Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2504-4480CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Monday, April 21, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 5:30 PM     Agenda Item     16.Independent Police Auditor's (IPA) Report of Review of Investigations as of November 2024 and Police Department Use of Force Report for July - November 2024 City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: INFORMATION REPORT Lead Department: City Manager Meeting Date: April 21, 2025 Report #:2504-4480 TITLE Independent Police Auditor's (IPA) Report of Review of Investigations as of November 2024 and Police Department Use of Force Report for July - November 2024 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.1 The following report transmits the Independent Police Auditor Report on Investigations Completed as of November 2024. For reference, the prior IPA report was published for November 4, 2024 as an Informational Item2. The Police Department’s website lists all past Independent Police Auditor Reports, here3. Attachment A contains the IPA report for investigations completed as of November 2024. 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 time period of July – November 2024. The Police Department’s responses to IPA report recommendations are included here as Attachment C. Consistent with standing practice, this report is issued as informational for the City Council and the public. Typically, the report is issued a few weeks before the City Council study session with the IPA, however, the timing of the spring 2025 materials led to the items being published simultaneously. The previous process will resume with the fall report. The purpose of the City 1 The City’s contract with OIR has been extended and will be extended once more to allow staff to conduct an RFP in 2025 for the IPA work consistent with City procurement procedures. 2 The November Independent Police Auditor Report: Item #14 for November 4, 2024 City Council: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14481 3 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 Council discussion with the IPA is to discuss general trends in criminal justice and policing, policy and training matters, recommendations made by OIR Group, and other City Council concerns. These discussions with the IPA and City Council are not for the purpose of elaborating on the published reviews of specific incidents and should not include discussion of personnel matters prohibited by law. The IPA will be discussing general topics the City Council expresses interest in periodically discussing. Process to File a Complaint to the IPA The public can find more information about filing a complaint through the link here: 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) 821-0586 Email: Michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com Or mail to: OIR Group 1443 E. Washington Blvd., #234 Pasadena, CA 91104 FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The OIR Group is already contracted with the City and this report did not incur any additional expenses. 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 as of November 2024 Attachment B: Police Department Use of Force Report for July 2024 – November 2024 Attachment C: Police Department Responses to IPA Report, April 2025 APPROVED BY: Ed Shikada, City Manager 1 INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITORS’ REPORT (Review of Investigations Completed as of 11-30-24) Presented to the Honorable City Council City of Palo Alto 2025 Prepared by: Michael Gennaco and Stephen Connolly Independent Police Auditors for the City of Palo Alto 2 Introduction This latest iteration of our semi-annual audit reports covers a number of cases finalized by the Palo Alto Police Department in the latter part of 2024. As always, our goal has a few components. These include transparency for the public about important but largely confidential review processes, an assessment of the Department's handling of these matters in terms of investigative quality and outcomes, and an opportunity to share recommendations that will ideally enhance the effectiveness of PAPD operations in the future. The "pool" of completed investigations for this cycle includes the following: • Five public complaint cases alleging officer misconduct; • One complaint generated internally; and • Four incidents in which one or more officers pointed firearms while taking enforcement action. None of the misconduct cases resulted in a formal finding that policy was violated. As discussed below, we differed from the Department in one of those instances as to that "bottom line" outcome. (This was a case involving an officer's phone call on behalf of a friend who was in conflict with a former spouse over custody issues.) More broadly – and at times encouragingly – our evaluations focused on the Department's identification of and response to performance issues that, while not constituting formal misconduct, nonetheless deserve attention. We have often touted the importance of "holistic" managerial consideration of complaints and force incidents, and the value of treating these incidents as opportunities to have a positive influence on performance. PAPD has long acknowledged this point, but its efforts to document non-disciplinary issue-spotting and intervention have been uneven. We are pleased by noticeable improvement in this regard – and the case discussions below are careful both to reinforce the effective examples and point out additional possibilities where relevant. The internal complaint emerged quite a while after the alleged misconduct: an inappropriate remark that was attributed to a Department supervisor in the context of a PAPD social event. When the concern came to the attention of leadership, a third-party independent investigation was initiated into the incident. Numerous witness statements were gathered, and the resulting evidence failed to substantiate the claim. As for the "pointed firearm" cases, the four incidents covered here collectively show an evolution in the effectiveness of the Department's relatively new protocol for documenting and assessing these events. Our sense is that the officers are appropriately restrained in their decision-making, and that the review process is increasingly efficient and robust. 3 We provide police oversight in a number of jurisdictions, with not only varying roles and responsibilities from place to place, but also varying levels of engagement from the public and elected officials. We are appreciative of Palo Alto's longstanding and distinctive interest in accountable, effective policing, which manifests itself in several ways. And we extend our thanks again to the Police Department for its full cooperation with our process and its willingness to engage constructively – even when we "agree to disagree." 4 External Complaint Investigations Case One: Complaint Relating to Conflict of Interest Factual Overview The complainant became concerned when her ex-husband texted messages to her and her family that were harassing and inappropriate and indicative of an irrational state of mind. She called the police of a neighboring city and asked them to conduct a welfare check on the ex-husband. According to the complainant, the officer from the neighboring city did not travel to the ex-husband’s residence upon learning that he had firearms and instead talked to him over the phone. The complainant said she was advised by the officer that the ex-husband seemed a little “off” and to apply for a temporary restraining order. The complainant also decided to go to school and pick up her son, even though the prior arrangement was for the ex-husband to do so. When the ex-husband learned that his son had been picked up by the complainant, he called a PAPD officer with whom he was friends; that officer was on-duty and responded to the school. The officer later reported that the ex-husband wanted the officer to go to the complainant’s home and advise her that her actions that day were violative of a court order relating to the custody arrangement. Instead, the officer called the complainant on a personal cell phone, mentioned being an officer, and advised her of the need to follow any court order. During the phone conversation, the complainant endeavored to explain the motivation behind her decision and her concern about entrusting her son to her ex-husband considering his recently exhibited behavior. Towards the end of the conversation, the complainant asked if the officer was friends with her ex-husband. The officer acknowledged the relationship and shared being presently at the school with the ex- husband. Following the conversation, the complainant talked with the officer’s supervisor and registered her concerns over the officer's involvement in light of the personal relationship with the ex-husband. The supervisor patiently listened to the complainant’s concerns and indicated that the phone call should not have happened. The supervisor also apologized to the complainant considering that she had a disappointing interaction with PAPD. Because the complainant had recorded the call from the officer, the supervisor asked her to send along a copy of the recording. The supervisor also emailed the complainant some complaint forms to be filled out. Within days of this interaction, the complainant, who had been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, was admitted to the hospital; less than a month later, she passed away. 5 In the meantime, the supervisor listened to the recording and reportedly mentioned the complaint to a higher-ranking officer but took no further action. Shortly after the death of the complainant, the complainant’s sister re-engaged with PAPD regarding the initial complaint. A different PAPD supervisor interviewed the sister (and the complainant’s mother) and opened a formal investigation. PAPD Investigation and Review The supervisor who conducted the investigation found that the essence of the complaint was largely corroborated, with the officer admitting to the contact with the original complainant. The officer took the position that advising the complainant of her responsibilities was merely informational and characterized the involvement as an attempt to provide information to her and to help avoid any serious problems.1 While the investigative supervisor found that the officer had used “poor judgment” in becoming involved in this matter, he did not believe that the actions violated any current Departmental policy.2 The investigator noted that the officer handled the call professionally and was considerate during the phone conversation. The investigator concluded that while it was a poor decision for the officer to engage in the matter in the first place, the act was not a violation of policy. The investigator also made some limited inquiry into why there was no follow-up by the initial supervisor when the initial complaint was made. The initial supervisor indicated that the complainant had not returned the complaint forms. The initial supervisor also described reviewing the telephone conversation and concluding that there was nothing about the call that warranted further action, other than advising the higher-ranking supervisor of the complaint. The supervisor who reviewed the investigative report concurred with the findings of “exonerated” for the officer. However, and creditably, that supervisor requested the investigator to have a training conversation with the officer regarding the judgment displayed in this incident. The supervisor found that the perception or appearance of impropriety existed. And significantly, the supervisor committed to a training conversation with the chain of command regarding when it may be appropriate to follow up with a complainant if the complainant does not return complaint forms. 1 The investigator was advised by the complainant’s sister that the complainant had reported that the officer had previously indicated to a supervisor that the call had been a "big mistake." Unfortunately, this information was not pursued by the investigator. 6 IPA Review IPA reviewed the investigative materials, which included the initial phone call between the complainant and the officer and a formal interview of the subject officer. IPA disagreed with the Departmental finding that the conduct of the officer did not implicate current PAPD policies, particularly the Department’s Performance, Conduct, and Incidents of Personal Interest policies: 340.5.4 PERFORMANCE i. Any act on or off duty that brings discredit to this department. 340.5.5 CONDUCT m. Any other on or off duty conduct which any member knows or reasonably should know is unbecoming a member of this department, is contrary to good order, efficiency, or morale, or tends to reflect unfavorably upon this department or its members. 385.8.2 INCIDENTS OF PERSONAL INTEREST Officers should refrain from handling incidents of personal interest (e.g., family or neighbor disputes) and should remain neutral. In such circumstances officers should call the responsible agency to handle the matter. In our view, the phone call made to the complainant by the officer brought “discredit” and tended to “reflect unfavorably” upon the PAPD, particularly in light of the officer's acknowledgment of friendship with the opposing party, response to the school, making of the call at the urging of the ex-husband, and being with the ex-husband when contacting the complainant. Certainly, any value that the offering of “advice” by the officer to the complainant may have had was entirely eviscerated when she learned that the “neutral” police officer was calling at the behest of a friend: the ex-husband. While we agree that the officer’s call was conducted professionally, it was also certainly reasonable for the complainant to conclude that the officer was not a neutral actor. It is important to also note that as the complainant explained the basis for her decision to pick up her child from school, the officer did not further explore, investigate, or refer the safety concerns relayed by her. Had the ex-husband requested a call for service from a PAPD officer (as opposed to calling his friend the police officer), that officer could well have been more attentive to the broader concerns relayed by the complainant and potential follow up regarding them. Moreover, that call for service would have been documented in some way. Most significantly, having a neutral officer respond to the call would have prevented the complainant from understandably feeling that the Police 7 Department’s representative was siding with her ex-husband during a tense and difficult time in her life. While current PAPD policy was available to address the acts of the involved officer, it is apparent that more guidance needs to be provided personnel about avoiding similar conflicts of interest. All PAPD employees should be advised unequivocally that they should not insert themselves in matters involving friends or family members unless there are extremely exigent circumstances. This unfortunate incident demonstrates that a clear policy advising this is necessary. RECOMMENDATION #1: PAPD should devise policy proscribing officers from becoming involved in police activity involving friends and family members unless there are extraordinary circumstances. Another issue of concern was the failure of the initial supervisor and chain of command to follow up with the complainant after she called the station. That failure was of particular note considering the initial supervisor’s expressed concern about the officer’s reported involvement in the phone call, and the assurances that were provided as to further action regarding the complaint. It appears that because the complaint forms sent to the complainant were not returned, the initial supervisor and chain of command dropped the matter.3 There was no follow-up with the complainant to ask if she needed assistance in completing the forms, even though the initial supervisor learned in the initial call that the complainant had serious health problems. In fact, had the complainant’s sister not followed up with the Department after the complainant died, there likely would not have been any investigation into the incident. As the reviewing supervisor indicated, the fact that complaint paperwork is not received should not forestall an investigation into the allegations that are clear and known to the Department by other means. In fact, PAPD policy expressly states that with regard to “withdrawn” complaints, the Chief of Police should consider whether to pursue the allegations anyway. Best practices further teach that once a police agency becomes aware of the nature of a concern, it is incumbent upon that agency to investigate the matter, regardless of whether the complaint paperwork has been completed. That practice should become routine policy in Palo Alto. RECOMMENDATION #2: PAPD should devise a policy that instructs supervisors to initiate investigations of alleged misconduct even when a complaint form is not completed or returned. 3 The lack of a written submission was presumably a function of the complainant's serious, and imminently fatal, health condition. 8 Upon completion of the investigation, the Department sent the complainant’s sister a letter reporting that while the investigator found that the actions of the officer presented an “irregular” situation, the officer was exonerated of any policy violation. This letter left this person with an erroneous – and presumably quite discouraging – belief that nothing was done about the complaint, even though the officer was counseled about poor judgment in making the call. Informing the complainant of this remedial action would have better captured the Department’s documented concerns about the conduct of its officer. RECOMMENDATION #3: PAPD should advise complainants when it takes other remedial action short of discipline. Case Two: Complaint About Handling of DUI Investigation Factual Overview A PAPD officer reported observing the complainant driving erratically and decided to detain him for a DUI investigation. The officer then called a more experienced officer to the scene. The officer reported smelling alcohol after asking the complainant to step out of the car. The officer further reported that the complainant was not able to successfully perform exercises in the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) that were administered at the scene. The officer then asked the complainant to blow into a Preliminary Alcohol Screening test (PAS) and reported that the two results showed a blood-alcohol reading of 0.1 and .09% – over the legal limit. Based on this field investigation, the officer arrested the complainant for Driving Under the Influence of alcohol. When the officers arrived at the station, they gave the complainant a breath sample that was processed on a more sophisticated machine, and the blood alcohol reading came back repeatedly as .000. Based on this conflict in breath test results, the officers discussed the matter with a supervisor, and the decision was to not pursue charges. At that time, the complainant was released and advised to take a ride share to the tow yard to recover his car. Later that morning, PAPD’s expert on DUI processes reviewed the PAS machine readout and discovered that the officers had misread the readings by a factor of ten, with the actual display showing blood alcohol content of .01 and .009%. Several weeks later, the complainant filed a Public Records Act (PRA) request for the body-worn camera and in-car videos of his arrest. In that request, the complainant 9 alleged that he was wrongfully arrested and that the officers had lied to or misled him multiple times based on personal biases. PAPD Review Based on the allegations made in his PRA request, the Department decided to initiate an investigation into the incident to determine whether any violations of law or policy had occurred. Based on a thorough review and analysis, the investigator determined that the involved officers had not intentionally lied or misled the complainant and that the decision to arrest was not based on personal bias. While the investigator concluded that the subject officers had committed no violations of law or policy and had treated the complainant professionally and with respect, he did find numerous performance issues regarding how the DUI investigation was conducted. These shortcomings were attributed to a lack of experience and training in how to conduct such an investigation; it was expressly noted that this was the first DUI investigation that the officer had conducted. The investigator found that the officer was not aware of proper procedures to correctly explain or demonstrate the field sobriety tests, and did not demonstrate a working knowledge of DUI laws or how to properly use the PAS device. Specifically, the investigator noted that contrary to Department guidance, the officer did not review the video footage before writing the arrest report, used another officer’s report to “cut and paste” sections of the narrative, and did not proofread the report before submitting it. The first level reviewer concurred with the investigative findings. The reviewer also noted that the officer had not attended a standardized Field Sobriety Exercise (FSE) course prior to this event. The reviewer also concluded that proper use and interpretation of the PAS device, would likely have eliminated concerns that the complainant was driving under the influence. The reviewer noted that, upon learning of this incident, the arresting officer was scheduled for and then attended the FSE course. The reviewer also noted following up with the field supervisor, regarding the incident, advising that in this situation PAPD should have immediately driven the person to the tow yard, paid the tow fee, and ensured the return of the car.4 Finally, the reviewer recommended that PAPD consider creating a protocol requiring officers to attend a POST-approved SFE training course prior to being authorized to conduct intoxicated driving investigations for the Department. PAPD’s second level reviewer concurred with the previous recommended findings and further recommend that the arresting officer review current PAPD policy on impaired 4 We have been advised that the arrestee was eventually reimbursed for the tow and storage fee. 10 driving and report preparation. The second level reviewer also recommended that the support officer be instructed on the proper operation of a PAS machine. This reviewer recommended that PAPD should endeavor to continue to place focus on impaired driving investigations during the field training program, including having an officer experienced in those investigations assisting. Finally, the second level reviewer recommended that, when possible, all new officers in the patrol division should attend a specialized SFST course within two years of graduating from the field training program. A PAPD command staff member also sent a letter to the complainant advising that the findings were “exonerated” regarding the detention and “unfounded” for the allegations of dishonesty and bias. The letter further noted that the Department routinely provides feedback on how an officer could improve performance, including further training. Commendably, the author of the letter also apologized on behalf of PAPD for what the complainant experienced the night of the incident. IPA Review IPA reviewed the investigative and review materials including the body-worn camera footage of the incident and the interviews of the complainant and officers. Based on our independent review, we agreed that the performance issues identified were problematic but did not rise to the level of a violation of policy. We also agreed that the source of the performance issues largely stemmed from a lack of training. We specifically noted that in this case, even though the individual who made a PRA request did not file a formal complaint, the Department reviewed his allegations and determined to initiate an investigation into the incident. In fact, the complaint forms in this case were completed by the investigator. This initiative and course of action stands in sharp and positive contrast to what occurred in Case One (discussed above), where the absence of a follow-up written submission had resulted in disappointing inaction regarding a valid complaint. Regarding the case itself, we appreciated the level of detail and analysis by the investigator in this case and concurred with his findings. We also appreciated the level of review and recommendations for non-disciplinary remediation for the involved officers and the station supervisor as well as the systemic suggestions. One set of systemic recommendations focused on the need to ensure that new officers have the requisite training to conduct intoxicated driving investigations before doing so, with the two reviewers suggesting somewhat different approaches. The Department should adopt either or both options recommended by its supervisory staff to achieve this important objective. RECOMMENDATION # 4: PAPD should reform its protocols to ensure that before a new officer is authorized to conduct impaired driving investigations, 11 the officer should have the requisite training and supervision to effectively do so. Finally, as in case number one, we were struck by the Department’s reticence to advise the complainant that while it found no violations of policy, both training and systemic intervention and reform did occur. These non-disciplinary interventions are indicative of a progressive approach to accountability and improvement and the Department should not be leery about advising complainants of them when they occur. Case Three: Complaint about Officer Response to Residence Factual Overview The complainant in this case was a 74-year-old male whose recent banking activities prompted concern for his own well-being (with the thought that he could potentially be a victim of fraud). When two uniformed officers went to his house to check in with him at the bank's request, he found their presence to be unwelcome and agitating. They explained that they were not accusing him of anything, but instead trying to ensure that he was not being mistreated by someone else. The man insisted that his attempted financial transactions were made of his own volition, and that he was in fact frustrated with the bank for presenting an obstacle to his wishes. The officers were on scene for approximately seven minutes before leaving at the man's demonstrative urging. Soon after the officers left, the man spoke with a supervisor by phone and expressed his unhappiness with the officers' appearance. He said a single plainclothes detective would have been sufficient and less likely to embarrass him in front of his neighbors. Asked by the supervisor about what he'd like to see happen, he said the officers should return to apologize, and he ultimately became angry with the supervisor as well. Although the man did not follow up with a written complaint, the Department reviewed the incident formally. PAPD Investigation The case was handled as a supervisory inquiry, which consisted of a review of the body- worn camera recordings that were made by the involved officers. Based on that evidence, the handling supervisor ascertained that the officers had handled the call professionally and in a manner consistent with Department expectations,5 in spite of the man's unhappiness with their inquiries. 5 The reviewing supervisor even went so far as to print a "dispatch protocol" template that showed that a two-officer response was the standard deployment for a welfare check call for service. 12 IPA Review We reviewed the relevant body-worn camera recording of the interaction with the complainant, as well as the documentation related to the call for service, and we concur with PAPD's findings and disposition. We also noted that, creditably, the supervisor assessed the brief verbal expression of exasperation by one of the officers that was captured on the body-worn camera recording as they were walking away. The supervisor determined that it was neither directed at nor heard by the man, and that no further action was needed. We concurred – but found the attention to detail and the recognition of the potential issue to be commendable. Case Four: Complaint about Officer Performance in an Arrest Case Factual Overview A male in his sixties was involved in a confrontation with another, younger man at a gas station that turned physical. The two eventually stopped fighting, and both waited for PAPD officers to respond to the scene. The ensuing investigation involved questioning of the involved parties as well as third- party witnesses, an assessment of their respective physical conditions, and a review of the closed-circuit television (CCTV) recording that had been captured by the gas station. After evaluating the evidence, the handling officer came to the conclusion that the older man – who would go on to be the complainant in the administrative case – was the "dominant aggressor." The officer wrote him a citation for misdemeanor battery based on the other man's willingness to make a Citizen's Arrest, and both parties were allowed to leave from there. Several months later, when his criminal case had been dismissed, the man made a formal complaint to the Department. He was interviewed at the police station by a supervisor, and expressed concerns about the quality of the investigation. He believed that the officers had improperly favored the other participant in the fight and cited a few different individual ways in which he thought the investigation was inadequate. This was based on his recollections from the scene (where he believed he had not been afforded a full chance to offer his side of the story), as well as his review of the body-worn camera recordings (which he had received as part of the discovery process in his criminal case). One particular source of frustration was that the CCTV recording had not been preserved as evidence; he believed that it would have belied any assertion that he was the primary instigator/combatant. 13 PAPD Investigation The case was handled as a supervisory inquiry investigation; it was conducted by the supervisor who spoke with the complainant at some length when the complaint was filed. The review of body-worn camera recordings from the three responding officers, as well as the relevant police report, sufficed for the determination to be made that the officers should be exonerated of the allegation that they had investigated the incident inadequately. The officers' approach was found to be sufficiently thorough to support the characterizations of "victim" and "suspect" that resulted, and their overall handling of the call was basically consistent with training and expectations. The supervisor did note three performance issues that warranted further attention (while falling short of constituting a policy violation). The first related to an interview technique of the involved parties; the primary officer spoke to the complainant first, and then summarized elements of that statement as a starting point for his questioning of the other party. The supervisor correctly observed that a better practice would have been to start the second interview with open-ended questions, rather than potentially influencing the subject's responses by alluding to the other party's description. The second issue related to the CCTV recording. Although the primary officer viewed the video at the scene, (and used its contents to help reach a fault determination for the fight) the evidence was never downloaded or forwarded to the Department in spite of a request to the relevant employee. Nor did anyone from PAPD follow up after the initial call for service. Although the primary officer's own camera was activated during this part of the investigation, and while the officer narrated an assessment of the contents as the video played, the gas station computer screen did not show up as viewable on the officer's BWC recording. Lastly, the supervisor's memo noted that, except for pictures of his hands, the officers had not photographed the complainant to capture any potential signs of injury on his part – a concern he later raised. Ideally, the evidence-gathering would have been more comprehensive in this regard (though, per the officer's reports, the other party's injuries were more visible). This prompted the supervisor to flag three different recommended training points: the use of BWC's as potential aid to evidence capture, the importance of follow-through when it comes to relying on private parties for the production of surveillance recordings, and the need to photograph both parties' injuries (or claimed injuries) in a mutual fight situation. 14 IPA Review After reviewing the officer recordings and other available evidence in the case, we concurred with PAPD's core findings: the officers handled the initial investigation with appropriate diligence and objectivity, and the decision to characterize the complainant as the aggressor was a reasonable one in light of the evidence. Accordingly, we found the decision to exonerate the officers to be reasonable. Having said that, we also find that the Department's identification of three separate shortcomings is noteworthy in a few ways. First, it exemplifies the notion of holistic scrutiny that we have long advocated. Here, the Department has gone well beyond the important but limited "bottom line" issue of whether policy was violated, and has treated the complaint as an opportunity to evaluate performance and remediate in non- disciplinary and constructive ways. At the same time, effective issue-spotting is ideally accompanied by responsive action items, either at the individual officer level or throughout the agency. Here, the Department followed through with documented training to address the relevant points. Lastly, the three flaws in the overall handling of the call for service, while neither intentional nor outcome-changing, did lend credence to the complainant's perception that he had been at a disadvantage in vindicating his version of events. (This was particularly true in relation to the CCTV recording – although the officer's "real time" narration of observations in the gas station office, as captured on the relevant BWC recording, suggested otherwise.)6 The notification letter he received, however, was technically accurate but failed to reflect the totality of the Departments' findings, or to otherwise validate the complainant's perspective. In our view, such a step is both possible and advisable in a situation like this. RECOMMENDATION # 5: PAPD should consider ways it can acknowledge shortcomings in officer performance that may have adversely affected a complainant's experience, even when these do not rise to the level of a policy violation. 6 As noted above, the criminal charges against the complainant were eventually dismissed. It is unclear whether the missing evidence (CCTV footage, photographs) contributed to that decision in this case, but supporting an arrest is a primary reason that a thorough collection of evidence is critical. 15 Case Five: Complaint about Traffic Stop and Related Officer Conduct Factual Overview After initially being stopped for traffic violations, as young woman received a "fix-it" ticket for the suspended registration on her vehicle. The officer exercised discretion in not towing the car but then had to immediately pull the woman over again when she attempted to drive off (having misunderstood the officer's instructions). This unexpected second stop seemingly exacerbated her unease over the first stop, and she called 911 to ask for a supervisor. A PAPD supervisor did respond and spoke to her for several minutes. This included the supervisor's explanation of the reasoning behind some of the officer behaviors that were concerning to her, and clarification that the car was not eligible to be driven by anyone until the registration issues had been addressed. She seemed to appreciate the explanation, and the contact ended amicably. A few months passed, and then a second alleged incident occurred: the woman called 911 again and said she had been approached by the original officer while she was at a grocery store in another city. She claimed the officer (in plain clothes) looked at her for an extended time, and then approached her, referenced the traffic stop, and asked for her phone number. A supervisor contacted her to follow up on this issue after receiving the information from the dispatcher. The complainant again described her new concern, and also referenced the stop(s) that had occurred months earlier. The Department opened an investigation into both matters. PAPD Investigation The case was handled as a supervisory inquiry investigation. The handling supervisor was able to address the alleged off-duty contact at the store relatively straightforwardly: both the supervisor and the officer had been working at the relevant date and time, and the supervisor was directly aware that the officer was physically in Palo Alto and occupied when the claimed encounter occurred. Accordingly, that allegation was unfounded. As for the traffic stop, a review of the body-worn camera evidence established that the officer's handling of the encounter had been patient, professional, and consistent with Department expectations. The specific issues identified by the woman as concerns were either appropriate in the context of the stop or not supported by the evidence as having occurred. That allegation was exonerated. 16 The supervisor also correctly noted that the officer's instructions at the end of the initial traffic stop were ambiguous. Ironically, the officer was intending to exercise discretion in her favor by refraining from ordering the car to be towed. But she understandably had the mistaken belief that she could therefore drive the car away and rectify the registration status at a subsequent point. The case memo recommended responsive training on "clear and concise directives"7 to motorists at the end of a traffic stop. IPA Review After our own review of the available materials (including the body-worn camera recordings), we concurred with the Department's assessment of this complaint. While officer actions in the context of a traffic stop can be unsettling, we found nothing inappropriate or untoward in this officer's actions during the encounter. And the subsequent confusion that contributed to her driving away mistakenly was unfortunate but certainly not a matter of formal misconduct. Internal Complaint Investigation Case: Allegation of Inappropriate Comment Factual Overview A PAPD employee stated at a meeting that a PAPD supervisor had allegedly made an inappropriate remark at a Department social function when the supervisor saw a group of African American PAPD employees and their guests at the event and said words to the effect of: “I guess we have the diversity box checked.” When PAPD learned of the allegation (some twenty months after the event), it commissioned an outside investigator to conduct an independent investigation. PAPD Investigation and Review The investigator interviewed numerous potential witnesses to the incident. While some witnesses recall hearing some comment about “diversity”, none of them were able to say with any degree what the comment was or more critically, who had made the comment. Several of the witnesses claimed that they were advised by others who had heard the comment, but when the investigators went to those individuals, they reported little or no recollection of the comment nor any attribution of the comment to the supervisor in question. As a result, the investigator recommended a finding of “unfounded” regarding the allegations. 7 As with the discussion in Case Two (above), it is not clear from the case file that this worthwhile observation was translated into action. 17 PAPD concurred with the investigator’s recommended findings. IPA Review IPA reviewed the investigative report and found the investigation to be thorough. This was especially reflected in the extensive interviews conducted with each of the potential witnesses. Certainly, the passage of time before the allegation was reported to PAPD made recall especially difficult. Accordingly, IPA concurred with the disposition reached in this matter. "Pointed Firearm" Incidents In keeping with a new protocol that is now in its third year, PAPD provided us with review packages for the completed managerial assessments of encounters that involved the pointing of a gun by one or more officers. There were four separate events within this audit period. Below is a summary of the context for the deployments, along with the Department's supervisory assessment of each. 1. Two male subjects who had been engaged in strong-arm robberies of Postal Service workers became the subject of a vehicle pursuit before getting in a traffic collision. An officer briefly pursued one of them on foot before pointing his weapon and securing that person's compliance. No issues were identified in the supervisory review. 2. A license plate reader indicated that a vehicle connected with a homicide suspect from another jurisdiction was in Palo Alto. Multiple PAPD officers were involved in the ensuing "high-risk traffic stop," and one officer pointed a gun at the subject while providing cover for partners. The subject was compliant and the arrest occurred without incident. No issues were identified in the supervisory review. 3. An assault victim, who had been struck and kicked several times and whose knife had been taken, provided 911 with a description of his attacker. 3 different PAPD officers, driving separately, located and converged on the subject. Two officers briefly pointed their firearm while giving initial commands to the man, who was compliant. The supervisory review made note of the fact that one officer added profanities to the repeated instructions for the subject to get on the ground. The supervisory cited the PAPD policy exception to the general prohibition against profane language as being 18 applicable here: it was a "deliberate verbal tactic with the specific intent to gain compliance or avoid a physical confrontation."8 4. Officers responded after a 911 call from a homeowner who, while away from the location, became aware from security cameras that multiple individuals were apparently breaking into her residence. Several officers went to the scene, and upon arrival witnessed subjects apparently fleeing from the backyard area and into surrounding properties in the neighborhood. During the ensuing search, three different subjects were located in hiding places nearby, and in each situation one or more officers briefly pointed a gun while giving commands and ensuring that no safety threat existed. All three (along with one additional subject) were taken into custody with minimal difficulty. The supervisory memo was methodical and detailed in tracking the circumstances of each example. All were found to be consistent with training and warranted by the respective situations. Within in the overall handling of the call for service, there were two instances noted in which different officers' body-worn cameras were inactivated (or not being worn) at certain times. This was a concern that we noted in our last audit report. The memo noted that other officers involved in the key encounters did record the relevant activity; nonetheless, the issue was addressed by PAPD management. IPA Analysis This grouping of cases followed the basic trend lines that we have noted in the last couple of audit reports regarding this category. We continue to concur with PAPD's "bottom line" findings that the individual instances of weapon-pointing are justified by the circumstances and consistent with Department expectations. The volume of incidents remains low, and officer awareness of the gravity associated with firearm pointing is reflected in both the rarity of the events and their limited, controlled duration. (Officers seem notably conscientious about the importance of re-holstering once the perceived threat has been handled.) We also take favorable notice of the thoroughness of the supervisory reviews. As we noted soon after the Department's adoption of this new protocol, these incidents (like complaints or force reviews) are not only a forum for accountability but also an opportunity to assess and address officer performance more broadly. The memos that supervisors 8 As we have noted in the past, we support the PAPD policy revision that allowed for profane language in certain limited circumstances. In our view, it acknowledges – and takes ownership of – the longtime law enforcement assertion that calculated use of obscene language can be an effective tactic, while helping to ensure that the limited exception does not swallow the rule of expected professionalism. 19 now produce are detailed and, where warranted, effective in issue-spotting and remediation. The officers also seem to have "gotten the hang of it" in terms of both their restrained, conscientious weapons-handling and the detailed documentation of their actions and thought processes. (One officer even made note of the possibility that the path of a weapon muzzle may have crossed the body of a subject, though the weapon was not directly pointed at any time.). In short, the agency's new focus on this category of enforcement action has led to refinements in the field and during the review process. 1 | P a g e DATE: MARCH 27, 2025 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: POLICE CHIEF ANDREW BINDER SUBJECT: USE OF FORCE SUPPLEMENT TO MARCH 2025 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 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 with 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, 2024 thru November 30, 2024. 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 Use of Force Cases From July 1, 2024 thru December 31, 2024, the Police Department responded to more than 20,567 calls for service and effected more than 600 arrests. During that time, there were five (5) cases where force requiring a “Supervisor’s Report on Use of Force” was used, one of which fell within the IPA’s scope of administrative review. The IPA’s review of that case will appear in a future IPA report. The race of the subjects upon whom force was used during the second half of 2024 was White (2), Hispanic (2), and Other (1). July – December 2024 Use of Force Summary Type of Force Number of Cases Status of IPA Review Physical Strength 4 Not within scope Chemical Agent 0 TASER 0 Baton 0 Less-Lethal Projectile 1 Pending Canine 0 Firearm 0 Firearm Pointed at Person Cases From July 1, 2024 thru December 31, 2024, officers pointed a firearm at a person on five occasions. Three of these cases appear in the current IPA report; the fourth will appear in a future IPA report. The current IPA report includes a review of four total incidents during which officers pointed a firearm at a person. One incident occurred in the first half of 2024 but the administrative report was not completed until after July 1, 2024; the remaining three incidents occurred in the second half of 2024. In their review of these four 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 four incidents described in the current IPA report, the race of the subjects at whom a firearm was pointed were Hispanic (2), White (1), and Black (1). 1 | P a g e DATE: APRIL 3, 2025 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: POLICE CHIEF ANDREW BINDER SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO IPA RECOMMENDATIONS IN REPORT COVERING INVESTIGATIONS AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 2024 RECOMMENDATION #1: PAPD should devise policy proscribing officers from becoming involved in police activity involving friends and family members unless there are extraordinary circumstances. The Department agrees that an officer should avoid becoming involved in police activity where a personal relationship with an involved party could potentially create the appearance of a lack of objectivity. Clearly certain close personal relationships (e.g., romantic, familial) raise concerns regarding officer neutrality. At the same time, PAPD is committed to community policing, where officers are actively encouraged to involve themselves in community activities and get to know neighbors, business owners and others who work or live in Palo Alto. It is common for long- serving, effective PAPD officers to become acquainted with, and develop open lines of communication with, a considerable number of community members. In assessing the propriety of a police interaction, PAPD considers the professionalism and objectivity of an officer’s conduct (e.g., statements made, actions taken), in addition to the specific nature of any relationship the officer may have to the involved parties. RECOMMENDATION #2: PAPD should devise a policy that instructs supervisors to initiate investigations of alleged misconduct even when a complaint form is not completed or returned. The Department agrees that, consistent with existing policy, the Department should continue to initiate investigations of alleged misconduct even when a complaint form is not completed or returned. 2 | P a g e RECOMMENDATION #3: PAPD should advise complainants when it takes other remedial action short of discipline. The Department agrees that, to the extent possible without violating state law protection of officers’ personnel records, the Department should advise complainants when it takes non- disciplinary steps to improve performance. RECOMMENDATION # 4: PAPD should reform its protocols to ensure that before a new officer is authorized to conduct impaired driving investigations, the officer should have the requisite training and supervision to effectively do so. The Department agrees and has reinforced its existing training protocols to ensure proficiency. RECOMMENDATION # 5: PAPD should consider ways it can acknowledge shortcomings in officer performance that may have adversely affected a complainant's experience, even when these do not rise to the level of a policy violation. The Department agrees that, to the extent possible without violating state law protection of peace officer personnel records, the Department should consider ways it can acknowledge shortcomings in officer performance that may have adversely affected a complainant's experience, even when these do not rise to the level of a policy violation.