbitration whereby the
arbitrator makes a recommendation which City leadership can then accept, modify, or reject.
40
The unfortunate result of this arbitration proceeding provides an opportunity for the City43 to
consider other options for post-disciplinary appeals.44
RECOMMENDATION 10
In future discussions with the PPOA, the City should consider the viability of other
options than binding arbitration for appealing officer discipline.
I. PAPD Should Ensure that Officers and Supervisors Are Regularly Trained on Use of
Force Policy and Reporting Requirements
In both arbitrations stemming from this incident, the officers through their attorney argued
that there was confusion between the current use of force reporting policy and actual
practice. In fact, at the DeStefano arbitration, a current supervisor testified that it was his
interpretation that a verbal command could be considered a use of force under PAPD policy.
While this interpretation is nowhere supported by the current policy language, it is a good
indication of both the importance of and need to remove any confusion among officers and
supervisors about key elements of the PAPD policy expectations and the attendant
reporting requirements.45
RECOMMENDATION 11
PAPD should provide annual training to its officers and supervisors about what
constitutes a use of force, what is reportable force and how it should be documented,
what the review of force process entails, and documentation requirements about
alleged force and/or injury from arrestees.
J. The Arbitration Proceedings Revealed that PAPD Had Failed to Provide Mandated
Supervisor Training to Agent DeStefano
At former Agent DeStefano’s arbitration hearing, his attorney alleged that the failure of
PAPD to ensure that he receive mandated POST supervisor training contributed to his
deficiencies in reporting the excessive use of force that he observed. While there was no
evidence produced that such training would have better informed former Agent DeStefano
43 To be clear, while PAPD leadership may have input into how post-disciplinary appeals are
handled, the recommendation is directed at City leadership since the labor agreement is between
the City and the labor association.
44 To be sure, there are counterarguments to maintaining the status quo, one being the relative rarity
of police matters that end up going to arbitration in Palo Alto and perhaps more significantly the
impact that any change in the disciplinary process might have on hiring and retention, especially
considering the ongoing crisis in keeping police agencies fully staffed.
45 We have been advised that since this incident, PAPD has briefed its personnel on the
Department’s use of force policy, including what constitutes force, the force documentation
requirements, and the subsequent investigative responsibilities of supervisors once force is reported.
We suggest that this critical topic be addressed with personnel at least annually.
41
regarding his reporting obligations as set out in Department policy, it was nonetheless an
identified lapse in PAPD’s compliance with training requirements. There is no further
documentation in the materials examining how this lapse occurred. More significantly, there
is no documentation to suggest that safeguards have been devised for ensuring the timely
attendance of all new supervisors at the POST-mandated school. Whenever a deficiency in
record keeping is identified, it is incumbent upon an agency to examine what led to the
misstep and consider interposing additional protocols to prevent future lapses.
RECOMMENDATION 12
PAPD should review its training recordkeeping and compliance protocols to ensure
that newly promoted supervisors complete the POST-mandated training in an
appropriate timely fashion.
K. PAPD’s Reported Instruction to Supervisors Not to Review MAV Recordings of
Subordinates Runs Contrary to Effective Supervision and Accountability
As detailed above, when the acting lieutenant was interviewed, she indicated that she had
been instructed to stop reviewing MAV recordings as part of her supervisory responsibilities.
To the degree that PAPD supervisory staff were directed to stop conducting audits of
recordings of police activity, such direction is inconsistent with best practices of supervision
and accountability. The MAV recordings (now supplemented with body-worn-camera
recordings) provide a wealth of information about how officers are handling calls that was
previously not available to supervisors. Rather than discouraging supervisors to perform
routine video/audio audits of their personnel’s performance, command staff should be
encouraging the use of such footage to identify both commendable and correctable
behavior. It is incumbent upon PAPD to ensure that this guidance is effectively
communicated to its supervisory staff so that supervisors can take full advantage of this
tool.46
RECOMMENDATION 13
PAPD leadership should formalize and promote its expectation that supervisors take
advantage of MAV and body-worn-camera footage as an aid to reviewing officer
performance in the field.
Conclusion
This incident, in which a veteran sergeant dishonored his oath to uphold the Constitution by
engaging in excessive force on a handcuffed detainee, stands as a low point for the PAPD.
Nor did the deplorable conduct end with the sergeant: the Department also was and
remains properly disappointed in the failures of the other on-scene officers to report the
46 PAPD’s current policy 404 allows for such review of video/audio evidence: “Recordings may be
reviewed in any of the following situations: … (c) by a supervisor or manager for purposes of
improving officer performance based on an articulable training issue.”
42
incident fully and accurately. That “coverup” caused the excessive force and other
misconduct to go unknown to the Department for over a year, and eventually compounded
the harm to the agency's standing in the community. But for Mr. Alvarez’ civil action and the
existence of a private surveillance recording, it likely would have never been discovered.
Considering that six years have passed before the last of the proceedings related to this
incident reached its conclusion and given the change in leadership at the top of the
organization, it is understandable that there is a sentiment among some in the City to move
on and leave this matter behind. However, law enforcement organizations have an
obligation to learn from past mistakes, and to recall them as part of an ongoing process of
course correction and refinement. These recommendations are meant to contribute to that
process, and to leave PAPD better positioned to detect and address problematic uses of
force in the future.
Case 2: Allegation of Intentional Harm to Passenger During
Transport
Factual Overview:
An adult male was stopped by a PAPD officer for Vehicle Code violations relating to the
bicycle he was riding. He ran from the officer but then surrendered after a foot pursuit. It
turned out he also had a warrant for his arrest, and the officer took him into custody and
then brought him to jail for booking.
Near the end of that trip, the man (who was handcuffed and seat-belted in the rear of the
vehicle), rocked backward and struck his head on the hard plastic seat behind him. This
was agitating to him, and he accused the officer of intentionally causing the contact by
"brake-checking" – a term for punitive driving maneuvers that are meant to upset the
balance of arrested persons and cause the sort of collision inside the vehicle that the man
experienced.
The officer immediately notified their47 supervisor and alerted staff at the jail, who
summoned a medical response. Though the man had no visible injury, he was brought to
the hospital to be evaluated.
The Department treated the man's initial allegation as a complaint and initiated a review
process.
47For the balance of this Report, and in keeping with current PAPD practice for its public information-
sharing, we are relying on gender neutral pronouns so as to not contribute inadvertently to the
personal identification of involved Department members.
43
PAPD Review:
The case was handled as a "Supervisor Inquiry Investigation" that was resolved as
"Unfounded" based on the initial available evidence (and without needing a formal interview
of the involved officer).
The supervisor whom the officer had called that night ended up going to both the jail and the
hospital. The supervisor conducted a brief interview of the subject, who was quite lethargic
but who nonetheless seemed to track the questions and provided voluntary responses.48
Notably, while describing his injury and how it occurred, he did not repeat his earlier
allegation that it had been intentional on the part of the officer.
The key evidence in the review was the officer's in-car camera system, which included a
rear-facing angle and showed the moment where the man had fallen back. The supervisor
found that the man's loss of balance had been preceded by his leaning forward – apparently
while dozing – and then experiencing the momentum of a seemingly gradual and
appropriate acceleration after the light turned green. There were no apparent instances of
unusual or malicious handling of the vehicle by the officer during the transport.
In conducting the investigation, the handling supervisor came across – and subsequently
addressed – two unrelated deviations from expected policy or procedure. The first related
to the officer's driving during the initial efforts to pursue the fleeing subject; the officer had
briefly travelled the wrong way down a one-way street in what was considered a non-
emergency context. The second was the officer's apparent failure to ensure (as required by
policy) that their body-worn camera was time-synced with the in-car camera system of the
patrol vehicle. Both issues were relatively minor, but merited the corrective action by which
they were resolved.
IPA Review and Analysis
We concur with the finding that no violations of policy occurred. The Department's response
to the initial allegation was proactive and thorough, beginning with the officer who was
angrily accused of the "brake-check" by the complainant. Even though the allegation was
not reiterated, the Department chose to treat his initial assertion as the basis for a
supervisory inquiry into what had occurred. And PAPD's car cameras, which not every
agency has and which remain in service even after the acquisition of personal body-worn
cameras, provided convincing refutation of the man's complaint.49
48 The man's grogginess was somewhat consistent with his affect from the time of the arrest and did
not appear to be a function of striking his head. He later acknowledged recent drug use to hospital
staff.
49 The "in-car" camera showed the backseat of the vehicle for the duration of the transport and
captured the two instances (within a minute) where the complainant struck his head. Neither
seemed to be the function of aggressive or unusual driving; and the officer's forward-facing body-
44
We were also impressed with the additional issue-spotting that emerged from the review.
The goal of this sort of holistic analysis of events, which we have long endorsed, is to treat
every review process as a valuable opportunity to see officer performance in real-world
contexts, and to offer constructive reminders or corrections as needed. PAPD has shown a
recent inclination to formalize this process in new ways. We consider it to be a
commendable trend, and this case was an effective example of the concept at work.
Internally Generated Investigation
Case 1: Investigation into Reporting and Procedural Issues Related
to an Arrest and Use of Force
Factual Overview
An officer on patrol observed a possible drug transaction in the parking lot of an all-night
food establishment. The officer ended up contacting a subject, then sought to detain the
person but then struggled to handcuff him. In pulling the subject down, the officer caused
him to hit his face on the ground, injuring him. The man was taken into custody and
medically cleared by at the scene by responding Fire Department personnel. Back at the
police station, and as part of the officer’s investigation into a charge that the subject was
“under the influence” of an illegal drug, they conducted a forced blood draw in order to get a
sample for evaluation. Then, as the man’s facial injuries began to appear more
pronounced, the officer brought him to the hospital – where he ended up being admitted.
The Department conducted a use of force review and determined that the officer’s actions
were consistent with policy. Months later, though, and in the context of the review of
criminal charges50 against the man, new issues emerged that would become the basis for
an administrative investigation into possible misconduct.
One of these was seeming discrepancies between the officer’s written report about the
incident and the various videos collected by the District Attorney’s Office. (These included
recordings from the officer’s body-worn camera, the in-car camera, and the different
surveillance cameras from the business where the incident occurred.) The second concern
was the legal admissibility of the forced blood draw, which had occurred without either the
subject’s consent or a warrant. The District Attorney’s Office took the position that it would
not be admissible.
worn camera (which captured the audio of the man's pair of outbursts after hitting his head)
confirmed this.
50 Along with the “under the influence” allegation, the original charges against the subject included a
probation violation, resisting arrest, and battery on a peace officer.
45
Taken together, these issues undermined the strength of the case and caused the District
Attorney to decline to prosecute. In turn, the Department revisited the incident several
months after the arrest and decided that further internal investigation was warranted. PAPD
framed allegations against both the officer and the responding supervisor (who had
completed the initial review of the officer’s disputed crime report, and who had authorized
and monitored the forced blood draw). To the Department’s credit, it also explored additional
allegations that emerged in the course of the administrative investigation itself.
Outcome and Analysis
The Department ended up framing several specific charges, and the results were mixed:
both officers were found to be culpable regarding some allegations, but not others. While we
concur with each of these outcomes within the scope of the investigation as framed, our
own review of the materials raised issues about aspects of the encounter – particularly with
regard to the use of force as reported and the claims of battery by the subject – that merited
inclusion in the Department’s misconduct investigation. We discuss this concern below.
The investigation was handled by a PAPD executive. It had several strengths within the
parameters of its limited scope, beginning with outreach to the Probation Department (for
information about the subject’s specific terms and requirements) and the District Attorney’s
Office (for discussion of the legalities of forced blood draw in light of recent court decisions).
Along with interviews of the subjects, the evidence included extensive recordings that were
assessed systematically and analyzed in a clear fashion.51 Impressively, the investigation
also used GPS mapping from the night of the incident to track the movements of the
officer’s patrol car in relation to both the claimed actions and the time stamps of the various
relevant videos.
The assessment of the forced blood draw issue seemed particularly thoughtful and
thorough. In relation to the decision-making of the officer and supervisor, the investigation
determined their basis for believing they were justified in doing the warrantless procedure: it
was a court decision that related to blood draws for probationers (which the subject was at
the time of the arrest). As the investigator surmised in the analysis portion of the memo, the
relevance of the case was at least arguable, but it was also less than definitive. And, in fact,
neither the Probation Department nor the District Attorney took a supportive position as to
the court decision’s applicability when contacted as part of the PAPD review.52
51 For one helpful exhibit, surveillance video from the business where the incident took place was
synced with body-worn camera recordings from the officer, thus providing a more complete view of
what specifically transpired.
52 Interestingly, the subject himself was clearly cognizant of the conditions of his probation, which
only required him to submit to a urine test. He articulated his (accurate) understanding in the
moments prior to the blood draw, but it was not heeded. (The urine test was not offered in light of
the officer’s concern that the subject would create a security concern if given the necessary freedom
of movement.)
46
Accordingly, the Department found that both the officer and supervisor had violated policy
by subjecting the man to a forced blood draw without legal authorization. At the same time,
both employees were exonerated of a separate charge that they had violated the PAPD
blood draw policy in the manner of the procedure – which was recorded and had followed
appropriate protocol.
The investigator’s memo also took the occasion to recommend refinements in Department
policy (for more clarity regarding blood draw options in non-DUI cases such as this one) and
more regular coordination and training with the District Attorney’s Office to answer questions
and keep officers apprised of changes in authorized and preferred investigative
techniques.53 This type of pro-active response to the “learning opportunities” presented by a
given incident is a beneficial byproduct of internal review; the Department’s focus on these
changes is commendable.
The other main issue in the case was the seeming disconnect between the subject’s actions
(as captured on available video) and the officer’s report. This was driven by the District
Attorney’s Office review of late-emerging surveillance videos from the business; the D.A.
memo declining the case alluded to the absence of any suspected “hand to hand” drug
transactions during the moments that preceded the officer’s engagement with the subject.54
The officer explained the seeming discrepancy in a way that was confirmed by the GPS
analysis. The officer said that there was actually a gap of several minutes between the
specific action that the officer considered to be a drug sale and their encounter with the
subject, and described using that time to follow the vehicle that had departed from the
parking lot immediately after interacting briefly with the subject, which had prompted the
officer’s suspicion. Because they did not see a basis for stopping the car and questioning
the occupants, the officer decided to return to the original location.
The investigator found this explanation credible (particularly as supported by the different
technological evidence). Nonetheless, in the investigator's view, the omission of the driving
interlude in which the officer followed the other parties was a gap in the officer’s report that
rose to the level of a deviation from policy requirements. (Indeed, its significance was
reinforced by the confusion that it caused for the prosecution in relation to the criminal
case.) This was the basis for a second sustained violation against the officer.
53 To PAPD’s credit, it issued a directly responsive Training Memorandum, subsequent to this case,
which it provided to the IPA for review.
54 While the officer recognized the subject and believed him to be an active probationer with search
terms, confirmation of this did not occur until after the detention, use of force, and arrest. In the
District Attorney’s view, this meant that the legitimacy of the initial detention of the man turned on
reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. And this was a suspicion that was not clearly supported by
the video evidence.
47
To its credit, the Department also looked at additional issues. These included the propriety
of the officer’s initial approach, which led to a finding that the assertion of authority to stop
the subject had been justified. (The investigator did find room for improvement in the
officer’s communication skills and efforts at explanation.) Also receiving scrutiny – and
ending in the supervisor’s exoneration – was a review of why the crucial video evidence had
not been acquired and utilized in the initial supervisory investigation into the use of force.
We considered each of these conclusions to be reasonable. At the same time, the
bifurcation of the force analysis from the rest of the review seemed awkward.55 While a
separate process does already exist for the supervisory review of every use of force, an
incident that raises several different concerns and includes a significant force component
probably warrants the inclusion of the force review into the broader investigation. This
incident strikes us as a case in point. For example, our own consideration of the written
report in relation to the video evidence raised concerns about the extent to which the
“battery” charge against the subject (based on his alleged kicking of the officer) seemed
corroborated. Given that reporting accuracy was already in play for the administrative
review, the conscious ignoring of those elements in deference to the other process seemed
suboptimal.
55 It should also be noted that the Department did not complete its official assessment of the use of
force (deeming it within policy) for nearly six months – an unusual time lag that itself warranted
managerial attention.
48
Internal Workplace Investigations
Case 1: Allegation of Improper Bias in Promotional Process
Factual Overview:
This complaint was submitted by a PAPD member against Department leadership. It
resulted from a promotional process for a supervisorial position that had included the
complainant as one of the applicants. The officer was not selected and had concerns about
the legitimacy of that outcome.
When the decision was announced, the complainant asked for and received the chance to
discuss their perspective and prospects for promotion in the future. Meanwhile, the
complainant shared additional concerns about what they considered to be conspicuous
limitations in the Department's diversity at the managerial level. This was relevant in part
because of the complainant's own identity. The complainant asserted that there was a basis
for a lawsuit or Human Resources complaint, and this prompted PAPD leadership to request
an outside investigation as to the validity of that perception.
Investigation and Outcome:
At the request of the City, a third-party professional investigator conducted the investigation
into the complaint. The handling investigator relied upon interviews with both the
complainant and the Department's key decision-maker for the process. The investigator also
utilized pages of written documentation that were attached to the case file as exhibits.
These included emails and handwritten notes by participants, all of which related to the
promotional process and its aftermath.
The interviews were central to the ultimate determination – in part because of the
considerable overlap between the two people's versions and perspectives.
While straightforwardly denying that the complainant's race/ethnicity had worked to their
detriment in any way, the decision-maker was also able to articulate a number of race-
neutral factors for the outcome. The complainant's history with the agency – which included
instances in which that person had been chosen for competitive assignments – and the high
level of qualification shared by all the candidates (including others who had not been
selected) were additional factors that justified the decision in a manner independent of bias.
Meanwhile, and significantly, the complainant told the investigator that they themselves did
not personally believe that race was the ultimate reason for the promotion decision. Instead,
the complainant explained, raising the issue was meant to bring attention to a larger
49
dynamic, which they believed dated back several years and which merited consideration.
This was the fact that no sworn members of the current executive team (of nine people) at
the agency were minorities.
Based on the aforementioned evidence, the investigator concluded that race had not been a
determining factor in the decision-making process.56
IPA Review and Analysis:
We concurred with the finding that race had not been a part of the selection criteria and
found the reasoning and the descriptions of the actual process to be persuasive. At the
same time, the complainant's identification of an "area of concern" regarding the
racial/ethnic makeup of the command staff seemed, in our view, to have been worthwhile.
As with this particular allegation, we have no specific reason to believe that bias – conscious
or otherwise – has shaped PAPD decision-making regarding promotions, and we recognize
that the selection process in any workplace commonly (if not inevitably) engenders a
measure of disappointment among applicants who are not successful. Our understanding is
that the Department leadership is appropriately conscious of the statistical reality cited by
the complainant and is working with the City on promoting diversity and inclusion in
constructive ways.
Case 2: Allegation of Discrimination/Hostile Work Environment
Factual Overview:
This complaint was submitted by a lower-ranking officer against a superior. It had two
components (each of which was illustrated by different specific examples of the alleged
problematic conduct). The first related to the complainant personally and involved an
allegation of different types of mistreatment by the supervisor that was motivated by
discriminatory animus on the basis of several characteristics protected by law and
Department policy. In the second, the complainant officer shared information about several
other employees whom the complainant identified as also being mistreated by the
supervisor.
56 The investigative report makes an overt reference to being limited in its scope: it is presented as a
"fact-finding" document that refrains from drawing legal conclusions or formally evaluating whether
policies were violated. Nonetheless, the nature of the factual analysis is somewhat dispositive here,
and the report goes so far as to describe allegations as "exonerated."
50
Investigation and Outcome:
The complainant brought these concerns to the City's Human Resources Department,
based in part on a sense that the Police Department administration was aware of the
supervisor's reputation and inappropriate conduct but had not acted to address it. A third-
party professional investigator conducted the investigation into the complaint in an effort to
ensure its independence and objectivity.
The handling investigator conducted interviews with the complainant, the subject supervisor,
and several Department members who had been cited by the complainant either as
percipient witnesses or as parties who (per the complainant) had themselves allegedly
experienced some form of inappropriate behavior from the subject. The investigator
summarized her investigative efforts in a lengthy memo that addressed the two main
categories of allegations separately.
With regard to the alleged mistreatment of the complainant, the investigation determined
that the "preponderance of the evidence" did not establish a violation of relevant City policy.
This finding was further divided into individual conclusions for each of the specific examples
of wrongful treatment that the complainant asserted. Some were addressed with a finding
that the conduct had occurred but was not inherently improper. For others, the conduct at
issue was recognized as being in some way ungracious, but it was found to be lacking in an
established discriminatory motive.
With regard to the allegations that the supervisor had engaged in a pattern of mistreating
other employees, the investigation again found there was insufficient proof that a City policy
had been violated. The particulars of the supervisor's relationships with a number of named
individuals were explored in detail. Though the inquiry yielded multiple examples of discord,
none of the negative dynamics were found to be attributable to bias.57
57 As with the previous investigation cited above, the investigative report here is conscious about
refraining from making final judgments as to appropriate legal or policy-based outcomes. Still, the
factual conclusions that the investigator reaches (and explains) are somewhat definitive in stating a
lack of sufficient evidence that policy violations occurred.
51
IPA Review and Analysis:
We found this investigation to be a thorough58 and thoughtful one. The investigator's
numerous interviews provided the majority of the evidence, and her analysis of each was
carefully considered in reaching persuasive conclusions. This included credibility
determinations that showed nuance and depth in assessing the different parties'
perspectives. And individual relationships were considered as distinct entities that merited –
and received – distinct evaluations.
The investigation revealed a substantial number of co-workers (which included peers as well
as subordinates) who actively disliked the supervisor's manner of dealing with them. It is
also important to note that several of the alleged incidents giving rise to the complaint were
found to have occurred, but there was no evidence that the conduct at issue was motivated
by bias in violation of Department policy or law.
While respecting this outcome, we considered the case to be a good candidate for a
dynamic we have long encouraged in Palo Alto and elsewhere: the willingness of a law
enforcement agency to go beyond the "bottom line" conclusions of investigations, and to see
complaint cases and other review processes as opportunities for constructive intervention,
even when formal discipline is not warranted. Accordingly, we were gratified to learn that
PAPD management also saw fit to use the investigation's findings as a basis for taking
concrete action to address identified performance issues and improve the work
environment.
58 For example, one of the complaints related to a particular call for service. We were impressed to
note that the investigator acquired (and transcribed) the relevant radio traffic as an element in her
evaluation of that issue.
52
"Pointed Firearm" Incidents
This is the third audit cycle featuring a review of the Department's administrative handling of
incidents in which officers point their firearms at a subject in the context of an enforcement
encounter. PAPD submitted the materials for a total of nine cases59, which is the largest total
so far.60
The Department continues to refine protocols for this new category of internal review
responsibility. The overall result appears to be a combination of imperfection and progress
for the evaluation system. We noted an overall increase in issue-spotting and careful review
on the one hand; on the other, terse summaries and lengthy delays in identifying incidents
or finalizing the reviews were still apparent in some instances.61
Importantly, though, the total number of events remains in line with previous reporting
cycles, and each of them was determined to be consistent with policy (though occasionally
prompting an insight that led to training or counseling). We agreed with those assessments.
Officers seem to recognize and respect that weapon-pointing is a significant show of police
authority that should be limited in purpose and duration.
The context for the nine deployments was as follows:
• Officers responded to reports about possible trespassers on private (but unoccupied)
residential property. When the first of two subjects emerged into view, one officer
briefly pointed their firearm until establishing that the man was unarmed and
cooperative.
• Officers located a felony theft suspect lying under some shrubbery in the vicinity
where a stolen bike had been abandoned. One officer gave commands and briefly
pointed their weapon in the subject's direction until visually able to confirm that the
man's hands were empty and he was cooperating. Surveillance camera footage later
confirmed that this was the individual whom the police were seeking to apprehend.
• Officers responded to a food store where a male subject, believed to be armed,
walked into the employee breakroom, and sat down. Three officers made a tactical
59 As detailed below, the 2018 incident separately had a “firearm pointing” element to it; it formed the
basis for discipline because the Agent failed to report it.
60 Two were holdovers from 2022, and two others carried over from the first half of 2023 – evidence
of both the lingering need to refine these new protocols and the Department's retroactive diligence in
addressing the events.
61In one case that was several months into 2023, an involved supervisor pointed his firearm but
neglected to write a report about it as required by policy.
53
entry to encounter the man, who did have a firearm in his waistband (and whom
PAPD later learned had allegedly been involved in a shooting incident earlier that
day). The officers advanced to the area outside the break room, and the lead officer
pointed a rifle at the seated subject while establishing communication and quickly
achieving his cooperation.
• Officers served a search warrant in connection with a suspected robbery. When they
knocked and announced their presence, two subjects appeared at the front window
and began to lift the blinds. This prompted the officer at the front of the entry team to
point their firearm briefly until able to establish clear visual contact with the male and
female and ensure their cooperation.
• Officers located a stolen vehicle soon after receiving an initial report about it. One
officer drove in front of the subject, and that vehicle was rear-ended by the stolen car
before it stopped. That officer pointed their firearm at the driver/suspect until
ensuring his unarmed cooperation.
• Officers combined with campus law enforcement to conduct a high-risk vehicle
extraction of two subjects who had been involved in an alleged road rage incident
(with a gun possibly involved). Multiple officers pointed their weapons initially and in
controlled fashion as they directed the cooperative parties to emerge from the vehicle
and submit to handcuffing.
• Multiple officers responded to the parking lot of a mall area after the license plate of a
stolen vehicle (which had been carjacked the day before) was detected by cameras.
A second car that was affiliated with the stolen car was nearby, and all seven
individuals in the two cars were ultimately taken into custody after officers followed
the vehicles and conducted a coordinated felony traffic stop. Three officers and two
detectives (a subset of the overall PAPD personnel on scene) pointed their firearms
at the outset of the contact with the subjects, based on the alleged crime and reports
of a possible gun.
• Officers responded to the lobby area of a motel with information about a wanted
subject who was experiencing a mental health concern. In response to the man's
demeanor and ambiguous hand motions, one officer briefly pointed a rifle at the
subject while giving directions; the man was extremely compliant.
• A supervisor responded along with several other officers to the apprehension in
daytime traffic of a stolen vehicle. Officers surrounded the car and several withdrew
their firearms, though only one pointed it at the subject driver, who surrendered
without further incident.
As mentioned above, the supervisory reviews (which now include a formal memo) ranged in
their thoroughness and attention to detail. For the shorter ones, some of this was a function
of the straightforward nature of the incidents themselves. In other instances, though, the
54
concision gave the analysis a perfunctory quality.62 And there were examples where issues
were identified without an attendant action item for follow-up.63
Conversely, a few of the supervisory evaluations showed the potential value of the process
as not only an accountability measure but also another opportunity to scrutinize and
improve upon performance more generally. One memo relating to the mid-day traffic stop of
a stolen vehicle on a busy street identified five separate tactical or procedural concerns –
and described the relevant managerial steps taken in response. Two others noted
deficiencies in adherence to the body-worn camera policy by one or more involved officers;
these were also addressed.
Profanity – a longtime issue on our review of PAPD cases generally – continued to figure in
these specific encounters, with four of the nine featuring some element of aggressive
language. While there is a difference between gratuitous vulgarity and the words that
sometimes emerge in a more intense and adrenalized context, the exceptions should not
swallow the rule established by policy. To the Department's credit, it is noting these events
with apparent diligence, and we encourage the continued effort to monitor and hopefully
dissuade.
Overall, PAPD appears to be settling in to its new "pointed firearm" protocol in constructive
ways. We consider it a useful addition to the agency's efforts to evaluate and improve upon
officer performance.
62 One memo, which was completed quite belatedly after an apparent lag in initial identification, was
just a few lines long and did not address a second officer's apparent weapon point in the context of a
high-risk traffic stop.
63 PAPD notes that there is currently no expectation that supervisors include the follow up action in
these reports. However, consistent with our overarching philosophy of documented completeness,
we recommend that PAPD advise their supervisors to report any informal action in the
memorandum.
1 | P a g e
DATE: APRIL 10, 2024
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHIEF ANDREW BINDER
SUBJECT: USE OF FORCE REPORT SUPPLEMENT TO IPA REPORT
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.
Consistent the practice established in the May 2023 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 July 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023.
Use of Force Cases
From July 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023, the Police Department responded to more than 19,600
calls for service and effected more than 600 arrests. During that time, there were three cases where
force requiring a “Supervisor’s Report on Use of Force” was used. The IPA’s reviews of those cases will
appear in a future report, as all three of them occurred in the final eight weeks of 2023 and the
administrative review of the incidents had not been completed in time for inclusion into the current
report.
The race of the subjects upon whom force was used was Hispanic (2) and Asian.
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 July 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023, officers pointed a firearm at a person on eleven
occasions.
The current IPA report includes a review of nine incidents during which officers pointed a firearm at a
person: two occurred in 2022, three occurred in the first half of 2023, and four occurred in the second
half of 2023. In their review of these nine 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 nine incidents described in the current IPA report, the race of the subjects at whom a
firearm was pointed were white, Hispanic, white, Black (two people), white, Hispanic and unknown (two
people), Black (seven people), Black, and Hispanic.
The seven remaining cases from the second half of 2023 continue to be in the administrative review
process and will be sent to the IPA as soon as that process is completed.
July – December 2023 Use of Force Summary
Type of Force Number of Cases Status of IPA Review
Physical Strength 2 Will appear in future IPA report
Chemical Agent 0
TASER 0
Baton 0
Less-Lethal Projectile 1 Will appear in future IPA report
Canine 0
Firearm 0
1 | P a g e
DATE: APRIL 10, 2024
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHIEF ANDREW BINDER
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO IPA RECOMMENDATIONS IN REPORT COVERING INVESTIGATIONS AS
OF NOVEMBER 30, 2023
RECOMMENDATION 1: PAPD should assign administrative investigations to outside investigators when
factors such as failure to report force, multiple involved subjects, and discovery delays suggest inherent
complications.
The Department agrees and will assign administrative investigations to outside investigators in
appropriate circumstances, which could include cases with the above complicating factors.
RECOMMENDATION 2: PAPD should develop protocols that instruct internal investigators to document
any discussions with the District Attorney regarding potential criminal investigations into alleged officer
misconduct.
The Department agrees that such discussions should be documented as appropriate for the investigation
being conducted.
RECOMMENDATION 3: PAPD should develop protocols that call for the completion and resolution of
administrative investigations absent special circumstances, even when it could delay them because of
outstanding criminal proceedings or other tolling provisions.
The Department agrees and will continue to strive to complete and resolve administrative investigations
as expeditiously as possible, considering all of the relevant circumstances, and proceeding in the City’s
best interests.
RECOMMENDATION 4: PAPD should instruct internal affairs investigators to ensure that any potential
performance issues are identified and addressed in the investigative report.
The Department agrees and will reinforce with investigators that any potential performance issues are
identified and addressed in investigative reports.
2 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATION 5: PAPD should work to devise an effective system so that officer performance
issues that undermine a criminal prosecution can be communicated back to the agency for any
appropriate investigation and corrective action.
The Department agrees and will work with court liaison staff and the District Attorney’s Office to access
the feasibility of an effective procedure to communicate such issues for any appropriate follow-up action.
RECOMMENDATION 6: PAPD should continue to identify and promote problem-solving strategies that
result in less conflict and reduce potential use of force situations.
The Department agrees and will continue to emphasize problem-solving strategies designed to reduce
conflict and de-escalate situations whenever possible.
RECOMMENDATION 7: PAPD should use this or similar scenarios to reinforce to officers how their use
of discretion should be wisely employed and to avoid taking any action that could be interpreted as
retaliatory.
The Department agrees and will stress the wise use of discretion and the avoidance of actions that could
be perceived as retaliatory in nature.
RECOMMENDATION 8: When information emerges during an internal investigation about potential
shortcomings in managerial response to the underlying performance issues in the case, those issues
should be pursued through additional lines of inquiry – including follow-up interviews of named
personnel.
The Department agrees and will ensure that future investigations include such additional lines of inquiry
whenever appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION 9: PAPD should devise protocols so that every claim that alleges misconduct is
thoroughly reviewed and investigated as if a civilian complaint had been received.
The Department has since created a procedure where a captain evaluates every claim received, ensures
that any alleged misconduct is thoroughly reviewed, and initiates any necessary follow-up investigation
(to include a complaint investigation if warranted).
RECOMMENDATION 10: In future negotiations with the PAPOA, the City should consider the viability of
other options than binding arbitration for appealing officer discipline.
The Department does not have a response to this recommendation, as it pertains to labor negotiations
that are in the ultimate purview of the City Council.
3 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATION 11: PAPD should provide annual training to its officers and supervisors about what
constitutes a use of force, what is reportable force and how it should be documented, what the review
of force process entails, and documentation requirements about alleged force and/or injury from
arrestees.
The Department agrees and provided this specific training to all supervisors in December 2023, and to all
sworn personnel in January 2024. The Department will continue to provide similar refresher training on
an annual basis, as well as continue our longstanding practice of regular and ongoing team-level review
of critical policies (such as use of force).
RECOMMENDATION 12: PAPD should review its training recordkeeping and compliance protocols to
ensure that newly promoted supervisors complete the POST-mandated training in an appropriate timely
fashion.
All current supervisors are in compliance with the POST-mandated training, and the Department has a
protocol in place to send future newly-promoted supervisors to the training in a timely fashion.
RECOMMENDATION 13: PAPD leadership should formalize and promote its expectation that supervisors
take advantage of MAV and body-worn-camera footage as an aid to reviewing officer performance in
the field.
The Department agrees and has a policy in place that governs the supervisory review of field-based video
evidence, with the expectation that the evidence be accessed in accordance with that policy as an aid to
review officer performance.