FOR THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) entered into a Consent Decree with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on June 15, 2001. The original term of the Consent Decree expired on June 15, 2006. On May 15, 2006, Judge Gary Allen Feess ordered that the Consent Decree be extended for an additional three years, commencing on July 1, 2006. This, the Monitor s twenty-seventh report, covers the results of the Monitor s compliance assessments conducted during the quarter ending March 31, 2008 and is the seventh report issued during the three-year extension period. As described in our Report for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2006, the City and the DOJ agreed, and the Monitor concurred, that the Department had achieved substantial compliance with a significant number of paragraphs of the Consent Decree, and the Monitor would not actively monitor or report on the Department s compliance with these paragraphs during the three-year extension period. Rather, during the extension period, the Monitor is concentrating its monitoring efforts by actively monitoring those paragraphs of the Decree with which the City has failed to achieve substantial compliance. Based upon this approach, the Monitor examined 23 paragraphs or subparagraphs of the Consent Decree during the current quarter. Of these, the City and the LAPD successfully complied with 11; failed to achieve compliance with seven; and, for reasons stated in the body of this report, the Monitor withheld a determination of compliance with five paragraphs. During the current quarter, the Monitor assessed the LAPD s compliance with various Consent Decree requirements relative to its computer information system (TEAMS II); use of force incidents and investigations; search and arrest procedures; data collection efforts in connection with the enforcement of its non-discrimination policy; a training plan for Field Training Officers; training of members of the public scheduled to serve on the Board of Rights in police practices and procedures; audits by the LAPD s Audit Division; reviews and audits by the Office of the Inspector General; and the operations of the Police Commission and Inspector General. In connection with Consent Decree requirements regarding the TEAMS II computer information system, the City and Department s TEAMS II staff completed its review of the remaining items required to be included in the TEAMS II database pursuant to paragraph 41 and concluded that the system includes the specific items required. The Monitor reviewed the TEAMS II staff s analysis and concurred with these findings. The Monitor also found the City and Department in compliance with the requirement that the protocol for using TEAMS II includes provisions and elements related to supervisory and managerial review to detect patterns that indicate at-risk behavior (paragraph 47) and requirements regarding the maintenance of specified information about officers during their employment with the LAPD and for at least three years thereafter (paragraph 49). The Monitor found the Department in compliance with the requirement that all officers involved in a Categorical Use of Force resulting in death or the substantial possibility of death be referred to the LAPD s Behavioral Science Services for a psychological evaluation (paragraph 63). The i
Department s Civil Right Integrity Division was able to verify that more than 97% of officers selected for testing were assigned to non-field assignments pending BSS consultation and notification of fitness for duty. The Department was previously in non-compliance with this requirement, as the Department was unable to verify this information when the Monitor last assessed compliance with this requirement. In the area of search and arrest procedures, the Monitor assessed the Department s compliance with requirements that managers analyze the circumstances surrounding the presence or absence of a supervisor at the service of a search warrant (subparagraph 62b) and that supervisors analyses be considered in their annual personnel performance evaluations (subparagraph 62c). The Monitor found that the Department continues to be in non-compliance with both provisions, as more than 10% of the executed search warrants selected for review by the Monitor contained evaluations of supervisors presence that were not completed within the mandated time period. In addition, more than 25% of the search warrants reviewed contained analyses that did not sufficiently document the supervisors actions. Lastly, the Commanding Officers analyses were not documented on the respective supervisors filed employee comment sheets for more than 25% of the search warrants reviewed. The Monitor also assessed compliance with requirements regarding supervisory review of the service of search warrants and of the search warrant log (paragraphs 71 and 72). Based on the findings from the LAPD Audit Division s Warrant Applications and Supporting Affidavits Audit Report submitted in December 2007, the Monitor concluded that the Department has not yet achieved compliance with the requirements of these paragraphs. The Monitor assessed the Department s compliance with Consent Decree requirements regarding the collection of field data each time an officer conducts a motor vehicle or pedestrian stop (paragraphs 104 and 105). The City and Department are taking steps to enhance the data collection process and provide alternatives to the current method of data collection through the modification of existing ordinary-course-of-business forms and by moving forward with Department-wide implementation of in-car cameras. The Monitor noted that these steps will, when appropriately implemented, be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Consent Decree but we have withheld a determination of the Department s compliance with the data collection requirements pending that implementation. In regard to training, the Monitor determined that the Department is in compliance with requirements relative to a Field Training Officer Training Plan (paragraph 116). The Monitor also determined that the Department is complying with the Consent Decree s requirement to train members of the public scheduled to serve on the Board of Rights in police practices and procedures (paragraph 118). The Monitor completed its review and evaluation of two audits submitted by the LAPD s Audit Division: the Gang Unit Work Product Audit (subparagraphs 131a, f and g), submitted in September 2007, and the Complaint Form 1.28 Systems Audit (subparagraph 129iii), submitted in December 2007. The Monitor found the Complaint Form 1.28, Systems Audit in compliance ii
with the Consent Decree but the Gang Unit Work Product Audit was not. The Monitor also completed its review of the Warrant Applications and Supporting Affidavits Audit (subparagraphs 128(1), 131a, 131c-1, and 131e), also submitted in December 2007, but has withheld its determination of compliance pending the review of our findings with AD. The Monitor also conducted a limited review of the Supplemental Audit of Arrest Booking and Charging Reports (subparagraph 128(2), 131a, 131c-2, 131e), which reviewed the Department s compliance with subparagraph 70b. 1 The Monitor commends AD for conducting this supplemental audit and concluded that the prior finding of compliance in connection with the Arrest Booking and Charging Reports Audit continues. During the current quarter, the Monitor also assessed reviews conducted by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of three audits performed by Audit Division: ABC Reports Audit (subparagraph 128(2), 131a, 131c-2 and 131e), Confidential Informant Control Packages Audit (subparagraph 128(5), 131a, 131c-5, 131e), and the Gang Unit Work Product Audit (subparagraphs 131a, f and g). The Monitor concluded that the OIG s reviews of Audit Division s three audits were quality reviews. The Monitor also assessed the OIG s Categorical Use of Force Investigations Audit (paragraph 136) and the OIG s Complaint Form 1.28 Investigations Audit (paragraph 136ii), and concluded that these audits were in compliance with the requirements of paragraph 136. Lastly, the Monitor found the Department in compliance with the requirement that the Police Commission annually issue a publicly-available report detailing its findings regarding Categorical Use of Force incidents (subparagraph 142b). 1 Audit Division found the Department in non-compliance with subparagraph 70b in its ABC Reports Audit dated September 28, 2007; additional testing conducted in the Supplemental Audit confirmed this finding of noncompliance. iii
REPORT CONTENTS: I. INTRODUCTION...1 II. III. FOCUS ISSUES...3 A. MacArthur Park One Year Later...3 PERFORMANCE OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT...4 A. Management and Supervisory Measures to Promote Civil Rights Integrity TEAMS II [Computer Information System]...4 B. Management and Supervisory Measures to Promote Civil Rights Integrity Performance Evaluation System...9 C. Use of Force...9 D. Search and Arrest Procedures...12 E. Complaints...16 F. Non-Discrimination Policy and Motor Vehicle and Pedestrian Stops...17 G. Management of Gang Units...19 H. Confidential Informants...20 I. Training...20 IV. INTERNAL & EXTERNAL OVERSIGHT/MONITORING...23 A. Integrity Audits & Internal Audit Oversight...23 B. Inspector General Reviews & Audits...34 C. Police Commission Oversight...39 D. General...41 V. CONCLUSION...42 APPENDICES: A. Report Card Summarizing the Monitor s Evaluation of Compliance with the Consent Decree as of the Quarter Ending March 31, 2008 B. Acronyms Utilized in Quarterly Reports Issued by the Independent Monitor
I. INTRODUCTION The City of Los Angeles (the City) and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) entered into a Consent Decree with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on June 15, 2001. The Consent Decree provides specific guidelines designed to institute new policies and procedures and to reform the conduct of the LAPD. Michael Cherkasky and Kroll Inc. have been hired as the Independent Monitor to ensure that Consent Decree reforms are implemented in an effective and timely manner. The original term of the Consent Decree expired on June 15, 2006. On May 15, 2006, Judge Gary Allen Feess ordered that the Consent Decree be extended for an additional three years, commencing on July 1, 2006. This, the Monitor s twenty-seventh report, covers the results of the Monitor s compliance assessments conducted during the quarter ending March 31, 2008. As described in our Report for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2006, during the three-year extension to the Consent Decree, the Monitor is concentrating its monitoring efforts by actively monitoring those paragraphs of the Consent Decree with which the City has failed to achieve substantial compliance during its original term. As further described in that report, the City and the DOJ (the parties) agreed, and the Monitor concurred, that the Department had achieved substantial compliance with a substantial number of paragraphs of the Consent Decree, and the Monitor would not be actively monitoring or reporting on the Department s compliance with these paragraphs. This is not to say that the City can ignore any of the provisions of the Decree. If there is any indication of backslide in any paragraph not being actively monitored, the Monitor will notify the parties and determine whether renewed active monitoring of such paragraph is appropriate. As such, the City continues to be bound not only to reforming those areas in which reform has not yet been completed, but also to maintaining those reforms that have been successfully implemented. The introduction sections to each of the substantive areas reviewed in the remainder of this report include the specific paragraphs upon which the Monitor will be reporting during the extension period i.e. those paragraphs of the Decree with which the City has failed to achieve substantial compliance. For informational purposes, also included in footnotes under each introduction section are those paragraphs for which the City has achieved substantial compliance. 2 As a tool to assist the reader of this report, the Monitor has attached as Appendix A a Report Card that summarizes the overall grade of compliance with each paragraph or subparagraph of 2 The Department has also achieved substantial compliance with several paragraphs that are not referred to in the footnotes in the introduction sections of this report, as the pertinent sections of the Consent Decree, in their entirety, are no longer being actively monitored and reported on. These are: paragraphs 111-113 (Development of Program for Responding to Persons with Mental Illness) and paragraphs 155-156 (Community Outreach and Public Information). 1
the Consent Decree for the last five quarters, beginning with the quarter ending March 31, 2007. 3 The Status as of Last Evaluation column provides the most recent evaluation made for each paragraph of the Consent Decree, whether it was made in this quarter or in a prior quarter. The quarter in which the evaluation was made is also indicated. Finally, the Report Card identifies the quarter in which the Monitor anticipates conducting the next evaluation of compliance for each paragraph. 4 This is an estimate based on available information at the date of issuance of this Monitor s Report and Report Card. These estimates are subject to change as information develops and circumstances change. 3 The Monitor emphasizes that the Report Card provides summary information and should be read in conjunction with this report so that the reader may obtain a thorough understanding of the level and nature of the Department s compliance with the provisions of the Consent Decree. 4 The Report Card included as Appendix A to the Report for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2006 contains a comprehensive listing of all Consent Decree paragraphs; the comments section of that Report Card identifies those paragraphs which are not scheduled to be actively monitored and reported on during the three-year extension of the Consent Decree. Subsequent Report Cards i.e. those issued during the three-year extension, include only those paragraphs that are being actively monitored and reported on during the extension period. 2
II. FOCUS ISSUES A. MACARTHUR PARK ONE YEAR LATER Over the last year we have reported on the May 1, 2007 MacArthur Park incident in which an otherwise peaceful demonstration gave rise to questions about the state of LAPD reform when a relatively small group of disruptive individuals caused the forceful clearing of the park. By all accounts, including the Department s candid and introspective report on the incident, the actions of some of the officers involved appeared to be inappropriate and in violation of Department policies and procedures. Although final discipline has not yet been determined for involved officers, over the year that has followed, the Department has undertaken a number of steps designed to ensure that such incidents would never occur again. The revision of the crowd control curriculum and the immediate undertaking of re-training for the entire Department have been key to the Department s remedial plan. In addition, the creation of a dedicated unit to plan for and provide operational oversight of major events gives the Department a resource dedicated to making certain that best practices are fully developed and employed in critical incidents. Perhaps most significantly, the Department s internal report, which in addition to being candid and introspective, outlined the myriad strategic, tactical and systemic mistakes that contributed to the incident and set the standard for internal after-action analysis of a critical incident. These efforts, taken together, have shown that a police department can, with the proper leadership and talent, improve itself through self-analysis and self-criticism. On May 1, 2008, the anniversary of the MacArthur Park event, the Monitor closely observed the Department s performance at the May Day events. The Monitor was extremely impressed with the preparation and execution of the plans for the event. Contingencies that were planned for never materialized due in large measure to the attitude and comportment of the police officers assigned to the day s celebration. In short, the day was an example of LAPD at its finest, and showed how best practices can bring about change in a police department. 3
III. PERFORMANCE OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT A. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISORY MEASURES TO PROMOTE CIVIL RIGHTS INTEGRITY TEAMS II [COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEM] The Consent Decree mandates that the City develop an early warning system, termed TEAMS II, with the purpose of promoting professionalism and best policing practices, as well as identifying and modifying at-risk behavior. 5 In order to meet this requirement, the City developed four new systems: the Complaint Management System (CMS), the Use of Force System (UOFS), the STOP database, 6 and the Risk Management Information System (RMIS). The RMIS gathers data from the new systems, as well as numerous legacy systems, in order to produce relevant information for risk management analysis. Although the original timeline for completion of the TEAMS II project was not met due to the numerous challenges presented by the scope of the TEAMS II project, the City and Department achieved Department-wide implementation of all four systems as of the quarter ending March 31, 2007 and have made the following progress in connection with the new systems: As described in our Reports for the Quarter Ending March 31, 2007 and June 30, 2007, all RMIS action items were completely rolled out by March 12, 2007 and RMIS is now implemented Department-wide. TEAMS II staff and the Risk Analysis Section (RAS) of the Risk Management Group (RMG) are now monitoring and assessing the action items to see what types of action items are being triggered and whether those being triggered, and the frequency of the triggers, are appropriate. In addition, the City is currently reassessing the RMIS peer groups and thresholds, as it appears that more action items 7 are being generated than originally projected. The City will present any proposed modifications to the DOJ and Monitor once this review is complete. The City is also currently deploying new functionality for RMIS Department-wide, which will result in two new types of automated action items being sent to supervisors. The first is the Performance Evaluation Report Action Item (PER AI), which will be sent to a supervisor 5 The system is being developed as a successor to the existing computerized information processing system known as the Training Evaluation and Management System (TEAMS). 6 The STOP database has already been developed and is currently being utilized to collect data from the Field Data Reports (FDRs) regarding pedestrian and motor vehicle stops. 7 Action Items are automated or supervisor-generated notifications that identify employees whose performance may indicate a need for monitoring. Automated action items are generated when performance-related data such as uses of force is compared to stops or arrests and specific individual performance thresholds are exceeded. Supervisorgenerated notifications are used to conduct periodic performance monitoring, such as annual performance evaluations or assignment to specialized units. 4
when an annual performance evaluation is due on a subordinate employee. This new functionality should help the City achieve compliance with paragraph 54, in addition to paragraph 47. The second is the Transfer Action Item (TAI), which will be sent to a supervisor when a new employee is being transferred into that supervisor s command so that the employee s TEAMS report can be reviewed. As of the end of the original five-year term of the Consent Decree, the Department had not achieved substantial compliance with many of the Consent Decree requirements related to TEAMS II (paragraphs 39-44, 46-49, 50d and e, 51b-d, 52-53). As a result, the Monitor is assessing the Department s compliance with these and the additional TEAMS II-related paragraphs during the extension period. During the current quarter, the Monitor assessed the Department s compliance with subparagraphs 41c-e, paragraph 46 as it relates to subparagraph 47k, and paragraph 49. The results of our current assessments follow. Subparagraphs 41c-e Information to be Contained in TEAMS II Subparagraphs 41c-e require that TEAMS II contain the following information: a. all officer-involved shootings and firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty (excluding training or target range shootings, authorized ballistic testing, legal sport shooting events, or those incidents that occur off-duty in connection with the recreational use of firearms, in each case, where no person is hit by the discharge); b. all other lethal uses of force; c. all other injuries and deaths that are reviewed by the LAPD Use of Force Review Board (UOFRB) (or otherwise are the subject of an administrative investigation); In addition, for the incidents included in the database, TEAMS II must also include appropriate additional information about involved officers (e.g. name and serial number, work assignment, officer partner, field supervisor, and shift at the time of the incident) and appropriate information about the involved members of public (including demographic information such as race, ethnicity, or national origin). Background The Monitor last assessed the Department s compliance with paragraph 41 during the quarter ending September 30, 2007. At the time, the Monitor reviewed working papers provided by the TEAMS II staff regarding their testing of random samples of items required to be included in the TEAMS II database pursuant to a number of subparagraphs of paragraph 41, including Non- Categorical Uses of Force (NCUOF) (subparagraph 41a); canine contacts/bites (subparagraph 41b); vehicle pursuits (subparagraph 41f); traffic collisions (subparagraph 41f); complaints (subparagraph 41g); written compliments (subparagraph 41i); commendations and awards 5
(subparagraph 41j); claims (subparagraph 41l); lawsuits (subparagraph 41m); arrest reports (subparagraph 41n); crime reports (subparagraph 41n); motor vehicle and pedestrian stops (subparagraph 41n); assignment and rank history (subparagraph o); and weapons qualifications and training rosters for training history (subparagraph 41p). For each of these required items, TEAMS II staff obtained relevant source documents and compared them against data in RMIS to determine if the required data elements associated with these items were populated in RMIS (presence rate) and whether the information included in RMIS is accurate (accuracy rate). The Monitor found the Department in compliance with these subparagraphs of paragraph 41. The TEAMS II staff had not completed its review of subparagraphs 41c-e (Categorical Uses of Force) as of the end of that quarter. Current Assessment of Compliance In order to assess the LAPD s compliance with subparagraphs 41c-e regarding Categorical Uses of Force (CUOF) during the current quarter, TEAMS II staff obtained relevant source documents, including CUOF investigations, and compared them against data in RMIS to determine if the required data elements associated with these items 8 were populated in RMIS (presence rate) and whether the information included in RMIS is accurate (accuracy rate). The TEAMS II staff tested the total population of 40 CUOF cases that occurred during the period January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2006 and were closed during the first two quarters of 2007, with each case including a total of 54 data elements. All 54 of the data elements in the total sample of 40 closed CUOF cases had presence rates of 100%. The CUOF cases were taken from the UOFS, which includes validation triggers that do not allow a user to continue from section to section unless all required fields are populated, which ensures the 100% presence rates. As for the accuracy rates, 48 of the 54 data elements were populated in RMIS at accuracy rates of 94% or greater, four data elements were below 94% 9 and two data elements were not applicable to the CUOF incidents in the sample. Subsequent to this testing, TEAMS II staff corrected the four data elements with an accuracy rate less than 94%. As a result, all data elements are now at 100% for presence and accuracy. The Monitor reviewed the TEAMS II staff s findings for all 40 closed CUOF cases and related working papers, which compared the data in the UOFS for these CUOF cases against the data in RMIS. Although a few minor administrative errors were identified and some additional data elements were updated in either the UOFS or RMIS subsequent to TEAMS II staff s review, the Monitor concurred with their findings related to presence and accuracy rates. 8 The data elements for CUOF and all other requirements describe herein were agreed upon by all parties and included in Appendix A of the RMIS Design Document. 9 One data element was populated in RMIS for 92%, two at 90% and one at 66%. 6
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the LAPD in compliance with the requirements of subparagraphs 41c-e, and in overall compliance with paragraph 41. Paragraph 47 TEAMS II Protocol Subparagraph 47k requires that the protocol shall require regular review by appropriate managers of all relevant TEAMS II information to evaluate officer performance citywide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all LAPD units in order to identify any patterns or series of incidents that may indicate at-risk behavior. These evaluations shall include evaluating the performance over time of individual units, and comparing the performance of units with similar responsibilities. Background The Monitor last assessed the LAPD s compliance with paragraph 47 during the quarter ending September 30, 2007. At the time, the Monitor found that the policy that outlines the requirements of access is entitled Access Control Policy for TEAMS II Information, dated July 16, 2007 and the policy that outlines the requirements of the protocol required by paragraph 46 and covered by paragraph 47 is entitled Duty to Conduct and Document Individual Performance Assessments, dated July 12, 2007. The Monitor found that all requirements of paragraph 46 that are covered by paragraph 47 were contained within one of these two policies, with the exception of subparagraph 47k. Current Assessment of Compliance In order to assess the LAPD s compliance with subparagraph 47k during the current quarter, the Monitor received and reviewed the policy drafted by the TEAMS II entitled Organizational Performance Assessments, which addresses the requirements of subparagraph 47k by requiring regular review by appropriate managers of all relevant TEAMS II information to evaluate officer performance city-wide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all LAPD units to identify any patterns. This policy was submitted and approved by the Police Commission on January 29, 2008. The policy requires the Risk Management Executive Committee (RMEC) to be responsible for oversight of the policies, procedures and guidelines for completing regular and periodic assessment of organizational performance Department-wide to evaluate and identify any patterns or series of incidents that indicate at-risk behavior. Although this policy is not specific in terms of how such comparisons and assessments will be conducted, the Monitor believes that it does address the minimum requirements of subparagraph 47k. The Monitor met with TEAMS II staff in order to gain an understanding of how RMEC, TEAMS II and the appropriate managers will address the challenges of these organizational assessments and is encouraged by the content of these conversations and the direction the Department is 7
taking in terms of methodology and guidelines for such comparisons going forward. TEAMS II staff have indicated that the first organizational assessment began in March 2008 and will conclude at the May 22, 2008 RMEC meeting. The Monitor will review organizational assessments by RMEC and the appropriate managers to assess implementation of subparagraph 47k, pursuant to paragraph 46, in future quarters. Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the LAPD in compliance with subparagraph 47k, and in overall compliance with paragraph 47. Paragraph 49 Data Capture and Retention Paragraph 49 requires that the City shall maintain all personal identifiable information about an officer included in TEAMS II during the officer s employment with the LAPD and for at least three years thereafter. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in TEAMS II. On an ongoing basis, the City shall make all reasonable efforts to enter information in TEAMS II in a timely, accurate and complete manner, and to maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner consistent with the applicable access policy as established pursuant to paragraph 40. Background The Monitor last assessed the LAPD s compliance with paragraph 49 during the quarter ending August 31, 2007, at which time the Monitor found the Department in compliance. Current Assessment of Compliance In order to assess the LAPD s compliance with paragraph 49 during the current quarter, the Monitor reviewed working papers provided by TEAMS II staff in connection with their review of a sample of officers terminated more than three years ago. The TEAMS II staff conducted this review by selecting a specific LAPD organization for a specific time period and querying all of its employee events (i.e., arrests, stops, uses of force, et al.) during that time period. They then determined which events belonged to terminated employees and compared those terminated employees events against a current organizational summary report to determine if the terminated employees event were still included in TEAMS II for aggregate statistical analysis. The review conducted by the TEAMS II staff queried an organization from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007 and produced a list of UOF events for this organization and found that there were two terminated employees during that time period. After comparing such events to a current organizational summary report dated April 18, 2008, it was determined that 100% of the four UOF events for the two terminated employees are still included. Since the terminated employees events are still included in the current organizational summary report and are available for aggregate statistical analysis, the Monitor finds the LAPD in 8
compliance with the requirements of paragraph 49. Given the small sample tested, which was identified through the approved methodologies, the Monitor will again assess compliance with paragraph 49 during the quarter ending September 30, 2008. B. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISORY MEASURES TO PROMOTE CIVIL RIGHTS INTEGRITY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM Paragraph 54 is the only paragraph included in this subsection of the Consent Decree. The Monitor last assessed the Department s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending June 30, 2007. The Monitor is scheduled to assess compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending June 30, 2008. C. USE OF FORCE The Consent Decree requires LAPD officers to report all incidents in which force is used with a determination as to whether that force is Categorical (CUOF) or Non-Categorical (NCUOF). A CUOF 10 is defined by paragraph 13 of the Consent Decree. Any use of force (UOF) that falls under this definition is subject to certain paragraphs of the Consent Decree. 11 Administrative investigations of these incidents are the responsibility of the Force Investigation Division (FID). All completed CUOF incident investigations must be presented to a UOFRB and ultimately the Police Commission within a defined period of time. All other UOF that do not fall under the definition of paragraph 13 are considered NCUOF, which are also subject to certain paragraphs. 12 NCUOF occur much more frequently than do CUOF, as officers often encounter resistance while performing their duties. NCUOF range from a technique as simple as the physical force used to control a resisting individual to the use of a taser or a bean-bag shotgun. The Department has achieved substantial compliance with all Consent Decree provisions relating to uses of force except those requiring managers to analyze the circumstances surrounding the presence or absence of a supervisor at a CUOF incident (subparagraph 62a); the referral of all officers involved in a CUOF resulting in death or the substantial possibility of death to the LAPD s Behavioral Science Services (BSS) for a psychological evaluation (paragraph 63); and managers consideration of the officer's work history, including information contained in the 10 CUOF include an Officer-Involved Shooting (OIS) with or without a hit; In-Custody Death (ICD); Law Enforcement Activity Related Death (LEARD); Law Enforcement Related Injury (LERI) requiring hospitalization; Neck Restraint; Head Strike with an Impact Weapon; and a Canine Bite requiring hospitalization. 11 Specifically, paragraphs 13, 38, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 69, 80, 82, 83, 136 and 142, as well as certain audit-related paragraphs. 12 Specifically, paragraphs 13, 38, 65, 66, 68, 69, 81 and 82, as well as certain audit-related paragraphs. 9
TEAMS II system and that officer s CUOF histories when reviewing and making recommendations regarding discipline or non-disciplinary action as a result of a CUOF (paragraph 64). In addition, the Department has not yet achieved substantial compliance with several Consent Decree provisions regarding UOF investigations (subparagraph 80i) and access to information contained in TEAMS II for those units conducting CUOF investigations (paragraph 83, which is reported on in A. Management and Supervisory Measures to Promote Civil Rights Integrity TEAMS II [Computer Information System], above). As a result, the Monitor will be assessing the Department s compliance with these paragraphs during the extension to the Consent Decree. 13 During the current quarter, the Monitor assessed the Department s compliance with subparagraphs 62b and c and paragraph 63. The results of our current assessments follow. Paragraph 62 Analyses of CUOF and Search Warrants Paragraph 62 requires that managers shall analyze the circumstances surrounding the presence or absence of a supervisor at (a) a CUOF incident, and (b) the service of a search warrant. The review and analysis is required to occur within seven calendar days of the occurrence of the incident or service to determine if the supervisor s response to the incident or service was appropriate. Paragraph 62 also requires (c) the consideration of the analysis in each supervisor s annual personnel performance evaluation. Background The Monitor last assessed the LAPD s compliance with paragraph 62 as it pertains to search warrants (subparagraph 62b) during the quarter ending June 30, 2007, at which time the Monitor found the LAPD in non-compliance. The Monitor noted that for 55 of 70 executed search warrants reviewed, the required analyses were documented as having occurred within seven days of service. Additionally, for 63 of 70 search warrants, the analyses conducted by the Commanding Officers (COs) sufficiently documented the supervisors actions. The Monitor last assessed the LAPD s compliance with paragraph 62 as it pertains to employee comment cards (subparagraph 62c) during the quarter ending June 30, 2007, at which time the Monitor found the LAPD in non-compliance. The Monitor noted that for 60 of the 70 search warrants reviewed, the analyses were documented on the respective supervisors employee comment cards. 13 The parties have agreed, and the Monitor concurs, that the Department has achieved substantial compliance with paragraphs 55-61 and 65-69 from this section of the Consent Decree. In addition, many of the paragraphs included in Section D. Complaints, below, are related to this section of the Consent Decree. As described in the Introduction section of this report, the Monitor will not be actively monitoring or reporting on the Department s compliance with these paragraphs. 10
Current Assessment of Compliance Subparagraph 62b Service of Search Warrants During the current quarter, the LAPD s Civil Rights Integrity Division (CRID) compiled information and analyses of a sample of executed search warrants selected for review by the Monitor. 14 The Monitor noted that for 76 of the 86 (88.4%) search warrants reviewed, the CO completed an evaluation of the supervisors presence within the mandated seven-day time period. The Monitor also noted that for 63 of the 86 (73.3%) search warrants reviewed, the analyses conducted by the CO sufficiently documented the supervisors actions. Subparagraph 62c Employee Comments Cards In assessing the LAPD s compliance with subparagraph 62c, the Monitor noted that for 62 of the 86 (72.1%) search warrants reviewed, the COs analyses were documented on the respective supervisors filed employee comment sheets. Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the LAPD in non-compliance with subparagraphs 62b and c. 15 Paragraph 63 Confidential Psychological Evaluation for Officers Involved in Deadly CUOF Paragraph 63 requires the Department to continue referring officers involved in CUOF incidents resulting in death or the substantial possibility of death to the LAPD s BSS for a consultation and evaluation with a licensed mental health professional. Such officers are precluded from working in the field until such consultation has occurred and notification of fitness for duty has been discussed with their respective CO. Background The Monitor last assessed compliance with paragraph 63 during the quarter ending June 30, 2007, at which time the Monitor found the LAPD in non-compliance. At the time, in assessing compliance with this paragraph, the Monitor relied on information compiled and analyzed by CRID. For 24 of 87 officers referred to BSS, CRID was unable to verify that the officers were assigned to non-field assignments pending their BSS consultations and notification of fitness for duty. 14 CRID accumulated information on search warrants executed during January 2008. In total, 125 such warrants were identified. CRID randomly sampled 86 of the warrants for review and analyses from all 19 Areas. 15 The Monitor last assessed the LAPD compliance with subparagraph 62a during the quarter ending December 31, 2007, and is scheduled to again assess compliance with this subparagraph during the quarter ending June 30, 2008. 11
Current Assessment of Compliance During the current quarter, CRID compiled and presented information on 18 CUOF incidents that occurred between May and December 2007, which involved a total of 41 officers requiring referral to BSS. The Monitor reviewed CRID s analysis and noted that 40 of 41 officers were scheduled for an appointment with BSS within 48 hours of the incident and all 41 officers underwent a psychological examination. Similarly, the respective COs of all officers consulted with the BSS regarding the involved officers readiness to return to field duty. CRID was able to verify that 40 of the 41 officers were assigned to non-field assignments pending BSS consultation and notification of fitness for duty. 16 This translates into an overall compliance rate of 97.6%. For the period under review, CRID noted that BSS was staffed with 16 psychologists, 12 of whom completed officer psychological evaluations related to incidents in CRID s sample. All psychologists maintained current mental health licensing with the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs, Board of Psychology. Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the LAPD in compliance with paragraph 63. D. SEARCH AND ARREST PROCEDURES The Consent Decree requires the LAPD to establish and/or continue to implement policies and procedures regarding searches and arrests. Although the Department has achieved substantial compliance with many of the Consent Decree s requirements related to search and arrest procedures, 17 it has not achieved substantial compliance with the requirement related to supervisory presence at and review of the service of search warrants (subparagraphs 62b, 70b, 70c and paragraph 71) and the search warrant log (paragraph 72). As a result, the Monitor is assessing the Department s compliance with these paragraphs and subparagraphs during the extension to the Consent Decree. During the current quarter, the Monitor assessed the LAPD s compliance with paragraph 71 and 72. The results of our current assessments follow. 16 CRID s inspection included reviewing and comparing DPS Daily Work Sheets, Official Divisional Time Books, Detective Daily Sign In/Sign Out Sheets and Form 15.2 Interdepartmental Correspondence. 17 The parties have agreed, and the Monitor concurs, that the Department has achieved substantial compliance with subparagraph 70a and paragraph 73 from this section of the Consent Decree. As described in the Introduction section of this report, the Monitor will not be actively monitoring or reporting on the Department s compliance with these paragraphs. 12
Paragraph 71 Supervisory Review of Warrants Paragraph 71 requires supervisory review of all search warrants and probable cause arrest warrants ( Ramey warrants). The review must include the following: a. A review for completeness of the information contained therein and an authenticity review to include an examination for canned language, inconsistent information, and lack of articulation of the legal basis for the warrant. b. A review of the information on the application and affidavit, where applicable, to determine whether the warrant is appropriate, legal and in conformance with LAPD procedure. c. A review of the plan for executing the warrant and a review of the execution of the warrant after it occurs (after-action review). In addition, a supervisor must be present for the execution of the warrant. Background The Monitor last assessed the LAPD s compliance with paragraph 71 during the quarter ending March 31, 2007, at which time the Monitor found the LAPD in non-compliance with subparagraphs 71a, b and c. The Monitor reviewed AD s Warrant Applications and Supporting Affidavits Audit Report submitted December 28, 2006, which found the LAPD in noncompliance with subparagraphs 71a, b and c. At the time, during its meta-audit, the Monitor found numerous material and administrative issues that were not identified by AD. These additional material findings would have further reduced the compliance percentages calculated by AD, but would not have changed the overall compliance findings. Current Assessment of Compliance In order to assess the LAPD s compliance with paragraph 71 during the current quarter, the Monitor reviewed AD s Warrant Applications and Supporting Affidavits Audit Report submitted December 28, 2007. The Monitor conducted a meta-audit of AD s audit and findings, noting that AD included sealed (Hobbs) warrants in this, its sixth Search Warrant Audit. 18 During its audit, AD selected a sample of 83 warrant packages from a total population of 162 warrants that were prepared and/or served Department-wide during July 2007. AD reviewed each of the 83 warrant packages for compliance with subparagraphs 71a, b and c, among others, and found the LAPD in non-compliance with each of these subparagraphs. 18 As described in the Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraphs 128(1), 131c-1 and 131e, below, the Monitor is withholding a final determination of compliance in connection with the Warrant Applications and Supporting Affidavits Audit, pending final discussion with AD. However, the Monitor completed its review of the audit and is including the audit s findings in its assessment of compliance with paragraph 71 and 72. 13
In assessing compliance with subparagraph 71a, regarding completeness of the information and an authenticity review for warrants reviewed, AD determined that nine packages were noncompliant with the requirement regarding completeness of information, 19 resulting in a compliance rate of 89% (74 of 83); all 83 packages were in compliance with the requirements regarding canned language and legal basis, resulting in a 100% compliance rate; and 17 packages were non-compliant with the requirement regarding inconsistent information, resulting in a compliance rate of 80% (66 of 83). 20 In assessing compliance with subparagraph 71b, regarding underlying actions for warrants reviewed, AD determined that 32 packages were non-compliant with the requirements regarding appropriateness and legality and conformance with LAPD procedures, resulting in a compliance rate of 61% (51 of 83). 21 In assessing compliance with subparagraph 71c, regarding supervisory oversight for warrants reviewed, AD determined that 13 packages were non-compliant with the requirements regarding application/affidavit, 22 resulting in a compliance rate of 84% (70 of 83); three packages were non-compliant with the requirements regarding supervisory oversight of applicable incidents, 23 19 Three warrants did not include a Warrant Service/Tactical Plan Report as required; one warrant did not have a Property Report completed as required; three warrants did not have a Receipt for Property as required; and two warrants had both a missing Receipt for Property and Warrant Service/Tactical Plan as required. 20 The authenticity objective comprises canned language, inconsistent information and articulation of legal basis (which AD found in compliance). 21 These 32 warrant packages contained errors and omissions identified by AD in connection with objectives 3a and b (articulation of justification for night service; warrant not served at the correct time of day); objectives 4a-c (warrant served within the required time; use of confidential informant; warrant service in proper order); and objective 2d (other indicia that information is not authentic), as these are anomalies in which LAPD procedure was not followed. The errors and omissions identified included: missing or incomplete information on the search warrant info boxes of the Property Report; affiant s name not printed on warrant on the first page signed by judge; articulation of justification for night service; warrant not served at the correct time of day; warrant not served within the required time; failure to return the warrant within the time required; warrant contact information and reliability and corroboration of the confidential informant not documented in the confidential informant package; the warrant service planning, briefing, debriefing, and management review did not occur in proper order; and warrant service evaluation was not completed by the CO. Some packages contained more than one anomaly, but these packages were not counted twice in arriving at the total number of 32 packages. 22 The 13 warrants did not include documentation indicating review by a supervisor. 23 One package did not have a supervisor of appropriate rank on scene at service; one package documented the affiant as supervisor on scene; and one package did not have evidence that a supervisor reviewed the Warrant Service/Tactical Plan Report. 14
resulting in a compliance rate of 93% (43 of 46), 24 and 28 packages were non-compliant with the post-incident review requirement, 25 resulting in a compliance rate of 39% (18 of 46). During its meta-audit, the Monitor evaluated AD s findings for a sample of 52 warrants reviewed by AD. The Monitor identified a number of additional findings that were not originally identified and reported by AD, some of which would have further reduced the compliance percentages calculated and reported by AD for subparagraphs 71a, b and c, but would not have changed the overall compliance findings. As noted above, the Monitor is currently discussing these findings and related issues with AD. Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the LAPD in non-compliance with subparagraphs 71a, b and c. Paragraph 72 Supervisory Review of Warrant Log Paragraph 72 requires each Area and specialized Division of the LAPD to maintain a log listing: each search warrant; the case file where a copy of the warrant is maintained; the name of the officer who applied for the warrant; and, the name of each supervisor who reviewed the application for the warrant. Background The Monitor last assessed the LAPD s compliance with paragraph 72 during the quarter ending March 31, 2007, at which time the Monitor found the LAPD in non-compliance. At the time, the Monitor reviewed AD s Warrant Applications and Supporting Affidavits Audit Report submitted December 28, 2006, which found the LAPD in non-compliance with paragraph 72. During its meta-audit, the Monitor evaluated AD s findings for a sample of warrants reviewed by AD and concurred with AD s findings and conclusions in relation to paragraph 72. 24 Of the 83 warrants reviewed, 32 involved third party records, such as telephone records, and five packages did not include a Warrant Service/Tactical Plan Report, and were therefore not reviewed for compliance with the supervisory review requirements. 25 Three warrants did not document that a debrief took place by the next day; three warrants did not indicate that the CO evaluated the Warrant Service/Tactical Plan Report; 24 warrants did not indicate the appropriateness of service; and one warrant did not document that a supervisor reviewed the written debrief critique. There was overlap among the anomalies in certain packages. 15
Current Assessment of Compliance In order to assess the LAPD s compliance with paragraph 72 during the current quarter, the Monitor reviewed AD s Warrant Applications and Supporting Affidavits Audit Report, submitted December 28, 2007. As described in the Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraph 71, above, the Monitor conducted a meta-audit of AD s audit and findings, noting that AD included sealed (Hobbs) warrants. AD selected and reviewed a sample of 83 warrant packages 26 and the corresponding warrant tracking log for compliance with paragraph 72 and found the LAPD in non-compliance. AD concluded that nine warrants were non-compliant with the requirements regarding completeness and accuracy of the Warrant Tracking Log, resulting in a compliance rate of 89% (74 of 83). The Monitor evaluated AD s findings for a sample of 52 warrants reviewed by AD and identified no additional material issues in connection with the requirements of paragraph 72; accordingly, the Monitor agreed with AD s findings. Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the LAPD in non-compliance with paragraph 72. E. COMPLAINTS The Consent Decree directs the LAPD to ensure the public unfettered ability to lodge complaints against police officers, and provides specific requirements relative to the intake of complaints, including the continuation of a 24-hour toll-free complaint hotline. The Decree also provides a series of specific instructions relating to the conduct of complaint investigations and requires that misconduct complaints be adjudicated in a fair, timely and consistent fashion; provides specific requirements relative to the adjudication process, including standards for credibility determination and categories for final adjudication; and provides specific requirements regarding the imposition and reporting of disciplinary and non-disciplinary action. In addition, the Chief of Police must report to the Police Commission on his imposition of discipline during each calendar quarter. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) must review, analyze and report to the Police Commission on the Chief s actions, and the Police Commission must assess the appropriateness of his actions. The Department has achieved substantial compliance with many of the Consent Decree s requirements relative to complaint intake, investigation, adjudication and reporting. 27 However, the Department has not yet achieved substantial compliance with Decree requirements relative to 26 Refer to the Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraph 71 for information regarding this audit and the Monitor s review of it. 27 The parties have agreed, and the Monitor concurs, that the Department has achieved substantial compliance with paragraphs 75-78, 79, certain provisions of paragraph 80, and paragraphs 82, 86-89, 91-96 and 98-101 from this section of the Consent Decree. As described in the Introduction section of this report, the Monitor will not be actively monitoring or reporting on the Department s compliance with these paragraphs. 16