THE CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG CIVILIAN POLICE REVIEW COMMITTEE CPRC 2016 ANNUAL REPORT

Transcription

1 THE CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG CIVILIAN POLICE REVIEW COMMITTEE CPRC 2016 ANNUAL REPORT This publication can be made available in alternative formats for persons with disabilities by calling or 711 for the Florida Relay Service or ing the ADA Coordinator, at Please allow 72 hours for your request to be processed.

2 THE CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG CIVILIAN POLICE REVIEW COMMITTEE (CPRC) ANNUAL REPORT 2016 Committee Members John O Sullivan, Co-Chair Richard Macdonald, Co-Chair Tom Muntz Ronald Magray Giles Williams Robert Ellis Frank Scruggs Mary Whitlow James Sena Antwann Jackson Olya Schafer City Staff Lendel Bright, PA, CPO ADA & Diversity Coordinator (Staff Liaison) Community Affairs Division/Human Resources Department Anita Dreyer, Administrative Assistant Community Affairs Division/Human Resources Department

3 THE CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG CIVILIAN POLICE REVIEW COMMITTEE (CPRC) TABLE OF CONTENTS A. CPRC Introduction B. Committee History C. City of St Petersburg Police Complaint Procedures D. Committee Procedures E. Outreach Plan & Accomplishments F. National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) G. Statistical Analysis & Policy Changes Summary H. Appendixes 1. City of St. Petersburg CPRC Creation Documents 2. List of Cases Filed with the SPPD Office of Professional Standards (OPS) 3. CPRC Case File Review Data Sheets 4. Department of Justice Community Relations Service (CRS) Information 5. National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) Information

4 SECTION A Civilian Police Review Committee (CPRC) Introduction

5 ABOUT THE CIVILIAN POLICE REVIEW COMMITTEE (CPRC) CPRC is a volunteer advisory body that reviews complaints after the cases have been investigated and adjudicated by the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) and Chief of Police. The Committee determines through consensus whether the investigation, findings and discipline (if any was given), were fair, adequate and appropriate. The purpose is to provide a forum for discussing police issues that are important to the community and the Police Department; and to serve as a means of informing the Mayor, City Council, Chief of Police and the citizens of St. Petersburg with its views as to the quality and fairness of the police services being delivered. OBJECTIVES To publicly review cases that have been investigated by the Police Department as a result of a citizen complaint or have otherwise received a high level of community interest. To provide a means of making recommendations on improving police policies and procedures in St. Petersburg. To hold monthly committee meetings to receive public input related to community feelings regarding the Police; and provide for a full committee vote on the investigations and incorporate those results into its activity reports. To serve as a forum for discussing the current policies and procedures of the Police Department as they relate directly to community service. To make an annual activity report to the Mayor, City Council, Police Chief and the Director of Human Resources. The report shall include, at a minimum, information concerning the results of case reviewed by the Committee for the citizens of St. Petersburg. This report will summarize the Committee s activities for Lendel Bright, PA, CPO ADA & Diversity Coordinator Staff Liaison to CPRC

6 SECTION B Civilian Police Review Committee (CPRC) History

7 CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OVERVIEW Civilian oversight of law enforcement involves participation by persons who are not sworn officers; who investigate, audit, or review internal police investigations or processes, including citizen complaints and use of force incidents. Oversight also includes ongoing monitoring of law enforcement agencies, to include their policies, procedures, and training. HISTORY OF CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Residents voiced their concerns about the following: The complaint process was a closed operation. Officers were insensitive to citizens whom they were authorized to protect. Police officers were given the exclusive right to exercise physical force or strip a person of their freedoms in order to carry out the law. Police established policies which affected everyone in a community. There were FEW checks within law enforcement to protect the interests and right of citizens. THE CPRC HAS THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS: Established by City Council 1991 (City Council Resolution & ). There are 11 members appointed by the Mayor. Reports to the Mayor via the ADA & Diversity Coordinator. Diverse membership that approximates the population in the community. Dual chairpersons, chosen by members. Committee reviews cases after adjudication and operates per Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Committee does not have disciplinary powers. Committee does not subpoena authority. Committee does not hold hearings. GOAL To provide a forum for discussing police issues that are important to the community and the Police Department; and to serve as a means of informing the Mayor, City Council, Chief of Police and the citizens of St. Petersburg with its views as to the quality and fairness of the police services being delivered.

8 POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC To demonstrate police credibility and responsiveness; and to guarantee to citizens that their complaints are welcomed and will be taken seriously. To determine whether individual citizen complaints against officers are founded and when appropriate, provide a basis for discipline or other corrective measures. To identify trends of wrongful conduct by officers. Trends emerge when an officer continually becomes the subject of repeated citizen complaints, especially when none of those complaints can be individually sustained. To provide feedback on policies and procedures within the Department, which as they are being formed should be reflective of the community s expectations. To increase the public s knowledge about the complaint process. LEGALITIES The City has the inherent authority to investigate itself provided the investigation does not violate any general or special law, any collective bargaining agreements or the City Charter. Certain Charter provisions prohibit City Council from giving direct orders to City employees (e.g., the Chief of Police). The Mayor s power to investigate, and thus the Committee s power, is limited by the Police Officers Bill of Rights (Part VI, Chapter 112 of the Florida State Statutes). The Mayor s power to investigate is also restricted by collective bargaining agreements if the investigations intruded into the area of administering discipline. The Committee is configured with eleven (11) volunteers appointed by the Mayor to review the investigations. In this form: 1. The Committee will not interject itself into the disciplinary process, which avoids conflicting with the Police Officers Bill of Rights & collective bargaining agreements. 2. The Committee is not a City Council committee.

9 MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CPRC 1. Must complete membership consideration application packet. 2. Must be a resident of St. Petersburg. 3. Must be at least 18 years of age. 4. Must make a commitment of 3 years. 5. Must attend a minimum of 12 hours of training. 6. Must not hold any political office. 7. Must not be a City of St. Petersburg employee. 8. Must not be related to members of the St. Petersburg Police Department. 9. Must not work for any law enforcement agency. 10. Must not have any prior felony convictions or violations of a city ordinance involving moral turpitude. 11. Must follow the Standard Operations Procedures manual for being a CPRC member. TRAINING TOPICS FOR MEMBERS Police Department Written Directives, Polices & Procedures City of St. Petersburg Rules and Regulations City Charter and Florida State Statutes SPPD s Discipline Philosophy and Law Enforcement Ethics Use of Force Policy and Pursuits Report Writing and Understanding Offense Reports Office of Professional Standards Complaint Processing Labor Relations Appeal and Grievance Procedures Police Department Community Awareness & Public Information Process National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) WHAT TYPES OF COMPLAINT CASES DOES THE CPRC REVIEW? Department & citizen-generated complaints. Discharge of firearm cases (other than for training, practice or while sport hunting). Complaint cases where the Chief of Police stands in the for the citizen complainant. Cases that have received a high level of community interest (e.g., topic of print media, television, radio, etc.).

10 CLASSIFICATION OF POLICE INVESTIGATIONS REVIEWED Office of Professional Standards Internal Affairs Investigation Cases (IA): Formal Cases Covers allegations of a serious nature requiring a detailed investigation (e.g., discharge of firearms, unnecessary force, falsifying records, etc.), which may result in formal disciplinary action. These are investigated by the Office of Professional Standards Detectives. Bureau Investigation Cases (BI): Informal Cases Covers allegations of a minor nature where the conduct is to such a degree they require corrective counseling or remedial training and are investigated by the accused officer s supervisor. PUBLIC RECORDS CRITERIA 1. The investigation must be completed by the Police Department, meaning the Office of Professional Standards; or the officer s supervisor must have completed their respective investigations, and a determination made by the Chief, Assistant Chief or the officer s supervisor. 2. If the State s Attorney Office filed criminal charges associated with the investigation against either the complainant or the accused officer, then those charges must have been adjudicated in a court of law. 3. If the accused officer was found to be sustained in the allegation(s), the officer must have been given the opportunity to appeal the decision through the grievance process up to and including arbitration. (NOTE: A probationary officer has no grievance rights.)

11 RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CPRC ANNOUNCEMENT THAT IS USED ALONG WITH A RECRUITMENT PACKET The City of St Petersburg s Civilian Police Review Committee (CPRC) is looking for volunteers to review complaint cases against St. Petersburg Police Officers. CPRC is a volunteer advisory body that reviews complaints after the cases have been investigated and adjudicated by the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) and Chief of Police. The Committee determines through consensus whether the investigation, findings and discipline (if any was given) were fair, adequate and appropriate. FACTS ABOUT THE CIVILIAN POLICE REVIEW COMMITTEE (CPRC) & POTENTIAL MEMBERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE 1. ADA & Diversity Coordinator: Lendel Bright, PA, CPO Contact Information: Office Number or at lendel.bright@stpete.org. 2. All of the CPRC members are volunteers. Committee members review Office of Professional Standards complaint cases, however it does not investigate complaints and where necessary, makes recommendations to the Chief of Police. These recommendations are offered to address an improvement to a current policy/procedure or to prevent future misconduct. 3. Committee Requirements: a. Appointment. Candidates are appointed by the Mayor. b. Background Check. Nominees are subjected to a background check. c. Ride-Along. Nominees are required to complete a ride-along with an officer for one shift. d. Meeting Attendance. Candidates must attend one (1) Committee meeting. e. Orientation. Candidates must attend an orientation session prior to training and continuance in the process for membership. f. Training. A minimum of 12 hours of a training course is required after selection to be an active member of CPRC. The training will be conducted during the month of September. New Committee members will be instructed by St. Petersburg Police Department personnel, City Department personnel and the ADA & Diversity Coordinator on issues relevant to the operation of the CPRC.

12 4. Committee members are assigned either one or two Internal Affairs investigation cases and one Bureau Investigation case OR three Bureau Investigation cases. a. Internal Affairs Cases. IA cases are detailed and comprehensive investigations of severe allegations of misconduct (i.e., unnecessary force, discharge of firearms, falsifying reports, etc.) and are investigated by Office of Professional Standards Unit detectives. Discipline would range from counseling up to and including termination if the officer is found to be guilty of the allegation(s). b. Bureau Cases. BI cases are less detailed investigations of minor infractions of policy (i.e., discourtesy, improper procedures, improper conduct, etc.) and are investigated by the accused officer s supervisor. Discipline would range from counseling/retraining up to and including suspension if an officer is found to be guilty of the allegation(s). 5. Members meet once per month. An administrative meeting can be called during that month, if required, adding a second meeting to the schedule. 6. All members are given notice for case review meeting dates. They are required to notify the CPRC Staff Liaison prior to the meeting date/time if they are not able to attend a meeting. CPRC meetings are public and must have a quorum in order for the session to be conducted. 7. Members must communicate with the Staff Liaison or Community Affairs Administrative Assistant prior to the scheduled case review meeting if they have a conflict of interest in a case (close friend, neighbor or relative of the complainant or the accused officer in the case). 8. Members will be held accountable for unexcused absences. Members must notify the CPRC Staff Liaison or Community Affairs Administrative Assistant of an absence prior to a meeting according to the time limits specified above). Members who do not attend ⅔ of the committee meetings will be removed from CPRC.

13 Full Name: Address: Home Phone: Driver s License #: CITIZEN POLICE REVIEW COMMITTEE (CPRC) SELECTION PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE Date: D/O/B: 1. What is your overall opinion of the St. Petersburg Police Department? 2. Why would you like to join the Citizens Police Review Committee? 3. Have you personally ever had any dealings with the St. Petersburg Police Department? If so, what was the encounter and your perception of the encounter? 4. Have you ever complained about a St. Petersburg Police Officer? What was your perception of the complaint process? 5. What has been your experience working in a group or committee setting? 6. There will be a variety of opinions once a case has been reviewed. If your opinion and the way you vote on a case differs from that of the other members, what effect would that have on you? How would you handle it? 7. What community activities are you currently involved in? 8. Given the description of the work involved and the time needed to complete that work, will you be able to attend the meetings on a regular basis?

14 SECTION C City of St. Petersburg Police Department Citizen Complaint Process

15 ST. PETERSBURG OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS (OPS) CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCEDURES Complaints against employees of the Police Department can be made in several ways. All employees of the Police Department have the responsibility for receiving a complaint so the process can be initiated any time a citizen chooses. A complaint may be lodged against the Department or any employee in person, by telephone or by mail. When complaints are initiated outside the normal business hours of Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., the information will usually be taken by an on-duty supervisor and referred to the watch commander. The watch commander may direct a supervisor to investigate or refer the complaint to Office of Professional Standards. It is the policy of the Police Department that complaints will be handled at the appropriate organizational level as quickly as possible. If the supervisor who initially received the complaint is able to investigate it, he or she will do so upon approval of the watch commander and document the actions taken. This information will be forwarded to the Office of Professional Standards, and the complainant will be notified of the findings of the investigation. Examples of complaints normally handled at the supervisory level include improper procedures and discourtesy. These types of investigations are categorized as Bureau Investigations. If the complaint is of a more serious nature, it will be forwarded to the Office of Professional Standards for investigation. Office of Professional Standards will normally investigate all allegations of a serious nature to include excessive force, the administrative aspects of criminal misconduct, racial/ethnic slurs, and cases of officer-involved shootings. These investigations are categorized as Internal Affairs cases (IA). All Office of Professional Standards investigations must follow guidelines established by state laws and department policy. The Law Enforcement Officers and Correctional Officers Rights is a state statute that dictates how the IA cases are conducted. These investigations are considered confidential until the investigation is completed. When a complaint is investigated by the Office of Professional Standards, the following procedures are followed: The Office of Professional Standards investigator contacts the complainant and arranges an appointment for an interview. Generally, the interview is conducted at the Police Department's Office of Professional Standards office. However, at times, interviews can be conducted at a complainant s home, business, or at the Civilian Police Review Committee's office located in the 3 rd Floor of the Municipal Services Building. Interviews are also conducted at the County Jail; therefore, incarceration does not preclude a citizen s complaint from being heard. The complainant is placed under oath and a sworn statement is taken from that person. This statement is recorded.

16 After the recorded statement is transcribed, the complainant is re-contacted and given an opportunity to review the statement for accuracy and to sign it. The same procedure is used for all witnesses and officers involved in the case. All statements are recorded, transcribed, and assembled in a case file to be reviewed by the Chief of Police. If the evidence indicates there might have been improper conduct, the Chief of Police can direct the matter be reviewed by a Command Review Board. This Board consists of the management level personnel responsible for the accused officer and includes Assistant Chiefs and Chief of Police. Depending on the nature of the complaint, the Chief of Police also has the option of having the disciplinary process handled by an Assistant Chief's Board; which handles complaints of a less serious nature. Assistant Chief's Boards are restricted in the severity of discipline they are able to dispense to employees; the discipline is limited to a five-work day suspension (40 Hours) or less. Once the case has been reviewed by an Assistant Chief's Board or the Command Review Board, a decision is made as to whether the officer acted properly or not. Each complaint will receive one of five possible findings by the Board: Exonerated. The acts which provided the basis for the complaint or allegation occurred; however, the investigation revealed they were justified, lawful, and proper. Not Sustained. The investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to prove the allegations made in the complaint. Sustained. The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove clearly the allegations made in the complaint. Unfounded. The investigation conclusively proved the act or acts complained of did not occur. Not Involved. The investigation disclosed the affected employee was not involved in the alleged misconduct. If the Board sustains the complaint, the second phase of the process is to decide on the appropriate disciplinary action. Disciplinary action is guided by the Department's philosophy. At the conclusion of the Board's action, the complainant is notified in writing of the Board's decision on the complaint and any type of discipline that was administered, if any. The complainant may come to the Department to review the completed case unless there are criminal charges pending in the case. In this event, the complainant can review the case when the criminal case has been completed.

17 Complaints investigated by the officer's supervisor are categorized as Bureau Investigations (BI), and generally follow similar steps, except the statements are not recorded and transcribed. In these cases, the supervisor interviews the complainant, the officer, and witnesses; determines the finding; and then makes recommendations that are reviewed by the various levels of supervision and management in the officer's chain of command, with final review by the Chief of Police. Another classification of cases is known as Information Only. An Information Only case is the documentation of an incident in which a citizen requests information regarding an employee's behavior and/or actions. An Information Only case may require several hours of exploration in order to determine what actually occurred. It generally does not involve misconduct by the employee and is filed for informational purposes after an explanation has been furnished to the inquiring party. Many inquiries involve questions concerning the legality of an officer s actions that are handled within the judicial system. The Office of Professional Standards Division reviews and records all crashes and pursuits. The Office of Professional Standards also maintains a liaison with the City s Legal Department and conducts inquiries into incidents involving Police Department employees which result in civil litigation.

18 SECTION D Civilian Police Review Committee Procedures

19 CPRC MEMBERS MEETING PROCESS AND PREPARATION PROCEDURES PRIMARY GOAL To determine whether department and City policies and procedures were followed by the accused officer and the investigating officers for Internal Affairs or Bureau Investigation cases. SECONDARY GOAL To make recommendations, when deemed appropriate, that may improve current policies, procedures or operations which are in the best interest of police accountability, and improved police and community relations, etc. BE PREPARED. Upon receipt of your case file booklet or CD, determine if you have a conflict of interest with either the complainant or the accused officer in each case. INTERNAL AFFAIRS (IA) CASE: This is an investigation of a serious allegation of misconduct by a sworn employee of the Police Department (e.g., unnecessary force, discharge of a firearm, falsification). It is formal in nature and requires an in-depth investigation. A Sustained allegation in an IA case will result in formal disciplinary actions taken against the officer ranging from counseling to termination. 1. Read the entire file. 2. Read the Brief of Complaint. 3. Read the Complaint Investigation Report. 4. Always read the statements first. This gives the best insight into what occurred in the incident which gave rise to the complaint. In the Summary Section, read the summary of each statement. Did it accurately reflect what was asked of the complainant, complainant witnesses, accused officer and witness officers? 5. Read the supporting documentation (offense reports, CAD information, memorandums, etc.). a. Compare the complainant s statement and the complainant s witnesses statements to see what information about the incident is the same and what information is different. Make a note of the differences. b. Compare the accused officer s and witness officer s statements to see what information about the incident is the same and what information is different. Make a note of these. (NOTE: Compare all officers statements with the information provided in their offense reports, if he/she wrote one.) c. Compare the complainant s statement and the accused officer s statement to see what information about the incident is the same and what information is different. Make a note of these.

20 6. In the Summary Section, read the Statement of Facts. Are these really the facts? Are these statements reflective of the actual testimony taken in the sworn interviews? 7. Also in the Summary Section, read the Conflicts section. Were all of the conflicts presented resolved by the information provided in the file? Did you find conflicts that were not noted by the investigator? If so, were they material to the investigation in coming to a conclusion in the case? How were they material? 8. Consult your reference materials for policies and procedures. Office of Professional Standards staff will be present to entertain questions about the cases and questions about policies or procedures during the reviews. NOTE: Please do not expect to adequately review an Internal Affairs investigation case with having just read the Summary Section only; you will not absorb the full significance of the case. It is a disservice to other members of the Committee if you prepare in this manner. BUREAU INVESTIGATION (BI) CASE: This is an investigation of a minor allegation of misconduct by a sworn employee of the Police Department (e.g., discourtesy, rudeness, minor improper procedures, etc.). It is informal in nature and requires a less detailed investigation. A Sustained allegation in a B.I. case will result in disciplinary actions taken against the officer ranging from counseling to a five-day suspension. 1. Read the entire file. 2. Start at the beginning of the file. As you read each summarized statement of an officer or witness officer, compare it to their police reports (offense reports) or compare it to their memorandums/question list composed/responded to at the request of their supervisor. Note any discrepancies. 3. Read any other information provided (i.e., letter from the complainant, etc.). 4. Consult your reference materials for policies and procedures. COMMITTEE VOTING PROCEDURE ON THE FINDINGS After the review of either type of case, the Committee will be directed to vote on whether they agree with the findings in the case without comment, agree with the findings in the case with comment OR disagree with the findings with comment. The findings are defined as follows: Sustained. The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to clearly prove the allegation made in the complaint. Not Sustained. The investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to prove the allegation made in the complaint. Unfounded. The investigation conclusively proved the act or acts complained of did not occur.

21 Exonerated. The acts which provided the basis for the complaint or allegation occurred; however, the investigation revealed they were justified, lawful and proper. Not Involved. The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the named officer was not involved in the alleged incident. To make the decision to agree or disagree with the Department s finding rely on what have been provided in the case. The following question needs to be answered: Did the information presented convince me of the finding given? VOTING ON DISCIPLINE This vote will only be needed if the officer was sustained in an allegation of misconduct. 1. To determine whether you agree or disagree with the discipline rendered, consult the Discipline Philosophy, Written Directives I-3. Decide if any of the tenets listed hold true in the case and make note of them. There are five components: Employee Motivation Degree of Harm Employee Experience Intentional/Unintentional Errors Employee s Past Record 2. Consult the City of St. Petersburg s Rules and Regulations of the Personnel Management System Handbook. The violation will fit into one of the Groups of Rules, either Group I, Group II or Group III. The severity of the discipline increases as you proceed from Group I violations to Group III violations. 3. Peruse the officer s 18-month history. Has the officer been sustained on allegations with the discipline becoming progressively worse? If your answer is yes, progressive discipline is being or has been applied. The City holds that an employee shall be subjected to increasingly severe levels of discipline for each successive instance of the same or related (work or attendance) misconduct within an eighteen-month period of time. If the officer has been the recipient of a number of different complaints (work and attendance-related), whether sustained or not, it may indicate the need for the officer s supervisor to counsel this employee through the Early Warning System. QUESTIONS CONSIDERED DURING THE REVIEW OF OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS INTERNAL AFFAIRS (I.A.) AND BUREAU INVESTIGATION LEVEL CASES: 1. Was the investigation completed within a timely period? This is 15 days for BI cases and 30 days for IA cases. If not, was an extension properly requested and granted? 2. Were there conflicts and/or discrepancies not resolved by or included in the case? If so, what impact did they have on the outcome of the case?

22 3. Specify in what way(s) the Office of Professional Standards Investigative Summary or Investigative Supervisors report did or did not assist your review of this case. 4. Was the complaint thoroughly investigated in terms of written statements from the complainant, involved officers, witness, police reports, case memorandums, photos and other relevant evidence? Please answer yes or no and state the reasons for your response. 5. Does this case have the department s or investigative supervisor s investigative statement(s) of rationale documented? If so, do they clearly support the finding and decision in this case? 6. On the finding of in the allegation(s) of against Officer do you agree with or without comment, disagree with comment? If you vote with comment, please state your comment after giving your vote. 7. If discipline was meted out, was it fair, adequate and appropriate? (Please state your reasons for or against.) Did it follow the Progressive Discipline Policy? 8. Are there any recommendations (reference departmental rules and policies or procedures) to make regarding this case? 9. Are there any additional comments regarding the investigation or the investigative materials? CIVILIAN POLICE REVIEW COMMITTEE (CPRC) CRITERIA FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS NOTE: Under no circumstances can the Committee change a finding in a case investigation, which is in accordance with Florida State Statute Chapter , Police Officers Bill of Rights. a. CPRC members can provide recommendations for policies within the department that will either enhance some aspect of policing & procedures or prevent future misconduct, etc. b. The goal is not to force policy changes on the Chief of Police, but to rectify a problem situation or clarify issues for the department s members, citizens and the committee. c. The Committee will then discuss and vote on the proposed recommendation. There must be a majority vote in order for the recommendation to be forwarded to the Chief of Police for consideration.

23 SECTION E CPRC COMMUNITY OUTREACH PLAN & ACCOMPLISHMENTS

24 CPRC ACTION PLAN The CPRC action plan has two components which are Education and Outreach for the Committee; and the Community Education component covers the public and CPRC members. The key will be to inform the public about what the CPRC process is and how it operates; and the proper, correct and legal role of the CPRC members in this process. The purpose of the Outreach component is to educate and make the community aware that the Civilian Police Review Committee exists and how it operates. THE FOLLOWING IS UTILIZED: 1. City-wide distribution of brochures about the Committee at community events. 2. Maintain and update of all program information brochures, website, etc. 3. Current staff and Committee members getting the word out by participating in community events and sharing information about the Committee with community residents (youth and adults). 4. Current staff and pre Police Academy presentations at the St. Petersburg Police Department. 5. Attendance at the Police Department s community meetings, neighborhood associations and Neighborhood Watch meetings. Brochures are distributed and questions are answered about the Committee at these meetings. 6. Live coverage of the Committee meetings by the City TV staff on Channel 641; they are rebroadcast throughout the month and continue to invite the public to the case review meetings. 7. Contribute periodic articles to City, community and other civic newsletters informing the public about the Committee and appear as a guest on the Police Department s radio show. 8. Conduct speaking engagements to groups (community centers, churches, social service, fraternities, sororities, etc.) through direct contact. 9. Staff Liaison is a member of National Association for Civilian oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE). Mr. Bright has received Certification as a Civilian Oversight Practitioner. 10. Work with Community Awareness and Response Team (C.A.R.T.). Maintain a formalized network of community connections whereby the City is proactive in identifying sensitive community issues or concerns, and facilitate timely and effective responses. There are 11 community volunteers for this team.

25 CPRC ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR 2016 Community Outreach Events Participation 1. MLK Parade. Central Avenue. 2. MLK Family Fun Day Event. Tropicana Field Parking Lot. 3. MLK Post Parade Event. Street party celebration. 4. Midtown Police Athletic League. Youth programs (monthly participation and presentations). 5. Men in the Making. Youth programs (monthly participation and presentations). 6. Community Centers (Childs Park, Thomas Jett Jackson, and Campbell). Youth interaction sessions (youth and police interactions). 7. Jordan Park Housing Complex. Monthly community residents outreach canvas, speaking to residents about issues and concerns with the Police Department. 8. Community Opportunity for our People (COOP). African American male community outreach (Police and community relations). 9. Black History Month Family Fun Day. Outreach about information about CPRC and CART 10. Bay Pines Veterans Complex. Stand Down for Veterans community event (informational). 11. Venture Home. Community rebuilding project, 12. Pinellas County Urban League Family Festival and Crime Prevention Run. 13. Frank Pierce Community Center Family Fun Day Celebration. 14. Mt. Zion Human Services Community Outreach on Adaptive Recreation. SPC. 15. Community Youth Summit at Lake Wood High School. Presentation on CPRC and CART. Youth and Police interactions. 16. Enoch Davis Community Center. Family and Friend Community Fun Day. 17. James Weldon Library. Youth outreach, Reading is Fundamental (staff, CPRC and CART members volunteer for this youth event). Civilian Oversight Staff Liaison Training 1. National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) monthly phone conferences. 2. Member of NACOLE and Staff Liaison serves on the Annual Conference and Membership Development & Recruitment Committees. 3. Staff Liaison attended the 23 rd Annual Conference of NACOLE in Albuquerque, New Mexico on September 24-30, 2016.

26 4. Staff Liaison attended the CPRC update and new members Training on September 19 21, Adopted and made modifications, with permission, for a Student and Law Enforcement Guide booklet; building positive relations between students and law enforcement officers. The original booklet was created by L.A. County School District and Los Angeles Police Department. CPRC and CART Interaction with St. Petersburg Police Department 1. Met with Chief of Police and Management staff regarding overview of CPRC and CART on October 13, and December 19, Presentations to Police Department New Hires regarding CPRC, CART and CAPI information on January 13, April 25, June 22, September 19 and December 15, CPRC and CART involvement in draft review of updated disciplinary policies and procedures for the Police Department at two meetings held in March and December of SPPD Foundational Cultural Competency. New Recruit Training Initiative (bridging the gap between police and community relations) on October 27, St. Petersburg Police Department Community Awareness Event - National Night out Crime Prevention. Participated at event on October 4, Regional Civilian Oversight involvement 1. Provided information and assistance to the City of Tampa in the creation of their Civilian Police Review Committee. National Civilian Oversight Involvement 1. Publication by OJP Diagnostic Center and NACOLE. Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, a Review of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Various Models, by Joseph De Angelis, Richard Rosenthal and Brian Buchner, titled Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement: A Review of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Various Models, page 10; and the final release document, Assessing the Evidence, page City of St. Petersburg Civilian Police Review Committee is listed as one of the five Models of the Review focused models in the United States. 3. Staff Liaison submitted a proposal to host the 25 th National Conference of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) to be held in Staff Liaison is on the planning team for the February 3-4, 2017, NACOLE Regional Training Conference being held in Miami, Florida.

27 SECTION F NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT (NACOLE)

28 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT (NACOLE) As a member of NACOLE, it allows you to join a growing community of police oversight professionals, individuals, law enforcement officials, academics, and others working to strengthen citizen review and to promote greater police accountability in the United States and abroad. Membership will also enable you to collaborate with us in continuing to produce worldclass annual training conferences, facilitate networking opportunities, disseminate information regarding best practices, provide technical assistance to new and existing oversight agencies, and to act as advocates of oversight. Mission To enhance fair and professional law enforcement responsive to community needs. To this end, the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement operates with the following goals in mind: To provide for the establishment, development, education, and technical assistance of/for the civilian oversight of law enforcement. To develop a national forum to provide an informational and educational clearinghouse and a publication resource of educational information for the public and organizations in the field of civilian oversight of law enforcement. To encourage the highest ethical standards in organizations which oversee law enforcement. To educate the public by developing mechanisms to enhance police and community relations, educate law enforcement agencies, and encourage law enforcement to respond with sensitivity to citizens' issues and complaints.

29 NACOLE Code of Ethics Preamble Civilian oversight practitioners have a unique role as public servants overseeing law enforcement agencies. The community, government, and law enforcement have entrusted them to conduct their work in a professional, fair and impartial manner. They earn this trust through a firm commitment to the public good, the mission of their agency, and to the ethical and professional standards described herein. The standards in the Code are intended to be of general application. It is recognized, however, that the practice of civilian oversight varies among jurisdictions and agencies, and additional standards may be necessary. The spirit of these ethical and professional standards should guide the civilian oversight practitioner in adapting to individual circumstances, and in promoting public trust, integrity and transparency. Personal Integrity Demonstrate the highest standards of personal integrity, commitment, truthfulness, and fortitude in order to inspire trust among your stakeholders, and to set an example for others. Avoid conflicts of interest. Conduct yourself in a fair and impartial manner and recuse yourself or personnel within your agency when significant conflict of interest arises. Do not accept gifts, gratuities or favors that could compromise your impartiality and independence. Independent and Thorough Oversight Conduct investigations, audits, evaluations and reviews with diligence, an open and questioning mind, integrity, objectivity and fairness, in a timely manner. Rigorously test the accuracy and reliability of information from all sources. Present the facts and findings without regard to personal beliefs or concern for personal, professional or political consequences. Transparency and Confidentiality Conduct oversight activities openly and transparently providing regular reports and analysis of your activities, and explanations of your procedures and practices to as wide an audience as possible. Maintain the confidentiality of information that cannot be disclosed and protect the security of confidential records. Respectful and Unbiased Treatment Treat all individuals with dignity and respect, and without preference or discrimination including but not limited to the following protected classes: age, ethnicity, culture, race, disability, gender, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status or political beliefs. Outreach and Relationships with Stakeholders Disseminate information and conduct outreach activity in the communities that you serve. Pursue open, candid, and non-defensive dialog with your stakeholders. Educate and learn from the community.

30 Agency Self-examination and Commitment to Policy Review Seek continuous improvement in the effectiveness of your oversight agency, the law enforcement agency it works with, and their relations with the communities they serve. Gauge your effectiveness through evaluation and analysis of your work product. Emphasize policy review aimed at substantive organizational reforms that advance law enforcement accountability and performance. Professional Excellence Seek professional development to ensure competence. Acquire the necessary knowledge and understanding of the policies, procedures, and practices of the law enforcement agency you oversee. Keep informed of current legal, professional and social issues that affect the community, the law enforcement agency, and your oversight agency. Primary Obligation to the Community At all times, place your obligation to the community, duty to uphold the law and to the goals and objectives of your agency above your personal self-interest.

31 SECTION G CPRC STATISTICAL ANALYSIS & POLICY CHANGES SUMMARY

32 CPRC STATISTIC SHEET 2016 Internal Affairs (I.A.) Case: Investigations of a serious allegation of misconduct by a sworn employee of the Police Department (e.g., unnecessary force, discharge of a firearm, falsification). It is formal in nature and requires an in-depth investigation. A Sustained allegation in an I.A. case will result in formal disciplinary actions taken against the officer ranging from counseling to termination. Bureau Investigation (B.I.) Case: Investigations of a minor allegation of misconduct by a sworn employee of the Police Department (e.g., discourtesy, rudeness, minor improper procedures, etc.). It is informal in nature and requires a less detailed investigation. The misconduct is to such a degree that only corrective counseling or remedial training is required. A Sustained allegation in a B.I. case will result in disciplinary actions taken against the officer ranging from counseling to a five-day suspension. IA BI Cases Filed with Office of Professional Standards (OPS) 8 29 Cases Reviewed by CPRC 5 3 Recommendations Results Civilian Police Review Committee Policy Recommendations Summary 2016 None N/A Conclusion The primary focus of oversight entities is generally to ensure that a law enforcement agency s internal investigations, misconduct and force related, are investigated and reviewed in a fair, thorough, and impartial manner. Moreover, the responsibility of providing recommendations as to the proper outcome of an investigation to the Police Chief, Mayor and the community. The increased organizational transparency and civilian oversight has become the reality for many law enforcement agencies across the country. The primary challenge is the relationship, or lack thereof, between the law enforcement agency and the community. In fact, an effective relationship can generate significant benefits for both. However, prior to the progression toward a goal of interaction and collaboration, law enforcement agencies and oversight entity need to realize that the relationship is not a partnership. For any oversight entity to maintain its overall effectiveness and integrity within the system and in the community, it has to be viewed as truly independent in thought and action.

33 SECTION I APPENDIXES 1-7

34 APPENDIX 1 CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG CPRC CREATION DOCUMENTS

35 APPENDIX 1.1

36 APPENDIX 1.2

37 APPENDIX 1.3

38 APPENDIX 1.4

39 APPENDIX 1.5

40 APPENDIX 1.6

41 APPENDIX 1.7

42 APPENDIX 1.8

43 APPENDIX 2 LIST OF CASES FILED WITH THE SPPD OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS (OPS)

44 APPENDIX 2.1

45 APPENDIX 2.2

46 APPENDIX 2.3

47 APPENDIX 3 CPRC CASE FILE REVIEW DATA SHEETS

48 APPENDIX 3.1

49 APPENDIX 4 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE (CRS)

50 APPENDIX 4.1

51 APPENDIX 4.2

52 APPENDIX 4.3

53 APPENDIX 4.4

54 APPENDIX 5 NACOLE INFORMATION

55 APPENDIX 5.1

56 APPENDIX 5.2

57 APPENDIX 5.3