Response to Request for Proposal for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 --------------------------------------------------------------------Submitted by: Seth A. Rosenthal 202-344-4741 SARosenthal@Venable.com Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 Contents I. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Background ............................................................................................................................................... 3 III. Our Personnel ............................................................................................................................................ 6 1. Law Enforcement Leaders ..................................................................................................................... 6 2. Academic Experts ................................................................................................................................ 9 3. Legal Team ....................................................................................................................................... 10 IV. Our Qualifications .................................................................................................................................... 14 V. Our Prior Experience and References ........................................................................................................... 23 VI. Proposed Activities................................................................................................................................... 25 VII. Potential Conflicts of Interest or Bias........................................................................................................... 35 VIII. Estimated Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix A – CVs Appendix B – References Appendix C – Writing Samples Appendix D – Budget Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police I. July 8, 2015 Executive Summary It has been well over a decade since the City of Cleveland and the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP”) first began attempting to address concerns regarding the conduct of CDP officers, including concerns regarding the use of unreasonable force. Notwithstanding the City’s good faith efforts, there is more to be done. By entering into a comprehensive Settlement Agreement that addresses a wide array of CDP policies and practices, the City and the Department of Justice have agreed that the time for lasting, sustainable reform is now. Together with Butler Snow LLP, Venable LLP has assembled a monitoring team that possesses the experience and the vision to help the CDP achieve it. We are led by a decisive proposed monitor whose diligence, integrity and credibility are unquestioned. We are supported by a national law firm that is fully committed to the efficient administration of the monitorship. Our law enforcement leaders, with roughly 200 years of experience among them, viscerally understand both the challenges of police work and the vital importance of community-oriented, constitutional policing. Our academics have devoted decades to analyzing and crafting solutions to the very issues the CDP is facing. Our lawyers, having prosecuted a number of use of force cases and declined to prosecute many more, have spent substantial parts of their careers addressing the legality of police practices and learning how police departments operate. The Settlement Agreement obligates the CDP to revise its policies, practices and training regime in order to achieve measurable improvement in how and when officers use force; how and when officers make stops, searches and arrests; how officers respond to individuals in crisis; community policing; and ensuring officer accountability by making internal investigations and disciplinary procedures more robust. Our team has extensive experience in each of these areas. Indeed, many of our members are qualified to oversee all of the Settlement Agreement’s substantive requirements, and all team members are qualified to oversee certain substantive requirements, including use of force. The following is merely illustrative of the relevant experience our team possesses: • Use of Force: Every member of our team—law enforcement officers, academics and lawyers—has spent considerable time addressing police uses of force. Los Angeles Police Department Captain Scott Sargent, who previously served in the LAPD’s Consent Decree Compliance Bureau, devoted the last eight years to leading the LAPD’s Use of Force Review Division, where he was responsible for overseeing the investigation of over 13,000 force incidents. He has trained other officers on the use of force, is a researcher for the National Force Science Institute, and has published articles on investigating, reviewing and adjudicating uses of force. • Bias-free Policing: As an academic, consultant and expert witness, Dr. John Lamberth has performed internationally-recognized, pioneering work using rigorous, data-driven Page 1 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 statistical methods to gauge whether police departments are engaged in racial profiling. Washtenaw County Sheriff Jerry Clayton, who is currently chair of the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards, co-developed and teaches a bias-free policing program to officers, supervisors, executives and field trainers. • Search and Seizure: Steve Parker, a former Memphis police officer and long-serving Assistant U.S. Attorney, has taught search and seizure law for years at the Memphis Police Academy and the University of Memphis’s law school, has litigated countless search and seizure issues over the course of his career as a prosecutor, and served as a subject matter expert on search and seizure for the Department of Justice’s investigations of the New Orleans Police Department and Ferguson, Missouri Police Department. • Community Policing: Mary Ann Viverette—former Chief of the Gaithersburg Police Department, former head of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, long-serving member of the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (“CALEA”), a decade-long member of the Maryland Chiefs of Police Training Committee, and a subject matter expert on the New Orleans Police Department monitoring team—has been recognized by the President, the Vice President and the U.S. Conference of Mayors for having successfully developed and implemented a city-wide community policing policy in Gaithersburg, where 49% of the citizens speak languages other than English. • Crisis Intervention: University of Memphis Professor Randolph Dupont is the nation’s leading expert on crisis intervention policies and de-escalation techniques. He helped establish the first crisis intervention team in the nation, has assisted in the development of such teams in other agencies, has trained thousands of officers on crisis intervention methods, and recently delivered testimony involving crisis intervention policies to the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. • Training: All of our law enforcement leaders have trained other police officers. University of Memphis Police Chief and former Memphis police officer Bruce Harber served for eleven years in the Memphis Police Department (“MPD”) Academy, assuming the position of Academy Commander/Executive Officer for four years. He designed and implemented the MPD’s well-regarded Field Training Officer Program, including the program’s general policies, standardized evaluation guidelines and field evaluation protocols. • Supervision and Management: All of our law enforcement experts have served as leaders in law enforcement agencies, and many have consulted other departments on best practices in management and supervision. Robert Stewart—former Chief of the Ormond Beach, Florida Police Department, former Executive Director of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Officers, and a member of the monitoring team in the U.S. Virgin Islands—has advised numerous large law enforcement agencies on organizational management and supervisory accountability over the past 15 years, including the Detroit Page 2 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 Police Department, the Oakland Police Department, the San Antonio Police Department, the Cincinnati Police Department and the Florida Highway Patrol. • Accountability: Ensuring officer accountability through meaningful investigation and discipline of alleged misconduct has been a priority for each of our law enforcement experts. A Commander in the Washtenaw County, Michigan Sheriff’s Office and former Deputy Chief of the Ann Arbor Police Department, Sherry Woods served as a lieutenant in the Ann Arbor PD’s internal affairs unit, where she supervised the investigation of numerous police firearm discharge cases. As a member of the Detroit Police Department consent decree monitoring team, she also has overseen and evaluated the integrity of departmental use of force investigations. Our team will rely on this vast, collective experience to carry out our responsibilities under the Settlement Agreement. We will assess the CDP’s policies and training programs with a critical eye to ensure that they are optimally designed for constitutional policing. We will scrupulously review stop/search/arrest reports, use of force reports, internal investigations files and disciplinary records to determine whether the anticipated policy revisions are producing measurable improvements. We will also use rigorous, scientifically accepted methods to gather and analyze statistical data to measure whether improvements are being made. We will engage with community members to gauge public perceptions about the CDP and the efficacy of the reforms the Settlement Agreement contemplates. And we will diligently produce comprehensive, readily accessible public reports explaining our findings. With a clear understanding of the issues facing the CDP and the most effective means of addressing them, our team is fully committed to helping the Division reach its long-held goal of ensuring that all officers, at all times, enforce the law in a safe, effective and constitutional manner. Our objective is to work ourselves out of a job — to have the CDP achieve full and sustainable compliance with the Settlement Agreement as quickly as possible. The City of Cleveland and its citizens deserve no less. II. Background As a native Clevelander, the proposed monitor, Seth Rosenthal, knows the City’s long, proud history. With approximately 400,000 residents, Cleveland remains a major American urban center, despite its population decline in recent decades. As with every major city, it faces challenges. One of those challenges is operating a major police force in the midst of the social and economic dislocation that affects many of the City’s residents. Policing in Cleveland is not easy. Day to day, CDP officers are required not only to confront major urban crime,1 but also to address the broader societal problems that often accompany crime, including dysfunctional families, 1 Cleveland suffered 103 murders in 2014. It had a higher murder rate than Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. In the CDP’s Fourth District, the City’s most dangerous, there were 42 murders in 2014. In the last 20 years, the CDP has endured the deaths of six officers while on duty. Some CDP officers have candidly admitted that they are afraid to Page 3 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 mental illness and drug addiction. The need to deal with these problems can stretch thin even the best police departments. For the CDP, the attrition of government services in recent years has magnified the challenge. As CDP Chief Calvin Williams explained on 60 Minutes, the government services that complimented the Division’s work ten years ago are no longer available: The agencies that were in place, I’d say 10 years ago, to handle things with the families, to handle things with mental illness, to handle things with addiction, aren’t there anymore. People call 911, we have to respond. The department received a staggering 400,000 calls for assistance last year — more than one call per resident.2 On top of these difficulties, the relationship between the CDP and much of the community is strained. The shootings of unarmed African-American citizens, including Malissa Williams and Timothy Russell on November 29, 2012, and Tamir Rice on November 22, 2014, have contributed to the mistrust. At the core of the mistrust is the community’s perception that CDP officers engage in overly aggressive tactics and view themselves as “warriors” rather than “guardians.” One CDP officer who has sought to mend the relationship between the CDP and the community candidly stated that, in the City’s most dangerous district, the perception of the police is “not that good.”3 Mayor Frank Jackson and other city leaders have long been aware of these issues and have made it a priority to address them. As early as 1993, as a Council member, Mayor Jackson introduced legislation to curb the use of excessive force. A decade later, in 2002, the CDP accepted 33 recommendations from DOJ concerning the use of force and committed to implementing reforms. In 2004, the Division began crisis intervention training to reduce the use of force against citizens suffering from mental illness and other impairments. In 2005, the CDP purchased Tasers as a means of reducing the use of lethal force. Mayor Jackson subsequently helped implement changes to the CDP use of force policy in 2006, updating protocols and requiring more training. The following year, the Division started its Early Intervention Program to assist troubled officers. In 2010, the CDP reformed its Vehicle Pursuit Policy. In 2011, the City hired Police Executive Research Forum (“PERF”) to conduct a comprehensive review of the Division’s performance. In 2012, the Division accepted all of PERF’s recommendations and began seeking to implement them. Later that year, on December 27, 2012, in the wake of the Williams-Russell shooting, Mayor Jackson asked DOJ to conduct an investigation to determine whether the CDP was engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct.4 On December 4, 2014, DOJ issued a Findings Letter (“DOJ Report”) concluding that, notwithstanding the City’s and the CDP’s efforts, problems persist. DOJ found that “CDP engages in a pattern and practice of unconstitutional excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”5 DOJ determined that the pattern and practice includes: police certain people in the City. See 60 Minutes, “The Cleveland Division,” Jan. 25, 2015 (available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cleveland-police-60-minutes-bill-whitaker/). 2 Id. 3 Id. 4 See Mayor Frank Jackson, Reduction in the Use of Force, PowerPoint Presentation, Feb. 27, 2015. 5 DOJ Report at 3. Page 4 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 • Excessive use of deadly force, including shootings and head strikes with impact weapons • Unnecessary or retaliatory use of less lethal force, including Tasers, chemical spray and fists • Excessive use of force against persons who are mentally ill or in crisis, including in cases where the officers were called exclusively for a welfare check • Use of suboptimal, dangerous tactics that place officers in situations where force becomes inevitable and the accompanying risk of unnecessary injury to officers and civilians increases • Inadequate use of force policy • Ineffective community policing • Inadequate training for approaching citizens in crisis • Inadequate early intervention system for potentially problematic officers • Inadequate reporting of use of force incidents • Inadequate officer supervision • Inadequate investigation of use of force incidents • Inadequate discipline for improper uses of force6 Consistent with its recent history of attempted reform, the CDP promptly announced its commitment to cooperating with DOJ to address these issues. Together with DOJ, it signed a Joint Statement of Principles agreeing to work toward the adoption of a comprehensive consent decree. In late May 2015, DOJ and the City announced that it had reached agreement on all terms, and submitted a proposed agreement to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for approval. On June 12, 2015, Judge Solomon Oliver approved the Agreement and entered it as an order of the Court. The Agreement provides for the appointment of an independent monitor who will “assess and report whether the requirements of th[e] Agreement have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in constitutional and effective policing, professional treatment of individuals, and increased community trust of [the Cleveland Division of Police].”7 Our team 6 7 DOJ Report, passim. Consent Decree at 80 ¶ 350. Page 5 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 possesses the personnel, the experience and the vision required to be a capable, cost-effective and ethical monitor. III. Our Personnel A. Experience Our team of law enforcement leaders, academic experts and attorneys possesses the experience and wisdom required to oversee and assist the CDP in its efforts to achieve sustainable compliance with the Settlement Agreement. The curriculum vitae or resume of each team member is included in Appendix 1. 1. Law Enforcement Leaders The law enforcement officers on our team bring extensive knowledge of progressive police policy and management. During the course of their careers, they have held every rank, from patrol officer to chief. The majority of them have served on other monitoring teams or otherwise consulted for DOJ. They are: Chief Robert Stewart Chief Mary Ann Viverette Sheriff Jerry Clayton Captain Scott Sargent Commander Sherry Woods Chief Bruce Harber Robert L. Stewart is the former Chief of Police of the Ormond Beach, Florida Police Department, the former Director of the Louisville Metro Police Academy, and the former Executive Director of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (“NOBLE”). He served for 22 years with the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department, rising to the rank of Page 6 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 Captain. Since his retirement from law enforcement, he has gained extensive experience in police monitoring. He currently serves on the monitoring team for DOJ’s consent decree with the U. S. Virgin Islands. He also has served as a monitor for a settlement agreement with the Hobbs, New Mexico Police Department. A police practices expert, particularly in the fields of organizational management and community policing, Chief Stewart has worked on the investigation of the Portland, Maine Police Department, and has served as a consultant for reviews of the Bay Area Rapid Transit Police Department, the Detroit Police Department, the Cincinnati Police Department, the Oakland Police Department, the San Antonio Police Department, the Florida Highway Patrol and numerous other law enforcement agencies. Chief Stewart has a B.A. from Howard University and has taken post graduate courses at American University, George Washington University and Florida State University. Mary Ann Viverette served as Chief of Gaithersburg, Maryland Police Department for 21 years. She led the agency through organizational change while embracing the diversity of the community the Department serves. Chief Viverette was also the first female president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (“IACP”), and served on the Maryland Chiefs of Police Training Committee for over a decade. As a pioneer female police chief, she was and is called upon often to speak on issues affecting women and minorities in law enforcement. Chief Viverette has conducted dozens of training sessions on the recruitment of women and minorities over a fifteenyear period, and has served as an investigator with DOJ in Lorain, Ohio. Since 2013, she has worked on the monitoring team for the New Orleans Police Department’s consent decree with DOJ as a subject matter expert in use of force, bias-free policing, uniform patrol evaluations, sexual assault and law enforcement policy. Now owner of a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise in South Carolina, Chief Viverette has a B.S. in Criminology and an M.S. in Human Resource Management from the University of Maryland. Jerry L. Clayton currently serves as Sheriff of the Washtenaw County, Michigan Sheriff’s Department. He is a nationally known expert in use of force issues. He has consulted as a subject matter expert for DOJ, Kroll Worldwide and Saul Ewing LLP. Sheriff Clayton has been a member of the monitoring teams for the consent decrees involving the Suffolk County, New York Sheriff’s Office and the Detroit Police Department. As a subject matter expert, he has evaluated these law enforcement agencies for compliance with court ordered improvements in policies and procedures, staff training and supervision. Sheriff Clayton currently serves as chairperson of the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (“MCOLES”). He has worked toward a B.S in Public Safety Administration from Eastern Michigan University. He also attended Eastern Michigan University’s School of Police Staff and Command and Washtenaw Community College’s Criminal Justice Police Academy. Scott Sargent is currently employed by the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”). He entered law enforcement in 1981 and is a prominent expert on the use of force. From 2003 to 2005, he served as a Lieutenant in the LAPD’s Consent Decree Compliance Bureau, working diligently to instill professionalism in rank and file LAPD officers. From 2007 to 2015, he was the commander of the LAPD Use of Force Review Division, where he oversaw the investigation of over 13,000 use of force incidents, including a number of officer-involved shootings. Captain Sargent is also a researcher Page 7 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 for the National Force Science Institute and has published articles on investigating, reviewing and adjudicating uses of force. Captain Sargent has a B.S. in Business Administration and Management from the University of the Redlands, an M.A. in Organization Management from Azusa Pacific University, and a J.D. from Southwestern University School of Law. Sherry E. Woods is currently Commander of Corrections for the Washtenaw County, Michigan Sheriff’s Office. She is the former Deputy Chief of the Ann Arbor Police Department, the first woman ever to serve in that position. Before becoming Deputy Chief, Commander Woods held many posts during her 28-year career in Ann Arbor, including Lieutenant of the Internal Affairs Unit, Patrol Shift Supervisor and Chief of the Community Services Division. From 2004 to 2009, Commander Woods was a member of the monitoring team under DOJ’s consent decree with the Detroit Police Department (“DPD”). She reviewed and made assessments regarding use of force incidents, performed field audits and conducted inspections related to the consent decree. In 2014, the DOJ selected her to review and assess DPD’s use of force investigations to determine whether they were complying with the consent decree. Commander Woods holds a B.S. in English and Social Science from the University of Michigan. She is also a graduate of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Academy and the Northwestern University Traffic Institute. Bruce C. Harber is currently both the Assistant Vice President for Administration and the Chief of Police for the University of Memphis Police Department (“UMPD”). One of his responsibilities is building and maintaining partnerships with neighborhood associations, development corporations, residents and businesses to improve the quality of life in the community surrounding the University. Prior to joining the UMPD, Chief Harber worked for the Memphis Police Department (“MPD”) for 25 years, rising to the rank of Major. He trained other officers for 11 years in the MPD Academy, assuming the position of Academy Commander in 1997. He served as Commander/Executive Officer for four years. In 1993, prior to becoming Commander, Chief Harber designed and implemented the MPD’s Field Training Officer (“FTO”) Program, including the program’s general policies, standardized evaluation guidelines and field evaluation protocols. He also taught the FTO classes he helped design to MPD officers and officers from western Tennessee. Among his accomplishments, Chief Harber developed the curriculum for teaching alternatives to the “us versus them” or “siege” mentality that at the time was common among police officers nationally. During his tenure at the Academy, Chief Harber also was responsible for ensuring compliance with a consent decree involving the recruitment and employment of new police officers. Chief Harber graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Professional Studies from the University of Memphis, and recently received his Master’s Degree in Strategic Leadership with a perfect grade point average from the University of Memphis. He is a graduate of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Academy (190th Session), and has taught as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Memphis, Criminology and Criminal Justice Department. Page 8 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 2. Academic Experts The nationally recognized academics on our team have spent much of their careers studying and helping police departments implement constitutional police practices. They are: Dr. Randolph Dupont Dr. John Lamberth Randolph Dupont, Ph.D. is recognized as one of the foremost authorities on the use of Crisis Intervention Teams (“CIT”) and de-escalation systems and techniques in law enforcement. He has over 26 years of experience researching, teaching and implementing reforms in the area. Dr. Dupont is currently a licensed clinical psychologist and a Professor at the School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Memphis. He formerly served as Chair of the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Dr. Dupont was previously a Professor at the University of Tennessee - College of Medicine, where he directed the Regional Medical Center Psychiatric Emergency Service. He also has extensive background in community mental health service delivery. Working with the Memphis Police Department, Dr. Dupont helped plan and develop the nationally recognized “Memphis Model” for crisis intervention. Memphis established the first CIT in the nation. In addition, Dr. Dupont was the principal investigator for: (i) the National Science Foundation-funded study on training techniques in crisis de-escalation and (ii) DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Assistance’s (“BJA”) Special Populations study, which developed a national curriculum for law enforcement crisis intervention and community engagement. He also has participated as a subject matter expert in DOJ’s investigation of the New Orleans Police Department and on the consent decree monitoring team under DOJ’s consent decree with the Seattle Police Department. Dr. Dupont continues to train officers and departments throughout the nation. Because of his pioneering work, he has received numerous awards, including recognition from the Office of the President of the United States, the National Law Enforcement Person of the Year Award from the City University of New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice, the National Psychologist of the Year from the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and Special Recognition as a founding member of the National Crisis Intervention Team. In addition to receiving these awards, Dr. Dupont has won numerous grants from BJA, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the State of Tennessee, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Most of these grants were to help law enforcement agencies establish, train and operate a Crisis Intervention Program. Dr. Dupont is the author of many studies and publications, including Special Training on Building Trust, used by President Obama’s Task Force for 21st Century Policing. Dr. Dupont holds a Ph.D. from the University of Texas in Clinical Psychology and a B.A. from Loyola University of the South in Psychology. Page 9 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 John L. Lamberth, Ph.D. is a nationally known researcher and statistician who has established best practices in law enforcement data collection and analysis. He is presently the Chief Operating Officer of Lamberth Consulting, which he founded after retiring from the faculty of the Psychology Department at Temple University, where he formerly served as chair of the department. Recently, Dr. Lamberth has testified as an expert witness in two cases litigated by DOJ’s Civil Rights Division: United States v. Johnson, challenging certain practices of the Alamance County, North Carolina Sheriff’s Office, and United States v. Maricopa County, challenging certain practices of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff’s Office. Dr. Lamberth has consulted for entities such as the U.S. Army, the National Law Enforcement Assistance Association, the State of Kansas, the San Antonio Police Department, the Ann Arbor Police Department, the Montgomery County Police Department and the Kalamazoo Department of Safety. He also has analyzed law enforcement data in other countries, and has made presentations on best practices for collecting, analyzing and reporting traffic stop data at the National Traffic Stop and Racial Profiling Summit for Law Enforcement. Dr. Lamberth holds a B.A. from Austin College, a B.D. from Harvard University and an M.S. and a Ph.D. from Purdue University. 3. Legal Team Our lawyers possess unsurpassed knowledge of the legal issues presented by the Settlement Agreement. As DOJ veterans who handled cases involving police misconduct, each one is intimately familiar with the law on the use of force and police practices regarding the use of force, including training, reporting and discipline. As criminal and civil rights practitioners, each one is also intimately familiar with the law and police practices regarding stops, searches and arrests, as well as the data needed to gauge the constitutionality of stops, searches and arrests under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Moreover, each one has led and otherwise has participated in large investigations, including investigations involving the use of force. They are: Seth Rosenthal Steve Parker Kobie Flowers Seth Rosenthal. Seth is a partner in Venable LLP’s Investigations and White Collar Defense Practice, leader of the firm’s pro bono program nationwide, and a native Clevelander. He has considerable experience with complex investigations, constitutional policing issues and consent order monitoring. At Venable, Seth has managed a number of internal investigations for firm clients, litigated cases involving unconstitutional police practices (particularly racial profiling), and served on an unbiased policing task force established by the former Secretary of the Maryland State Police. Page 10 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 Before joining Venable, Seth spent over nine years in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. He split his nineplus years among the Criminal Section, the Attorney General’s Task Force on the Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Housing Section. In the Criminal Section, Seth worked closely with law enforcement officers from federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving racially motivated violence, human trafficking and police misconduct. In his work on police misconduct cases, Seth concentrated on the use of unreasonable force by law enforcement officers and acquired considerable knowledge about police practices regarding the use of force. On the Attorney General’s Task Force, Seth helped conduct a wideranging, two-year investigation that involved reviewing thousands of documents, interviewing dozens of witnesses, reviewing physical evidence and co-authoring a lengthy public report. In the Housing Section, Seth negotiated and monitored compliance with several consent decrees, including consent decrees requiring remedial action by municipal governments. Prior to his service at DOJ, Seth investigated, litigated and monitored compliance with consent orders in unconstitutional conditions of confinement cases involving jails in Georgia and Alabama. Seth graduated from Harvard Law School and Dartmouth College. Stephen C. Parker is an attorney at Butler Snow LLP in Memphis, Tennessee. He is a nationally recognized authority in the following areas: (i) use of force, (ii) search, seizure and arrest, (iii) police training, (iv) investigating police misconduct, and (v) and police consent decrees. Steve recently retired after 30 years with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Tennessee, where he served as Chief of the Civil Rights and Police Misconduct Unit and lead attorney for the Memphis/Shelby County “Tarnished Badge” Police Corruption Joint Task Force. Before becoming a lawyer, Steve served as a full-time police officer with the Memphis Police Department for seven years. He has continued to serve as a reserve officer for the last 27 years. As an adjunct instructor at the Memphis Police Academy for 28 years, Steve has instructed officers on stop/search/arrest, civil rights, crisis intervention, ethics, police misconduct and Garrity issues. He also has taught and spoken both nationally and internationally on these subjects on behalf of DOJ. Based on his experience, DOJ selected him as a subject matter expert for training, search/seizure/arrest, use of force and recruiting in its investigations of both the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) and the Ferguson, Missouri Police Department. In 2012, he was detailed to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Orleans to work full-time on the implementation of the NOPD Consent Decree. In 2013, he received the DOJ’s highest award for litigation, the John Marshall Award, for his work on the NOPD Consent Decree. Steve is a graduate of both the University of Memphis and the University of Memphis Law School. He has taught as an adjunct instructor in the University of Memphis Criminal Justice Department and the University’s law school. In 2011, the law school presented him with its Adjunct Professor of the Year Award. Kobie Flowers is a partner at Flowers Law LLP, a firm of seasoned trial lawyers based in Washington, D.C. While he concentrates on complex criminal and civil trials, Kobie has conducted internal investigations both at the firm and at a large international law firm where he worked prior to founding Flowers Law. From 2000 to 2004, as a member of the Attorney General’s Honors Program, Kobie worked in the Criminal Section of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, where he investigated and prosecuted use of force cases, acquiring in-depth knowledge of proper use of force practices. Page 11 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 Among his experiences, Kobie was one of the lawyers who successfully tried the largest unreasonable-use-of-force case against federal correctional officers in the 58-year history of the Civil Rights Division. After leaving the Criminal Section and before entering private practice, Kobie represented indigent criminal defendants as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in Maryland. Prior to becoming a lawyer, Kobie served as a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer in Côte d’Ivoire, where he provided basic medical care to the country’s poorest people while helping to build relationships of trust across different communities and cultures. Kobie graduated from Stanford University and Georgetown Law School. B. Responsibilities On our team, Seth Rosenthal will serve as the monitor. He will manage the team, coordinate each aspect of the team’s work in combination with other team members, and bear ultimate responsibility for ensuring the CDP’s compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Each of the other members of the team will be responsible for overseeing one or more of the substantive requirements of the Settlement Agreement. To be sure, many team members are qualified to oversee all of the Agreement’s substantive requirements, and all team members are qualified to oversee certain substantive requirements, such as Use of Force. The breadth of our experience will provide the flexibility that monitoring compliance with a remedial court order over a lengthy five-year period is likely to require. At the outset, however, we envision assigning primary responsibility for each substantive requirement of the Settlement Agreement as follows, with Seth Rosenthal, as monitor, coordinating and overseeing the team’s work on all requirements: Area of Responsibility Community Engagement and Building Trust Team Member Kobie Flowers Steve Parker Community Liaison (TBD in consultation with Parties) Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Robert Stewart Mary Ann Viverette Bias-Free Policing Jerry Clayton Mary Ann Viverette John Lamberth (data collection and analysis) Use of Force (including policies, training, reports & investigations) Scott Sargent (policies, training, reports, investigations) Steve Parker (policies) Robert Stewart (training) Sherry Woods (investigations) John Lamberth (data collection and analysis) Page 12 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 Area of Responsibility Crisis Intervention Team Member Randolph Dupont Mary Ann Viverette Search and Seizure Scott Sargent Steve Parker John Lamberth (data collection and analysis) Accountability (internal investigations and discipline) Scott Sargent Sherry Woods Transparency and Oversight (police inspector general & data collection and analysis) Kobie Flowers Steve Parker John Lamberth Officer Assistance and Support (including training, equipment, recruitment/hiring, performance evaluations/promotions & staffing) Bruce Harber (training, recruitment) Steve Parker (training, equipment) Mary Ann Viverette (equipment, recruitment, staffing) Jerry Clayton (performance and promotions) Sherry Woods (performance and promotions) Supervision Jerry Clayton Robert Stewart Policies Steve Parker Mary Ann Viverette Randolph Dupont (crisis intervention) C. Other Commitments Our team members are busy professionals. Each of us has existing work obligations, some more extensive than others. Nonetheless, we have the collective capacity to perform the work required under the Settlement Agreement and are fully committed to prioritizing that work. Indeed, because we have existing obligations, we will be required to budget our time carefully and carry out our responsibilities efficiently. This will permit the City to save costs. Moreover, many of our team members have worked together before and some work together now. Familiarity also generates efficiency. Seth Rosenthal and Kobie Flowers have active law practices with their respective firms. Steve Parker, new to Butler Snow, is building a practice. None of our existing obligations will keep us from prioritizing and performing the work of the monitor. Page 13 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 Our team’s law enforcement experts also have existing obligations, but can and will make the time needed for the work the Settlement Agreement requires. Chief Robert Stewart and Chief Mary Ann Viverette, while retired from law enforcement, are currently serving on monitoring teams in the Virgin Islands and New Orleans, respectively. Neither obligation is full-time. The Virgin Islands work for Chief Stewart occupies a few days a month and is winding down, and the New Orleans work for Chief Viverette has stabilized at roughly 40-60 hours every month. Accordingly, each will have ample time to devote to the Settlement Agreement. Similarly, while Chief Bruce Harber, Sheriff Jerry Clayton, Commander Sherry Woods and Captain Scott Sargent are currently employed in full-time positions by their respective agencies, each will have the time needed to complete their assigned work, which is reflected in the organizational chart above. Our team’s academics are similarly committed to fulfilling the monitor’s requirements under the Settlement Agreement. Work on the monitoring team would become the primary engagement of Dr. Lamberth and his consulting firm, Lamberth Consulting. Dr. Dupont teaches one class a semester at the University of Memphis and is called on periodically to help develop crisis intervention programming for law enforcement agencies. In the past six months, for instance, he has provided a small amount of assistance to the New Orleans and Seattle Police Departments. These commitments are sufficiently limited to permit him to devote the time required to perform his assigned work under the Settlement Agreement. In our cost proposal, we estimate the number of hours required to satisfy each of the monitor’s obligations. We have given careful consideration to these estimates and are confident that, notwithstanding the current commitments of the team’s members, we have the collective capacity to do everything the Settlement Agreement requires of the monitor. IV. Our Qualifications Our team collectively has devoted decades to every issue the Settlement Agreement requires the CDP to address. Our members have managed large law enforcement agencies and developed the means for ensuring their accountability. We have led and otherwise participated in large-scale investigations, including investigations regarding the use of force. We have written and implemented use of force and constitutional/bias-free policing policies, devised and conducted use of force and constitutional/bias-free policing training, headed internal affairs units and investigated thousands of use of force incidents for them, overseen and reformed disciplinary systems, prosecuted use of excessive force cases in court (and declined to prosecute many others), and performed statistical studies regarding the use of force, police stops, searches and arrests. In addition, we have spearheaded community policing efforts, implemented crisis intervention programs, developed and trained officers on de-escalation techniques, and worked with community stakeholders to address police reform. We also have effectively served on monitoring teams under other consent decrees. Based on the sum of our experiences, we are eminently qualified to serve the City and the CDP as its independent monitor. As explained below, we meet each of the qualifications identified Page 14 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 in the RFP and, correspondingly, have the capabilities to ensure the CDP’s compliance with each of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Qualification No. 1. Monitoring, auditing, evaluating, or otherwise reviewing performance of organizations, including experience in monitoring settlements, consent decrees, or court orders As the leaders of either law enforcement agencies or major units within such agencies, all of the law enforcement leaders on our team have monitored, audited, investigated and reviewed organizational performance. The vast majority of our team members also have worked on investigations/litigation, consent decrees, settlement agreements or consultation engagements that required an examination of the performance of law enforcement and other municipal agencies, including in the following places: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Alamance County, NC Detroit, MI Cincinnati, OH Oakland, CA Florida Highway Patrol San Antonio, TX Reno, NV Grand Rapids, MI Kalamazoo, MI District of Columbia Ferguson, MO Hobbs, NM Los Angeles, CA Maricopa County, AZ New Orleans, LA Portland, ME Lorain, OH Seattle, WA San Francisco Bay Area, CA Suffolk County, NY U.S. Virgin Islands Walker County, AL McDuffie County, GA Parma, OH Page 15 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 Qualification No. 2. Law enforcement practices, including training, community and problem-oriented policing, complaint and use of force investigations, and constitutional policing Every team member has experience with law enforcement practices as a law enforcement officer, academic or lawyer. • Training – Numerous team members have both trained police officers and led police academies. Chief Harber worked in the Memphis Police Academy for eleven years, heading it up for four. Chief Stewart was the director of the Louisville Metro Police Academy. Steve Parker has taught in the Memphis Police Academy for 27 years. Steve also served on the New Orleans Police Training Academy Advisory Committee as a representative of the United States Attorney’s Office. Additionally, he helped develop the Training Plan for the New Orleans Police Academy. He is currently working on with the New Orleans Police Department on developing the new EPIC Peer Intervention Program and Training. Chief Viverette has served on the Maryland Chiefs of Police Training Committee for over a decade. Sheriff Clayton led his agency’s Use of Force Team for many years and was one of the primary use of force instructors in the police academy; co-developed and teaches Lamberth Consulting’s Preventing Biased Police Practices Training Series for officers, supervisors, executives and field trainers; and has worked for over twenty years with DOJ’s National Institute of Corrections and other federal, state and local organizations designing, evaluating and delivering a variety of training programs. • Community and Problem-Oriented Policing – Our team includes recognized experts in community and problem-oriented policing. Each knows how to build bridges between law enforcement and the community. o Chief Viverette has spoken with the President and the Vice President about community policing because she successfully developed a city-wide community policing philosophy in Gaithersburg, Maryland, where 49% of the citizens speak languages other than English. For her accomplishments in community policing, Chief Viverette received the “Livability Award” from the U.S. Conference of Mayors. o In 22 years of service with the Metropolitan Police Department in the District of Columbia, and in his subsequent positions in Louisville, in Ormond Beach and as Executive Director of NOBLE, Chief Stewart embraced and became a national leader on community policing. He teaches it as a police practices expert. o Before becoming Sheriff of Washtenaw County, Jerry Clayton ran a successful community policing program as Commander and also created a program that allowed criminal offenders to work with employers in the community under law enforcement supervision. Moreover, he designed and conducts Lamberth Consulting’s community Page 16 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 policing training program, and has run focus groups designed to identify opportunities to enhance law enforcement and community relations. o Commander Woods served as Chief of the Community Services Division of the Ann Arbor Police Department. • Complaint and Use of Force Investigations – Every member of our team has significant experience in use of force and force investigations. For example: o Captain Sargent led the Use of Force Review Division of the LAPD, where he supervised over 13,000 use of force investigations, including over 500 officer-involved shootings. He helped create the investigative policies for the LAPD Use of Force Review Board. And when the LAPD was under a consent decree, he worked in the Department’s Consent Decree Compliance Bureau to implement policies and practices designed to make constitutional policing the norm. o As former DOJ prosecutors, Seth Rosenthal, Steve Parker and Kobie Flowers have investigated and reviewed hundreds of use of force incidents. We have appeared before grand juries, trial judges and petit juries to explain use of force law and present evidence on use of force policy and training. We have worked with use of force trainers and use of force expert witnesses. We know how to distinguish between proper and improper uses of force; we cleared many more officers than we prosecuted. The unbiased and professional review of law enforcement uses of force has been an important part of each of our careers. This is particularly true for Steve, a former Memphis police officer. In addition to his work investigating and criminally prosecuting unlawful uses of force, Steve worked full-time as the primary Assistant United States Attorney on use of force for the NOPD Consent Decree, including use of force policy review and training. Additionally, Steve was a use of force subject matter expert in DOJ’s Ferguson Police Department investigation. o As a police chief, Robert Stewart oversaw use of force policies and practices to ensure that they resulted in constitutional policing. He is currently serving on the monitoring team in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where excessive force is an issue. He also was the monitor for the Hobbs, New Mexico Police Department’s settlement agreement, a principal goal of which was to reform unconstitutional use of force practices. o Commander Woods was a supervisor of the Ann Arbor Police Department’s Internal Affairs Group. She supervised the investigation of numerous police firearm discharge cases and shootings. Commander Woods is also an experienced member of the Detroit Police Department Consent Decree monitoring team, reviewing officerinvolved shooting investigations as part of her duties. o Sheriff Clayton developed his agency’s first Use of Force Team. The team devises use of force policy, trains officers on use of force and evaluates use of force incidents. Page 17 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police • July 8, 2015 Constitutional Policing – Every law enforcement officer on our team is a national leader on policing in compliance with the Constitution. Every officer and lawyer has reviewed, trained others, or litigated constitutional policing practices. To take just one example, Steve Parker served as the search and seizure subject matter expert on DOJ’s NOPD and Ferguson Police Department investigations and the NOPD consent decree, in addition to having taught search and seizure law and practice to police officers and law students. The Police Executive Research Forum (“PERF”) has added Steve to its faculty for the Senior Management in Policing Course to teach constitutional policing and policies. Additionally, Dr. Lamberth has routinely served as an expert witness and as a consultant engaged to evaluate stop, search and seizure data. He also has published over 15 articles, spoken publicly in front of various legislative bodies and testified in court on the topic. Qualification No. 3. Evaluating the breadth and depth of organizational change, including the development of outcome measures The law enforcement leaders on our team have implemented and routinely evaluated change and reform within their own departments. These evaluations necessarily have entailed developing and analyzing meaningful, data-driven outcome measures. Moreover, all team members who have worked on other police agency monitoring teams or otherwise evaluated consent decree compliance have experience assessing the success of court-ordered reforms, including reforms of use of force policies and practices. Captain Sargent worked in the LAPD’s Consent Decree Compliance Bureau to ensure, from the inside, the LAPD’s compliance with a court-ordered settlement. Chief Viverette and Chief Stewart are currently using statistics-based outcome measures to assess organizational improvement as members of the monitoring teams in New Orleans and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Commander Woods and Sheriff Clayton have done the same in Detroit and Suffolk County. In addition, as both a consultant and an expert witness, Dr. Lamberth has devoted his career in recent years to establishing quantitative, empirically derived benchmarks for the purpose of measuring law enforcement agency performance. Qualification No. 4. Development of effective quality improvement practices Our team includes law enforcement managers nationally known for developing effective quality improvement practices. They have led progressive police departments that consistently have sought to improve their performance by adopting best practices in police management and constitutional policing. Moreover, our team’s chiefs and supervisors have been actively involved in police organizations dedicated to educating law enforcement decision-makers in modern policing techniques. Chief Stewart was the Executive Director of NOBLE, Sheriff Clayton has long served on and is now chair of MCOLES, and Chief Viverette was not only the first female President of IACP— which provides draft policies, research and other resources to police management—but also has served on the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (“CALEA”) for over 20 years, including as Commissioner and Chairperson of the Standards Review and Interpretation Committee. Page 18 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 Qualification No. 5. Mediation and dispute resolution As managers in law enforcement agencies, Chief Stewart, Chief Viverette, Sheriff Clayton, Commander Woods and Chief Harber have engaged informally in mediation and dispute resolution on a daily basis on matters ranging from personnel issues and labor relations to budgetary issues and community complaints. As lawyers in private practice, Seth Rosenthal, Steve Parker and Kobie Flowers routinely participate in mediation and dispute resolution in the matters we handle. It was also part of our regular practice as public servants, as we engaged in plea negotiations in criminal cases (including in use of force cases) and settlement negotiations in civil cases (including settlement negotiations resulting in consent decrees). Steve was also instrumental in establishing the NOPD Citizen Mediation Program. He assisted the New Orleans Office of Independent Police Monitor (“OIPM”) in obtaining a grant from DOJ-COPS to establish the program. He also reviewed and advised on the policy implementation between the OIPM and the NOPD. Moreover, in New Orleans, Steve spent much of his time working to repair the fractured relationship among the community, the NOPD, police labor organizations, the City and DOJ. Based on Steve’s work, Roy Austin, Deputy Assistant to the President for the Office of Urban Affairs, Justice and Opportunity and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, observed that Steve “has the ability to get along with almost everyone. He gained the trust of the civil rights community, the mayor of New Orleans, the police department, and the court monitor.”8 Police union officials also were complimentary of Steve’s work. The attorney for the Police Officer Association of New Orleans, Eric Hessler, reported that, although the consent decree adversely affected Department morale, Steve’s involvement improved the situation. According to Mr. Hensler, “[Steve] was a cop. He knew both sides of the coin. . . He understood the life of a police officer and he made a lot of sense in talking to us. I think we were able to make a bad situation not as bad, in some cases.”9 Qualification No. 6. Statistical and data analysis All of our team members understand the vital need to use statistical data to measure police agency performance, and most of us, including those who have worked on other monitoring teams, have employed such data before. As both a consultant and an expert witness, Dr. Lamberth regularly gathers and assesses data on officer conduct to determine whether law enforcement agencies are engaged in constitutional, bias-free policing. Seth Rosenthal has worked with such data in litigation, and has sought to have the Maryland State Police regularly collect and analyze such data, for the same purpose. Captain Sargent developed an annual Use of Force report that the LAPD publishes every year. The report contains comprehensive statistical data on all use of force incidents during the year—including breakdowns by, e.g., geographic area, types of calls and adjudication results— and also shows statistical five-year trends in each area. 8 9 Beth Warren, “Retired Prosecutor Lauded for Successes,” The Commercial Appeal, January 11, 2015. Andy Grimm, “Case was Symbolic for Prosecutor,” New Orleans Times-Picayune, November 28, 2014. Page 19 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 Qualification No. 7. Information technology Our team anticipates working with information technology specialists, particularly specialists with the CDP, to refine the CDP’s data systems so that they receive, store and process the data required to measure the CDP’s performance. We have experience working with such specialists. Dr. Lamberth has worked routinely with data systems to perform statistical analyses regarding police department performance. Steve Parker helped oversee the NOPD’s early efforts to develop a fully automated Early Warning System (“EWS”) and understands the need for such systems to collate data from disparate information systems within an agency. Similarly, team members who have worked on other monitoring teams have obtained an understanding of the IT needs of agencies implementing reforms. So has Scott Sargent, both in his role as a Commander in the LAPD’s Consent Decree Bureau and in his role as Commander in the LAPD’s Use of Force Review Division, which, as noted, relies on IT systems to collect and publish data on use of force trends. Additionally, Steve Parker and Kobie Flowers have experience with emerging body camera technology and policy. Steve was involved in reviewing and drafting the NOPD body camera policy. He also participated in a hearing in federal court about whether the NOPD was in compliance with the audio and video recording requirements of the NOPD Consent Decree. Steve is currently advising the Memphis Police Department and Shelby County District Attorney’s Office on body camera issues. Kobie sits on the Body Camera Task Force for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (“NACDL”), which studies the efficacy of body cameras in combination with law enforcement. He is currently drafting a white paper for NACDL with members of the Task Force. Qualification No. 8. Data management Upgrading the CDP’s data management systems will be key to effectively measuring, and ultimately achieving, compliance with the Settlement Agreement. As noted above, our law enforcement professionals know how to work with modernized information systems to help facilitate constitutional policing. So, too, does Dr. Lamberth, who has worked with law enforcement agencies to modernize reporting and data collection systems. Qualification No. 9. Working with government agencies, municipalities, and collective bargaining units Running and helping to run a law enforcement agency, as several of our team members have done, requires working closely with government agencies, municipalities and unions. So does working on monitoring teams under consent decrees and settlement agreements, as many of our team members also have done. To the extent the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association (“CPPA”) continues to have concerns about whether certain Settlement Agreement provisions are consistent with the union’s contract,10 members of our team possess the experience needed to help the City and the CDP address them. 10 Brandon Blackwell, “Cleveland police union chief says some consent decree provisions will violate union contract,” Northeast Ohio Media Group, June 25, 2015 Page 20 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 Qualification No. 10. Language skills and experience working with limited English proficient persons and communities, in particular communities whose primary language is Spanish Venable has attorneys and staff who speak, read and write Spanish should their language skills be required for community engagements. We will also draw on local resources, as needed, to ensure that the concerns of the Spanish-speaking community in Cleveland are heard and addressed. If the parties determine that a Spanish-speaker must be formally added to the monitoring team, we will accommodate that determination, though our current cost proposal does not budget for it. Our team also has substantial experience working with limited English proficient individuals and communities. As mentioned in Qualification No. 2, Chief Viverette successfully developed a citywide community policing philosophy in Gaithersburg, Maryland, where 49% of the citizens speak languages other than English. In New Orleans, Steve Parker was DOJ’s liaison with community groups, including groups representing the Latino community, such as the Congress of Day Laborers and the Center for Racial Justice. With input from these groups, Steve weighed in on a number of issues affecting them, including the development of the NOPD’s bias-free policing policy and the NOPD’s coordination with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Qualification No. 11. Familiarity and understanding of local issues and conditions Our team will include a prominent, trusted member of the community, who will serve as a liaison among the community, the CDP and our team. The liaison will possess intimate familiarity and understanding of local issues and conditions. We recognize that the liaison must be unbiased and apolitical, with the rare ability to command the respect of every stakeholder within the community, City leadership, the CDP and DOJ. We have been in communication with several individuals who possess these qualifications, and have received a firm commitment from one. Because we believe it is imperative that all Parties agree on the liaison, we have not yet formally added this individual to our team and, if selected as monitor, will await input from the City, the CDP and DOJ before doing so. Seth Rosenthal is also a native Clevelander. While he has lived in the District of Columbia for a number of years, he knows Cleveland well and retains close ties to the city, as his family and many friends are there. Qualification No. 12. Effective engagement with diverse communities As detailed under Qualifications No. 2 and 10, our team—including Chief Viverette, Chief Stewart, Sheriff Clayton, Chief Harber and Commander Woods—has significant experience fostering civic participation concerning policing issues, building strategic partnerships with community stakeholders, and successfully implementing community policing initiatives. As attorneys who have (http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/06/cleveland_police_union_chief_s_1.html#incart_2box_news_ind ex.ssf). Page 21 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 frequently confronted civil rights matters, whether in the government or private practice, Seth Rosenthal, Steve Parker and Kobie Flowers have substantial experience engaging in community outreach and mediating with community stakeholders. In addition, we have endeavored to put together a diverse monitoring team to engage with Cleveland’s diverse communities. Qualification No. 13. Creation and evaluation of meaningful civilian oversight Every member of our team appreciates the value of civilian oversight. The civilian review entities being established under the Settlement Agreement, including the Community Police Commission and Police Review Board, must have the capacity to hold the CDP and its officers accountable and must maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the community. In his own police department, Chief Stewart created a Civilian Review Board. The other law enforcement officers on our team, as well as the lawyers, have worked with similar civilian oversight bodies. Qualification No. 14. Familiarity with federal, Ohio, and local laws, including civil rights laws and policies and rules governing police practices Our team is intimately familiar with federal and state laws governing police practices. Indeed, our law enforcement leaders have developed law enforcement policies to ensure consistency with legal requirements. Chief Viverette has reviewed and drafted model policies with both CALEA and IACP. Sheriff Clayton has done so with MCOLES. Team members also have been responsible for ensuring the consistency of policies and procedures with federal and state law in their work on other monitoring teams, as well as in their full-time employment. For instance: • Guided by constitutional requirements, Chief Viverette and Dr. Dupont have authored cutting-edge policies for police departments in the areas of community policing and crisis intervention. • Seth Rosenthal, Kobie Flowers and Steve Parker have spent substantial parts of their legal careers evaluating and litigating over the legality of law enforcement practices. • As a member of the LAPD Consent Decree Compliance Bureau, Captain Sargent wrote, reviewed and submitted policy changes under the LAPD Consent Decree. He also helped establish the LAPD’s Use of Force Review Division and all of its policies and procedures. • Informed by federal and state law, Chief Harber designed and implemented the Field Training Officer (“FTO”) Program for the Memphis Police Department. The success of the FTO Program is attributable to the promulgation of clear policies and the implementation of a rigorous evaluation process that holds officers accountable to them. To the extent familiarity with local law becomes essential to the work of the monitoring team, our team will become familiar with local law and will partner with local counsel as needed. Page 22 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 Qualification No. 15. Completing projects within anticipated deadlines and budget As leaders within law enforcement agencies, academics who have served as university department chairs, independent consultants, lawyers and members of other monitoring teams, the members of our team have routinely confronted and worked within deadlines and budgets. Qualification No. 16. Preparing for and participating in court proceedings Our team is comprised of law enforcement officers, academics who have served as expert witnesses and trial lawyers. Collectively, we have made hundreds of appearances in state, federal and military courts. Many of these appearances have addressed issues related to police practices. Qualification No. 17. Report writing for a broad variety of stakeholders Every team member has written reports for a broad variety of stakeholders. The team’s lawyers routinely provide internal investigation reports and audits to clients with the expectation that they may also be shared with the government; prepare court filings intended to persuade judges (and often the public); and have authored broadly distributed publications, including, e.g., a DOJ report on the assassination of Dr. King and pieces for the popular press. The team’s law enforcement experts also have authored reports for an array of audiences, including the officers they have led, elected officials such as mayors and city council members and the general public. In addition, Dr. Lamberth and Dr. Dupont have written accessible, research-based publications throughout their lengthy careers. Effective writing is a skill our team members collectively possess. V. Our Prior Experience and References As explained above, our team members have handled numerous matters relevant to the monitorship. Appendix 2 contains a list of references who are prepared to discuss those matters, which are as follows: • Robert Stewart - US Virgin Islands consent decree Police practices litigation: Mora vs. Arpaio, CV 09-01719 PHX-DGC; Melendres vs. Arpaio, CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS Consultant: Detroit Police Department, Cincinnati Police Department, Oakland Police Department, Seattle Police Department, San Antonio Police Department, Florida Highway Patrol, Colorado Springs Police Department, Hollywood, FL Police Department, Ocala Police Department, Boynton Beach Police Department Page 23 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police • Mary Ann Viverette - • Consultant: Reno Police Department, Metropolitan Police Department (District of Columbia), Kalamazoo Police Department, Grand Rapids Police Department Seth Rosenthal - • Seattle Police Department consent decree New Orleans Police Department consent decree Consultant: San Francisco Police Department, Collingswood, NJ Police Department John Lamberth - • Police practices expertise Randolph Dupont - • Detroit Police Department consent decree Bruce Harber - • Los Angeles Police Department consent decree Use of force expertise Sherry Woods - • Detroit Police Department consent decree Suffolk County, New York consent decree Consultant: Reno Police Department, Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety, Grand Rapids Police Department, Aurora Police Department Scott Sargent - • New Orleans Police Department consent decree Consultant: Lorain, OH Police Department Jerry Clayton - • July 8, 2015 Police practices litigation and consultation: Maryland State Police Corporate investigations and compliance review Steve Parker - New Orleans Police Department consent decree Page 24 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police • July 8, 2015 Kobie Flowers - Corporate investigations and compliance review Constitutional litigation and court experience The vast majority of the work product created in connection with these engagements is privileged and confidential. In Appendix 3, however, we provide several relevant, non-privileged writing samples: (1) Dr. Lamberth’s data-driven report assessing whether the Metropolitan Police Department (D.C.) engaged in bias-free policing; (2) Dr. Dupont’s written testimony about trustbuilding before President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing; (3) Sheriff Clayton’s report about community policing for the Aurora Police Department; and (4) an LAPD Use of Force Review Division report authored by Captain Sargent. VI. Proposed Activities The role of the monitor is to “assess and report whether the requirements of th[e] [Settlement] Agreement have been implemented, and whether this implementation is resulting in constitutional and effective policing, professional treatment of individuals, and increased community trust of [the Cleveland Division of Police].” Carrying out this function effectively will require organizational discipline, diligence and sound judgment guided by several core principles. Based on our collective experience, we believe the monitoring team must: • Understand the limited nature of its role. The monitor’s sole purpose is to ensure the CDP’s compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The monitor has no other agenda. The monitor must not seek to effect change that the Settlement Agreement does not require. If the monitoring team were to exceed the scope of its duties, it would compromise its credibility, which is essential to its effectiveness. Similarly, the monitoring team must not usurp the role of CDP Chief Williams or otherwise substitute itself for the CDP’s senior management. Rather, the monitoring team is to serve as an aide and a facilitator. Subject to the supervision of Judge Oliver, the monitoring team’s mandate is to work with DOJ, the City and community stakeholders to provide Chief Williams and his leadership team with the assistance and guidance they need to implement the Settlement Agreement’s requirements in an effective and sustainable manner. • Empower the police to use national best practices. The monitor must ensure that CDP officers are provided the training, skills and tools to do their jobs consistent with national best practices, the Constitution and community values. Officers need training, support and principled leadership. • Foster accountability. The relationship between the CDP and the community will be healthiest when the CDP permanently establishes a culture of meaningful self-examination and swift self-correction. The community reasonably expects officers to be held accountable for their conduct, just as officers hold citizens accountable for their conduct through good policing. Page 25 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police • July 8, 2015 Be open and transparent. “See something, say something” is a phrase that many police departments use to encourage citizens to report crime. The phrase applies equally to police department monitors, who are duty-bound to inform the public about departmental progress toward Consent Decree compliance. We will provide public reports every six months, as the Settlement Agreement requires, and hold community meetings on the CDP’s compliance efforts. We also will post as much information as possible on the Internet for easy public access. The goal of such transparency is to incentivize the CDP to achieve sustainable reform as quickly as possible and to foster public trust in its reform efforts. These goals are mutually reinforcing: the more tangible progress the CDP makes, the more the CDP will earn the community’s trust; the more the CDP earns the community’s trust, the more effective it will be in achieving its mission to protect and serve. By adhering to these principles, our team aims to work itself out of a job. The entire purpose of the Settlement Agreement is to ensure that the CDP engages in constitutional policing without any oversight — i.e., to ensure that there is no longer any need for monitors, consent decrees or recommendations for reform — and to begin to re-establish a relationship of trust between the CDP and the community it serves. A. Initial Phase The initial phase of the monitorship will entail gathering information, establishing systems to facilitate the work of the monitoring team and devising a comprehensive Monitoring Plan. The Settlement Agreement provides the monitor 120 days to complete this work. At the outset, we will meet with the Court, DOJ, the Mayor’s Office, CDP employees, community stakeholders and labor organizations representing the CDP to understand their goals and their concerns and to obtain information needed to facilitate compliance with the Settlement Agreement. In addition, we will review CDP documents and record-keeping systems, including the CDP’s use of force, stop/search/arrest and bias-free policing policies; all training materials, including use of force, stop/search/arrest, bias-free policing and crisis intervention training materials; internal affairs policies and files; disciplinary proceedings policies and files; recruitment, hiring, performance evaluation and promotion policies and data; and databases containing information regarding, among other things, use of force incidents, stops/searches/arrests, internal affairs investigations and disciplinary outcomes. We will attempt to expedite this preliminary review by taking into account any prior reviews of the same information by DOJ and PERF. The review will allow us to gauge the information that is available, as well as any additional information that must be made available, to conduct compliance audits that will allow us to measure whether the Settlement Agreement is producing the desired outcome of constitutional policing. Consistent with the principle of transparency, we also will establish at the outset a website that contains information related to Settlement Agreement implementation. Initially, the website will contain the Settlement Agreement and information about the composition of the monitoring team, meeting times and court dates. As the monitorship progresses, we will post additional Page 26 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 information, including our biannual reports. To obtain community feedback and input, the monitoring team will hold public meetings after each report is published. Additionally, we will establish a communications system to facilitate the flow of information. The communications system will connect: (i) members of the monitoring team to one another, (ii) members of the monitoring team, the CDP and City personnel to one another, and (iii) the monitoring team and the community. To connect the monitoring team and the community, we will establish an email address and a phone number for receiving questions, concerns and other input from the public. Finally, by the end of the initial 120 days, we will develop a Monitoring Plan in joint consultation with DOJ and the CDP. The Plan will establish processes for assessing, revising and performing training on Division policies. It will also establish the means for conducting compliance reviews and making outcome assessments. As the Settlement Agreement provides, the Plan will: (i) “delineate the requirements. . . to be assessed for compliance, indicating which requirements will be assessed together;” (ii) “set out a schedule for conducting outcome measure assessments for each outcome measure at least annually. . . with the first assessment occurring within 365 days of [June 12, 2015],” and (iii) “set out a schedule for conducting a compliance review or audit of each requirement. . . within the first two years of [the Consent Decree], and a compliance review or audit of each requirement at least annually thereafter. . .”11 We note that conducting meaningful outcome assessments, which is one of the monitor’s principal obligations, will require establishing robust automated systems for filing reports and collecting data as to all of the substantive requirements of the Settlement Agreement (e.g., uses of force, stops and searches, internal investigation and disciplinary outcomes). Accordingly, one of our central objectives during the initial phase, or as soon as possible thereafter, will be to make sure that the Parties reach agreement on reporting requirements for CDP officers and that CDP officers promptly begin to use report forms that meet those requirements. While the Monitoring Plan will provide a vital guide to our work, experience has shown that it is likely to be modified or supplemented, depending upon whether and how quickly the CDP reaches established benchmarks and whether the Parties identify any new issues. B. Monitoring Team Tasks The monitoring team’s basic tasks will include: policy review; training assessment; incident review, data collection and analysis; community engagement; report writing; and coordination and review. Policy review will entail reviewing the CDP’s existing policies; reviewing and providing input on new draft policies the CDP prepares under the Settlement Agreement; and once the new policies are implemented, ensuring that, in practice, they are clearly understood and result in constitutional policing. Policy review also will entail monitoring compliance with Settlement Agreement provisions for establishing various entities, including the Community Police Commission, District Policing 11 Consent Decree at 88 ¶ 369. Page 27 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 Committees, the Force Review Board, the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee, the Crisis Intervention Coordinator, the Office of Professional Standards, the Police Review Board and the Police Inspector General. Training assessment will entail reviewing the CDP’s existing training programs; reviewing and providing input on new programs proposed under the Settlement Agreement; ensuring that, once the new programs are implemented, the new material is being taught effectively; and assessing whether the new programs are resulting in constitutional policing. Incident review includes reviewing and analyzing: use of force incident reports; field reports, including stop, search and arrest reports; internal investigations files; and disciplinary proceedings records. Data collection and analysis includes both (1) gathering and analyzing data on force incidents, stops/searches/arrests and all of the other outcome measures identified in Paragraph 367 of the Settlement Agreement and (2) community surveys, which are required within 180 days and every two years thereafter. Community engagement includes all community interactions, including but not limited to meetings held to discuss the monitor’s reports, other meetings held to discuss community concerns and aimed at fostering trust between the community and the CDP, and work on the monitor’s website. Report writing entails drafting the monitor’s biannual reports, the mid-term Comprehensive Reassessment, the Monitoring Plan and any other report or plan that might be required during the monitoring period (e.g., a report to the Court). Coordination and review is a duty reserved for the monitor, who will broadly coordinate the compliance oversight of our team’s subject matter experts and work with them on policy review, training assessment, incident review and data analysis, as needed. C. Methods of obtaining and organizing information Paragraph 367 of the Settlement Agreement contains a number of specific outcome measures that will require obtaining and organizing extensive, reliable information. Outcome measurements are required in the following areas: • Use of Force (“UOF”) • Individuals in Crisis • Stop, Search and Arrest • Bias-Free Policing and Community Engagement Page 28 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police • Recruitment • Training • Officer Assistance and Support • Supervision • Civilian complaints, internal investigations and discipline July 8, 2015 Our team will use different means of obtaining the information needed to measure outcomes in each of these areas. First, we will examine data that is obtained from various sources (e.g., officer reports, internal investigations files and disciplinary proceedings), and then stored in central electronic repositories. The Settlement Agreement’s requirements for new automated reporting should provide ready access to such electronically-stored information, including: UOF reports, UOF investigation files, field reports, arrest reports, case reports, calls for service, training records, disciplinary files, internal affairs reports, CDP email and body worn camera data. The work of the monitor will be dependent on having ready access to this information. We expect to work closely with the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator to obtain it. Second, we will conduct manual audits of relevant documentation to ascertain whether the CDP is following the policies contemplated by the Settlement Agreement and, more broadly, whether it is realizing the Settlement Agreement’s goal of constitutional policing. Unless and until the CDP places all relevant information in searchable, electronic databases, the monitoring team will have to rely on manual reviews, which are more time- and labor-intensive than working with electronicallystored data. In performing manual reviews, it will be of the utmost importance for each monitoring team member to verify that he or she has received all information and documentation necessary to ensure the legitimacy of any audit. Third, throughout the Settlement Agreement period, we may conduct sampling of certain kinds of information to gauge compliance. Sampling may be appropriate when auditing voluminous data is required. As contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, the use of any sampling method must be approved in advance by either the Parties or the Court in order to avoid unnecessary expense to the City. Fourth, we will participate in ride-alongs with CDP officers, which will allow the team to observe whether officers and supervisors are adhering to Settlement Agreement-required policies and practices. Fifth, we will interview both rank and file CDP officers and supervisors, as well as officers charged with responsibility for implementing the CDP, including officers in Internal Affairs, the Office Page 29 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 of Professional Standards, the Training Review Committee and the Consent Decree Implementation Unit. Interviewing officers and supervisors should provide important insight on the efficacy of the Settlement Agreement. Sixth, as permitted, we will hold public meetings, meetings with community groups, meetings with police union officials, and meetings with the community-based entities established under the Settlement Agreement, including the Community Police Commission, District Policing Committees, the Community Relations Board, the Police Review Board and the Mental Health Response Advisory Committee. Each of these stakeholders may shed light on whether the CDP is achieving the goals of the Settlement Agreement. Seventh, as the Settlement Agreement requires, we will conduct community surveys (which will include questioning police personnel) to ascertain public perception about the conduct of the CDP and the efficacy of the Settlement Agreement. The part of the survey directed at CDP personnel should prove useful in determining officer engagement and in obtaining officer input on Settlement Agreement implementation. The Settlement Agreement requires an initial baseline survey, followed by biennial surveys. We will use well-established, scientifically-accepted methods to conduct the surveys. It is anticipated that the methods used will be either agreed upon by the Parties or approved by the Court. Eighth, we intend to use our website to obtain information. While the website will serve primarily as a tool to convey information about the Settlement Agreement, it will be capable of receiving input from community members. Obtaining all of the information needed to monitor compliance is one thing. Organizing it is another. We will determine how to organize the information we will be receiving once we ascertain what is available and what, exactly, we will be obtaining. However, other monitoring teams, including teams on which our members have served, have developed effective organizational methods, so we will not have to start from scratch. We plan, for instance, to use automated feedback templates to contemporaneously enter our observations and findings into a database for, e.g., UOF reviews, ride-alongs, and internal affairs audits. The data recorded using these templates can be conveniently accessed, compiled and used to draft our public reports and furnish information on compliance to the Court. In addition, for each outcome measure, we plan to use uniform checklists to document the level of compliance. We will use the checklists to inform the drafting of our reports. We will also share them with the CDP’s compliance team so that they might better understand what the CDP must do to prepare for our audits and, ultimately, to achieve compliance. D. Methods of Analyzing Information We will use accepted, reliable methods to analyze the information we obtain and review. Dr. Lamberth will employ accepted statistical methods to gauge outcomes as to, e.g., use of force incidents, bias-free policing, and stops, searches and arrests. In each area, he will determine Page 30 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 benchmarks from available data, and then measure future conduct against those benchmarks. To take one example, we will review presently available information on use of force incidents using the measurements identified in Paragraph 367.a. of the Settlement Agreement; determine what additional data (if any) the CDP must require its officers to record going forward to make the available information sufficiently robust for analytical purposes; give the CDP time to collect enough data under the new reporting regime to allow for the establishment of internal benchmarks using the measurements identified in Paragraph 367.a.; decide which external benchmarks to utilize; and then, as per Paragraphs 367.a., measure future use of force incidents against the benchmarks, internal and external, to help determine whether the Settlement Agreement’s goals are being realized. While we generally anticipate that our statistical methods will be inferential, using both bivariate and multivariate methods, we cannot yet determine the precise statistical methods we will use because that will depend on the kind and quality of information available, and we are not yet sufficiently familiar with what the CDP has available. Moreover, as the Settlement Agreement provides, the Parties will have to agree upon acceptable reporting requirements and methodologies—both to establish benchmarks and to assess officer conduct against those benchmarks—before any reporting requirement or methodology is used. Our goal is to familiarize ourselves with the available data promptly, determine what additional data the CDP must routinely collect and how, and have the Parties reach agreement on acceptable reporting requirements and methodologies for analyzing such data by the time the Monitoring Plan is finalized. While statistical analysis is essential, it is only one tool for assessing compliance. Statistical analysis may not fully measure the quality of the CDP’s efforts to reform its policies, upgrade its training, engage in community policing, or ensure adherence to the Constitution in each and every stop and search. In these areas, team members also will have to engage in intensive, often painstaking review of individual policies, individual training programs, individual stop/search reports, individual UOF incident reports, individual internal investigations files and individual disciplinary files. For instance, to assess the CDP’s crisis intervention program, Dr. Dupont will evaluate the CDP’s existing crisis intervention policy and training, examine individual pre-Settlement Agreement incidents involving responses to people with mental illness or in crisis, review (and potentially furnish input on) the revised policy and training the CDP devises under the Settlement Agreement, and then review not only aggregated statistical analyses of post-revision incidents involving responses to people with mental illness or in crisis, but individual incident reports, internal investigations and disciplinary files regarding such incidents. Any comprehensive analysis of the efficacy of the CDP’s new crisis intervention policy will require such individualized incident review. Similarly individualized incident review will be required to assess the CDP’s performance as to the Settlement Agreement’s other substantive requirements, including, most prominently, use of force. Team members charged with reviewing the CDP’s use of force practices will assess the quality of any revised policies and training programs in view of national best practices. Additionally, using their own professional training and experience, we will review individual incident reports, internal investigations and disciplinary files to determine whether, in particular instances, the revised policies and training programs are proving effective—that is, whether: (1) the appropriate level of force was Page 31 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 used; (2) the UOF investigation was properly conducted; and (3) the subsequent administrative review was properly conducted. As noted above, team members will record their findings in an electronic database. We will be able to aggregate and analyze individual findings for statistical purposes, and we can use particular findings to demonstrate the extent of the CDP’s compliance with the Settlement Agreement. E. Methods of Reporting Information The Settlement Agreement spells out how the monitoring team must report what it finds. The monitoring team will have monthly meetings with the Parties, including “the Chief, counsel for the City, CDP’s Consent Decree Implementation Unit,[], and DOJ,”12 about the CDP’s compliance. The monitor also will meet at least twice a year with the Mayor. In addition, the monitoring team will hold public meetings with community stakeholders to review and explain the contents of its biannual reports. We will also publish these reports on our website, the City’s website and the Court’s website. Finally, as an agent of the Court, we expect to report to and follow the direction of Judge Oliver. F. Frequency of Proposed Activities The frequency of the monitor’s activities largely will be determined by the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. The Agreement provides definitive deadlines for, among other things, implementing new CDP policies (within one year), community surveys (in 180 days and every two years after), and submitting the Monitoring Plan, biannual reports and a Comprehensive Reassessment after two and a half years. These deadlines will drive the monitoring team’s actions. Section VIII on “Estimated Costs,” together with the supporting spreadsheets in Appendix 4, provide our estimate of how much time will be required for every task each year. We anticipate that policy review will be heaviest during Year One, as team members review both existing policies and any new policies the CDP proposes and, in addition, vet the establishment and activity of the various entities required to be established under the Settlement Agreement (e.g., Community Police Commission and Police Review Board). Inasmuch as the Settlement Agreement requires all new policies to be implemented by the end of Year One, policy review work should diminish in Year Two and continue to diminish for the balance of the Settlement Agreement. As the Settlement Agreement allows, the monitor, with the Parties’ agreement, may dispense with review of certain requirements if the CDP has achieved the intended outcome or demonstrated substantial and effective compliance. Like policy review, training assessment will be heavy during Year One, as team members assess existing training programs, review proposals for new ones, and evaluate whether the new ones that are implemented are being followed. Training assessment should remain heavy in Year 12 Consent Decree at 91-91 ¶ 378. Page 32 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 Two. Once all new programs are in place, team members will have to evaluate whether the new programs are being followed. Training assessment should decrease in Years Three – Five, assuming the CDP demonstrates substantial and effective compliance with training requirements. However, because team members will have to expend at least some time ensuring that the new programs continue to be followed, there will remain work to do. Incident review, data collection and analysis will remain intensive throughout. During the initial 120 days, we will be reviewing, inter alia, voluminous field reports, use of force reports, internal investigations files and disciplinary files in order to devise the Monitoring Plan. We will also be assessing any data collection and analysis methods the CDP currently has in place. For the balance of Year One, as we oversee the CDP’s implementation of new reporting requirements and data storage systems, we will continue to review incoming reports and files and will aggregate and analyze the data needed to begin to measure department-wide conduct. We will also be conducting our first community survey. In Year Two, incident review and data collection and analysis should increase in frequency. We will be reviewing field reports, UOF reports, investigation files and disciplinary files that conform to the new reporting requirements and, because the new reports should contain all information needed to conduct thorough statistical analyses of outcomes, we will begin to aggregate and analyze the data in earnest. This work will continue in intensity in Years Three – Five. Indeed, insofar as incident review, data collection and analysis will drive outcome measurements and outcome measurements are the focus of the Settlement Agreement in the later years, this work will be the primary work of the team in those years. Community engagement should remain fairly consistent over the length of the settlement agreement. We will hold biannual community meetings to discuss our reports, attend periodic meetings with interest groups as permitted, and regularly update the content on our website. Similarly, report writing should remain fairly consistent over the length of the Settlement Agreement. However, it will be more intensive in Year One when we prepare the Monitoring Plan, in Year Three when we prepare our Comprehensive Reassessment, and in Year Five when we prepare a final report. We are mindful that our work will require us to work collaboratively with different constituencies. For example, site visits, ride-alongs, audits, record reviews and interviews will require coordination with CDP and the City. Monthly meetings in the community will require coordination with community stakeholders to ensure proper attendance. Accordingly, at least on a “micro” level, the timing and frequency of certain activities will depend on coordination with others. G. Monitor Team Member Assignments and Time Spent in Cleveland The chart in Section II on “Our Personnel,” together with the spreadsheets in Appendix 4, reflect which team members will bear responsibility for overseeing each of the substantive Page 33 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 requirements of the Settlement Agreement and how much time they will devote to their assigned tasks. Monitoring the capacity-building work required in Year One will require our team members to spend more time on-site than in subsequent years. This is especially true of the first 120 days, during which the team will be familiarizing itself with CDP operations and working with the CDP and DOJ to devise the Monitoring Plan. We roughly estimate that two-thirds of the work required of all team members—our law enforcement experts, academics and lawyers—will be on-site in Year One. In Year One, we envision that one team member (rotating) will be on-site at all times during the work week, and it is likely that more than one team member will be on-site during much of the initial 120day assessment period to become familiar with CDP operations, policies and practices. The amount of time required on-site will diminish over time and, by Year Three, stabilize at roughly one-third of the team’s hours. As the new policies, training regimes and data collection and storage systems contemplated by the Settlement Agreement are implemented, team members should be able to perform an increasing amount of their oversight duties (which will be more heavily concentrated on incident review, data analysis and report writing) off-site. Team members will be able to do much of the auditing work remotely from their homes or offices. Policy review, incident review and statistical work does not require an on-site presence. While we plan to maintain a regular on-site presence to continue undertaking the required evaluations, team members will travel to Cleveland only as needed. To minimize travel costs, we will assign at least two team members to each requirement. Team members responsible for the same requirement will be able to share information directly through teleconferences and through our automated reporting system. H. Coordination with the City, CDP, the United States, and the Community To be an effective monitor, we must remain in constant communication with the City, CDP, DOJ and community stakeholders. In fact, the monitor occasionally must mediate disputes between the Parties and make recommendations to the Court when they cannot be resolved. Absent open lines of communication with everyone, effective mediation and consensus building becomes impossible. The Settlement Agreement provides the monitoring team with unfettered access to the records and information needed to fulfill its responsibilities. We recognize the burden of large data requests and will strive not to impede the operations of the CDP. Given the establishment of a Consent Decree Implementation Unit, we do not foresee any problems. Based on past experience with consent decree monitorships, we anticipate working closely with the Unit to facilitate our work. To make sure that the CDP consistently moves toward full compliance with the Settlement Agreement, we will be in constant communication with the Unit. Similarly, we will be in constant communication with the Justice Department. We plan to ensure that both the CDP and the Justice Department have access to a member of the monitoring team at all times. Page 34 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 From time to time, it will be necessary for the monitor to make unannounced visits to the CDP and its offices. The monitoring team is composed of experienced professionals and will make sure such visits do not disrupt the orderly operations of the CDP, the safety of any CDP officer or the safety of any community member. Other sections of this proposal explain the means by which we will communicate with members of the community: periodic meetings, website and a telephone. Additionally, the Settlement Agreement requires the City to provide the monitor with an office. We plan to establish periodic office hours to allow members of the community to communicate concerns in person to members of our team. Moreover, as discussed above, we will work with the Parties to identify and retain a community liaison who will facilitate interaction between the monitoring team and the members of the community. VII. Potential Conflicts of Interest or Bias Our team members have no potential or perceived conflicts of interest. Seth Rosenthal, Steve Parker, Kobie Flowers, Chief Viverette, Dr. Dupont and Dr. Lamberth have worked at or consulted for DOJ, as indicated above and in Appendix 1. Each of us is thoroughly independent, and none of us will have an allegiance to DOJ as monitor. (Indeed, Seth, Steve and Kobie are routinely adverse to DOJ in their law practices.) Captain Sargent was named as a defendant in a lawsuit alleging misconduct in 1989 or 1990. The case was dismissed. This limited ability will not affect his ability to impartially assess the propriety of uses of force or any other police action. VIII. Estimated Costs Page 35 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 The tables in Appendix 4 reflect the number of hours we anticipate each category of team members to devote each year to each of the following tasks: policy review; training assessment; incident review, data collection and analysis; community engagement; report writing; and coordination and review. We provide a description of each of these tasks in Section VI.B. above. Note that technical assistance—e.g., drafting policies and conducting training (as opposed to reviewing and providing input on CDP-drafted policies and training)—is not included in the spreadsheets or in our proposed flat fee. Under Paragraphs 372-73 of the Settlement Agreement, the CDP may not want or need technical assistance, and the cost of any such assistance is to be additional and borne separately by the City. As Appendix 4 shows, and as explained in Section VI.F. above, we believe the first two years of the Settlement Agreement will require more work than subsequent years. That is because during the first two years, and during the first year in particular, the CDP will be revamping its policies, its training, its reporting requirements and its data collection protocols. Indeed, the Settlement Agreement obligates the City to implement all required policy reforms within Year One. Accordingly, during Year One, in addition to familiarizing ourselves with existing CDP policies and practices and reviewing relevant, available reports and data, the monitoring team will be required to ensure that all of the new capacity-building measures the CDP will adopt—i.e., all policy, training, reporting and data collection reforms—comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. From Year Two forward, at which point all required policy reforms are to have been implemented, policy review work should diminish considerably. Training assessment work should also diminish. By contrast, the work required for incident review, data collection and analysis is expected to increase, at least to a degree in Year Two, because the monitoring team will be gathering and analyzing all of the new data the Settlement Agreement requires the CDP to maintain once it implements the reforms required in Year One. Incident review, data collection and analysis should remain steady in Years Three – Five, as revamped reporting and data collection protocols take hold and as the monitoring team must continue to measure outcomes to determine whether the CDP is realizing the Settlement Agreement’s goals. To be as cost-effective as possible, our team anticipates using part-time, local resources on a contract basis to help implement the Monitoring Plan. First, we anticipate contracting with a local college or university to provide graduate students capable of assisting Dr. Lamberth with data collection and analysis. Second, we anticipate working with a local web designer. Third, and perhaps most importantly, we anticipate retaining a thoroughly neutral and unbiased community liaison, as explained above. As reflected in Appendix 4, the biggest cost will be travel expenses, including airfare, per diems and renting an apartment that team members will share (which will be cheaper than renting hotel rooms). We will also incur costs for conducting the required community surveys, hiring a web designer, and miscellaneous items, such as printing costs, costs for purchasing apparel identifying team members as monitors, and electronic legal research. Page 36 Response to RFP for Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 We are not charging for (i) time during which team members travel to and from Cleveland and are not doing monitoring work, (ii) overhead costs, which will be borne by team members and their firms, or (iii) costs for items that Paragraph 357 of the Settlement Agreement requires the City to provide, including office space, reasonable office support, office furniture, internet access, use of IT systems, telephone and photocopying. Accordingly, our proposed flat fee does not include costs for these items. We have spoken at length with the monitor for the New Orleans Police Department and plan to have regularly scheduled meetings with him, at no cost to the City, to learn from his team’s experiences and exchange ideas about effective monitoring practices. The total fee we are proposing for five years is The table below provides an annual breakdown of the labor and other direct costs associated with this fee. As indicated, Appendix 4 provides a further breakdown, including (i) an annual breakdown of labor hours by labor classification and task and (ii) an annual itemization of direct costs other than labor costs. Page 37 Appendix A CVs ROBERT L. STEWART P.O. Box 12473 Tallahassee, Fl. 32317 E-mail: bob@bobcattraining.com WORK EXPERIENCE: 2000 - Present Police Practices Expert President and CEO, Bobcat Training and Consulting, Inc. Conducts training and provides consulting services in the law enforcement and criminal justice communities. Police practices expert. Primary work includes strategic planning, organization re-design and transformation, executive development, community policing, racial profiling, police accountability, policy development, training and early intervention. Monitor – Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs vs. Hobbs NM Police Dept. Monitor - Consent Decree, USVI Police Department Police Practices Expert, USDOJ Investigation, Portland, Me. Police Dept. Police Practices Expert, Mora vs. Arpaio, CV 09-01719 PHX-DGC Police Practices Expert, Melendres vs. Arpaio, CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS Police Practices Expert, Eaddy vs. Jemiola, CV11- 108(MRK) Consultant – Review of BART Police Department Consultant – Review of Detroit Police Department Consultant – Review of Florida Highway Patrol Consultant – Review of Cincinnati Police Department Consultant – Review of Colorado Springs Police Department Consultant – Review of Oakland, Ca. Police Department Consultant/Facilitator–San Antonio Police Department Trainer Instructor - Strategies for Youth Trainer Instructor – Fair and Impartial Policing Senior Consulting Associate, Strategic Policy Partners Senior Consulting Associate, Berkshire Advisors 2006 Camden NJ Police Department – Interim Police Director Performed duties of Police Director under authority of Supercession Order of NJ Attorney General. February – August, 2006. 2005 Rutgers University/Newark Campus – Interim Director of Public Safety Performed duties as chief of police while search for permanent selection was conducted. May – September, 2005. 2004-2005 Director of Training Louisville Metro Police Department Assisted with the merger of former Jefferson County and Louisville (Ky.) Police Departments. Served as key advisor to the Chief of Police. Consolidated and reorganized the training operation. Conducted critical analysis of recruit, in-service, firearms and use of force training. 1998-2000 Executive Director National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives Alexandria, Virginia Managed national office, staff, special projects and programs as Chief Executive Officer. Implemented, executed and assisted in the formation and initiation of programs and policies. Managed and administered the annual budget and fiscal affairs. Supervised and directed all activities associated with the Annual Conference and special meetings. Developed relations with government agencies, foundations, corporations and other private sector organizations to secure and maintain support and financial resources for NOBLE programs. Testified before Congress, state and local legislative bodies, official committees and boards. 1997-1998 Assistant Executive Director National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives Alexandria, Virginia NOBLE’s representative to the Community Policing Consortium Management Team. Coordinated all training and deliverable materials contracted by the C.O.P.S. Office. Planned, directed, coordinated and reviewed all training, participant evaluations and quality control reports. Reviewed and approved articles for NOBLE publications. Coordinated activities of NOBLE chapters with National Office. Acted as Executive Director in absence of incumbent. 1992-1997 Chief of Police Ormond Beach Police Department Ormond Beach, Florida Chief of full service law enforcement agency. Commanded eighty sworn officers and twenty civilian employees. Managed annual budget of approximately $4.5 million. Implemented Citizens' Police Academy, Police Athletic League and Law Enforcement Advisory Board. Restructured Department revised SOP program, instituted Computer Aided Dispatch and 800 MHz Radio systems. Served as President of Volusia County Police Chiefs Association. 1991-1992 Major, Commander General Services Bureau Tallahassee Police Department Tallahassee, Florida 1989-1991 Captain, Promotional Process Coordinator, Administrative Services Bureau Metropolitan Police Department Washington, D.C. 1987-1989 Captain, Commander, Patrol Support Section, (CDU) Fourth District, Field Operations Bureau 1985-1987 Captain, Watch Commander (CDU) Third District, Field Operations Bureau 1984 - 1985 Captain, Deputy Director Planning and Development Division 1983 - 1984 Lieutenant, Commander, Executive Protection Unit Field Operations Bureau 1981-1983 Lieutenant Human Resource Development Branch Planning and Development Division 1980-1981 Lieutenant, Administrative Aide Seventh District, Field Operations Bureau 1980 Lieutenant, Platoon Commander (CDU) Seventh District, Field Operations Bureau 1978-1980 Sergeant, Supervisor, Directive Development Section Planning and Development Division 1978 Sergeant, Squad Supervisor (CDU) First District, Field Operations Bureau 1971-1978 Officer (CDU – Civil Disturbance Unit) Third District, Field Operations Bureau 1969-1971 United States Army 1969 Officer Metropolitan Police Department Washington, D.C. MILITARY EXPERIENCE: U.S. ARMY 1969-1971 EDUCATION 1974 HONORABLE DISCHARGE Howard University - B.A. POST GRADUATE STUDY 1974 -1975 American University 1975-1976 American University 1985 University of Virginia (FBI Academy) 1985-1986 University of the District of Columbia 1991 George Washington University 1992 Florida State University Political Science Public Administration Administration of Justice Administration of Justice Public Policy Contemporary Executive Development Public Administration PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives – Life Member International Association of Chiefs of Police – Life Member Pi Alpha Alpha, National Honor Society in Public Affairs and Administration Police Executive Research Forum FBI National Academy Associates Florida Police Chiefs Association Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. – Life Member 100 Black Men National Black Police Association NAACP DOT/NHTSA Blue Ribbon Panel on African American Seat Belt Use RECENT CONSULTING ENGAGEMENTS Ocala, Florida Police Department (Berkshire Advisors) Gainesville, Florida Police Department (NOBLE) Bay Area Rapid Transit Police Department (NOBLE) Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department (Berkshire Advisors) St. Paul, Mn. Police Department (Berkshire Advisors) San Francisco Police Department (PERF) Austin, Texas Police Department (MGT of America) Independence, Mo. Police Department (Berkshire Advisors) Ardmore, Ok. Police Department (Berkshire Advisors) Boston University Police Department (Strategic Policy Partnerships) Memphis Police Department (Berkshire Advisors and Fields Consulting Group) Oklahoma City Police Department (Berkshire Advisors) Newark Public School Security (MGT of America) Stamford Police Department (Strategic Policy Partnerships) Albuquerque Police Department (MGT of America) Petersburg, Va. Police Department (Berkshire Advisors) Newark Public Schools (MGT of America) Kansas City, Mo. Police Department (Berkshire Advisors) Dallas Police Department (Berkshire Advisors) Phoenix Police Department (Berkshire Advisors) Florida Highway Patrol (Berkshire Advisors) Albany, New York Police Department (Strategic Policy Partnerships) Charlotte – Mecklenburg Police Department (Strategies for Youth) Cincinnati Police Department (Strategic Policy Partners) Fair and Impartial Policing, Instructor Trainer, COPS Hartford, Conn. Police Department (Strategic Policy Partnerships) Indianapolis Police Department (Strategies for Youth) East Haven, Conn. Police Department (Strategic Policy Partnerships) Oakland, Ca. Police Department (Strategic Policy Partnerships) Colorado Springs Police Department (Berkshire Advisors) South Bend Police Department (Strategic Policy Partnerships) Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (Strategies for Youth) Boynton Beach Police Department (Berkshire Advisors) San Antonio Police Depart (Bobcat Training and Consulting) Hollywood, Fl. Police Department (Charles A. Gruber Consulting, Inc.) Baltimore Police Department (Strategic Policy Partnerships) Detroit Police Department (Strategic Policy Partnerships) Portland Police Department (Strategies for Youth) Mary Ann Viverette Professional Experience: Municipal Government/Gaithersburg, MD Police Department – 1979/2007 Thirty years of in-depth experience in municipal government, holding all ranks in the Gaithersburg Police Department until appointed as Chief of Police in 1986. As a Department Head, was responsible for providing service to a diverse and challenging city of 60,000 residents. Responsible for major organizational transformation by instituting significant personnel, operational, and service-related initiatives, improving training curriculums, building regional coalitions and developing a successful city-wide community policing philosophy. The agency received the US Conference of Mayors “Livability Award” for its community policing programs. Experienced in grant writing, project management, internal affairs and use of force reviews, recruitment, selection and promotion, and the wide range of vital administrative and managerial functions required of a Department Head. As Chief of Police, led the agency through CALEA accreditation five times and was designated as a “Flagship” model agency by CALEA in 2007. Professional Accomplishments: International Association of Chiefs of Police - IACP, President (2005-2006). Served in leadership positions as a member of the Board of Officers from 1999 - 2007. The IACP is the oldest and largest law enforcement leadership organization in the world with over 21,000 members. As a long-term Civil Rights Committee member, reviewed civil rights law enforcement policies from agencies throughout the nation, initiated legislative recommendations and resolutions on civil rights issues, and reviewed and awarded police departments across the nation for civil rights programs reflective of best practices. Maryland Chiefs of Police Association - Executive Committee Board member and Training Committee member (1993- 2006). Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) – Served as a Commissioner and Chairperson of the Standards Review and Interpretation Committee for five years and assisted with writing and re-writing the international body of standards throughout a fifteen year period. Reviewed hundreds of agencies for CALEA accreditation throughout the United States over a twenty-year period as an Assessor, Team Leader and CALEA Commissioner. Federal Monitor – New Orleans Police Department – Currently serves as a Court appointed Federal Monitor with the Sheppard Mullin Law Firm (Washington, DC) overseeing the Consent Decree issued in 2010 for the New Orleans Police Department. Beginning in August 2013, working as part of a ten-person team to insure the NOPD meets all of the requirements of the Consent Decree. Assigned areas include sexual assault, domestic violence, promotions and performance evaluations and crisis intervention and assisting the team with use of force report reviews and all NOPD Academy training functions. Education: University of Maryland, University College, College Park, MD. Master of Science, Human Resource Management, 1998 (Summa Cum Laude) Bachelor of Science, Law Enforcement/Criminology, 1986 (Magna Cum Laude) FBI National Academy, 1988, Session 155, Quantico, VA. Presentations/Keynote Speaker/Panelist –  Spoke with the President and Vice-President of the United States releasing police grants for an additional 100,000 community policing officers;  Addressed participants of the Million Mom March in Washington DC while representing IACP on violence against youth;  Testified before the US Senate and US Congress on national issues related to identity theft and the national assault weapons ban;  Appeared several times on “Good Morning America,” addressing topical issues in law enforcement;  Consultant for private organizations and the U.S. Department of Justice, performing management studies of police agencies and participating in promotional assessment center and promotional testing design for a major U.S. city (2007-present). Professional Associations:            International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1993-present. Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, 1986-2007. National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, 1995-present. Leadership Montgomery, Class of 1995 Victim Services Advisory Board, IACP, 2003-2006. National Law Enforcement Museum Advisory Board, 2004-2007. Fight Crime Invest in Kids, Maryland Advisory Board, 2000-2007. D.A.R.E. America Law Enforcement National Advisory Board, 1999-2003. Gaithersburg Kiwanis Club, 1994-1999. Heroes for Children Board of Officers, 2011-present Dye Estates Board Member 2012-2015 Awards:      25 Outstanding Business Women of Montgomery County, 2005 Outstanding Service Award, Gaithersburg-Germantown Chamber of Commerce, 2005 Woman Law Enforcement Officer of the Year – 2006 NAWLEE Distinguished Alumni Award – 2006 Academy of the Holy Cross, Kensington, MD Conference of Mayors Livability Award – Community Policing, 1995 25562257 v1 Jerry L. Clayton E-Mail: 12jlclayton@gmail.com Professional Experience: 2009-present Washtenaw County Sheriff Office Sheriff  Elected CEO of a full service criminal justice agency  Lead 430 full and part-time employees  Geographic area of responsibility- 720sq miles  County population 340,000  Agency budget- Approximately 50 million dollars Ann Arbor, MI 2001-2006 Washtenaw County Sheriff Office First Lieutenant  Coordinate and conduct internal investigations  Coordinate and deliver staff trainings  Manage special projects Ann Arbor, MI 1999-2001 Washtenaw County Sheriff Office Commander of Police Services  An appointed member of the Sheriff’s Executive Team  Administrative responsibility for 25 upper level management / 100-125 sworn officers  Responsible for the delivery of the following services: Dispatch, Marine Safety, Traffic Enforcement, Criminal Investigation, Community Policing, and Law Enforcement  Generate administrative operation plans and budgets  Collaborate and develop partnerships with Township Officials  Commander of the Special Weapons and Tactics Team Ann Arbor, MI 1998-1999 Washtenaw County Sheriff Office Ann Arbor, MI Commander of Corrections  An appointed member of the Sheriff’s Executive Team  Administrative responsibility for 11 upper level management/ 90-100 front-line staff  Administrative responsibility for service delivery: Corrections Operations, County Court Security, Inmate population management  Generate administrative operation plans and budgets  Coordination of Divisional training plan, equipment, and personnel 1992-1998 Washtenaw County Sheriff Office First Lieutenant  Manage daily operations Corrections Division: Facility Security Prisoner Transportation, County Court Security, Community Work Program, Inmate Classification  Personnel Issues: Internal Investigations, Corrective Sanctions, Criminal Investigations, Training, Customer service  Service Liaison: Food Service, Medical, Mental Health 1990-1992 Washtenaw County Sheriff Office Sergeant  Shift Commander  Staff scheduling and Post assignments  Manage complaint process Ann Arbor, MI Ann Arbor, MI 1990 Washtenaw County Sheriff Office Deputy Sheriff  Respond to citizen calls for service  Criminal Investigations  Traffic enforcement  Community policing contacts Ann Arbor, MI 1986-1990 Washtenaw County Sheriff Office Corrections Officer  Supervise inmates in housing units  Process newly admitted inmates  Transport inmates to court Ann Arbor, MI 1985-1986 Washtenaw County Sheriff Office Community Work Program Supervisor  Supervise sentenced offenders performing community work  Schedule participant attendance in program  Coordinate and schedule client service activities Ann Arbor, MI Additional Activities: 1991 – 2001 1994 – 2001 1993 – 2002 2012-present WCSO- SWAT Team Member  Squad leader, SWAT Training Instructor, Team Commander WCSO- Chief Use of Force Instructor  Coordinate all use of force training, evaluation of staff use of force actions, policy development Investigator- Michigan Sheriff’s Association  Member of a group of specially trained investigators throughout the state of Michigan assigned at the request of any Michigan Sheriff to investigate internal and criminal complaints filed against representatives of their agency. Commissioner- Michigan Commission On Law Enforcement Standards  Appointed by the Governor of the State of Michigan to represent the Michigan Sheriff’s Association. The Commission prepares and publishes mandatory minimum recruitment, selection and training standards for entry-level law enforcement officers in the state of Michigan, and in-service training standards for veteran law enforcement officers. Establishing standards for traditional, municipal, county, and state agencies, as well as a variety of specialized agencies, such as tribal, railroad, airport, and park police. Currently serve as Chair of the Commission. Concurrent Employment: 2006-present Department of Justice/ Kroll Worldwide/ Saul Ewing/ Venable Subcontractor  Evaluate law enforcement agency compliance with court-mandated improvements related to agency policy and procedures, staff training, and supervision.  Specific areas of concentration include; training curriculum development, policy development, conditions of incarceration, and use of force 2001-present Lamberth Consulting Partner/ Vice President  Design, coordinate, and deliver training course; law enforcement, corrections, basic and advance management/supervision, leadership, coordinating and enhancing customer service efforts  Project management  Coordinate/conduct Focus Group activities  Provide consulting services focused on addressing bias based police practices 1996-present National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice Technical Resource Provider/Training Consultant  Contracted consultant for local, state, federal Corrections agencies  Provide technical assistance  Provide training services 1991-present Education: 1997 1990 1982-1985 Training Consultation Service In-service/ Pre-service Instructor- Police, Corrections, DNR  Classroom Instruction; Cultural Diversity, Interpersonal Communications, Filed Training and Evaluation, Front-line Supervision, Biased based policing, Leadership and management practices.  Practical Instruction; Firearms, Defensive Tactics, Chemical spray  Facilitate Job Task Analysis process Eastern Michigan University School of Police Staff and Command Washtenaw Community College Criminal Justice- Police Academy Eastern Michigan University Major-Public Safety Administration Professional References Available upon Request Ypsilanti, MI Ann Arbor, MI Ypsilanti, MI SCOTT L. SARGENT sargentlaw@gmail.com April 15, 2015 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE – LAW ENFORCEMENT LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT – CALIFORNIA 2015 - Present        Command of three main jails covering Los Angeles Metropolitan Jail Section (Central Los Angeles), Van Nuys Jail Section (San Fernando Valley) and 77th Street Jail Section (South Los Angeles) Command includes seven Sub-Jail Sections within each of the four bureaus Command of 435 sworn and civilian employees Largest Level I jail in the country Review and adjudicate Use of Force incidents Oversee In-Custody Death investigations and adjudications Facilitate and develop training for 435 employees including an independent Detention Officer Academy 2007-2015                Captain, Use of Force Review Division, Commanding Officer Oversee the review and adjudication of all LAPD Use of Force (UOF) incidents on behalf of the Chief of Police; including Categorical Use of Force (CUOF) incidents such as Officer-Involved Shootings (OIS), and Non-Categorical Use of Force (NCUOF) incidents such as non-lethal and less-lethal force options Facilitated the adjudication of approximately 13,000 UOF incidents including approximately 500 OfficerInvolved Shootings Represent the Chief of Police at the Board of Police Commissioners regarding formal UOF adjudications, as well as UOF audits and policy changes Published annual UOF Public Report Oversee the Use of Force Review Board (UOFRB) for critical force incidents and In-Custody-Deaths Operate in collaborative environment with the Office of the Inspector general on UOF issues Standing member of the Police Commissioners-Use of Force Committee, the Use of Force Best Practices Committee and the LAPD Tactics Training Review Committee Oversee all formal training related to OIS and other CUOF incidents Conduct training department-wide and nationally regarding UOF adjudication 2006-2007    Captain, Jail Division, Commanding Officer Captain, 77th Street Patrol Division, Commanding Officer Commanding Officer of approximately 250-officer patrol command, including specialized units Conducted numerous CUOF presentations before the department’s UOFRB Represented department and geographic area at Community Police Advisory Board (CPAB), Clergy Councils and other community groups Developed eight person Criminal Surveillance Team as best practice Co-developed War Room, crime control concept for geographic area Participated in Gang Intervention Program for South Los Angeles Incident Commander at various events and tactical incidents Represented division at department COMPSTAT process Represented division at Risk Management Executive Committee (RMEC) 2005-2006     Captain, Newton Patrol Division, Commanding Officer Commanding Officer of approximately 134-officer patrol command Represented department at community CPAB, Clergy Council and other community groups Incident Commander at various events and tactical incidents Conducted CUOF assessments and presentations before the Use of Force Review Board 2003-2005 Lieutenant, Consent Decree Bureau, Adjutant  Assisted Bureau Commanding Officer in all matters related to the implementation of the 2001 Federal Consent Decree, US Department of Justice vs. City of Los Angeles Authored various departmental policies and notices including Non-Discrimination Policy and Retaliation Policy and investigation protocols Conducted review of department audits conducted by the Federal Monitor, Kroll and Associates Made recommendations regarding audit formal outcomes Represented Commanding Officer at various meetings with Federal Monitor     2001-2003 Lieutenant, Risk Management Group, Officer in Charge    Oversight of department investigative entity of the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Officer in Charge of the Employees Relations Unit (ERU), involving employee’s internal litigation Officer-in Charge of the Complex / Rampart Litigation Unit, involving litigation related to the multifaceted Rampart Area corruption investigations Represented department at court mediations regarding settlements on ERU related litigation Represented department during closed sessions of full Los Angeles City Council regarding settlement discussions and concurrence   1999-2001 Lieutenant, West Los Angeles Patrol Division, Watch Commander     Watch commander geographic division comprised of 65 square miles, 165,000 residents Patrol watches comprised of approximately 20 to 40 officers, including specialized units Assigned as the administrative lieutenant responsible for adjudicating citizen complaints Incident Commander at various tactical incidents, crime scenes and planned events including UCLA related incidents 1998-1999 Sergeant, Internal Affairs Group, Investigator   Conducted internal complaint investigations involving officers assigned to Operations-South Bureau Assigned diverse cases including a one-year partnership with the FBI on a high profile corruption case, which resulted in indictments related to federal civil rights violations Carried average case load of 8-15 cases  1997-1998 Sergeant, Southwest Patrol Division, Field Supervisor     Patrol supervisor for division comprised of 9.8 square miles, 165,000 residents Patrol Area included USC Campus Supervisor of Bike Detail Patrol watches comprised of between 30-60 officers 1996-1997   Sergeant, Hollywood Patrol Division, Field Supervisor Supervisor of watches comprised of between 30-40 Officers Geographic division comprised of approximately 17 square miles and 125,000 residents 2 1995-1996    1993-1995 Police Officer III, Employee Relations Group, Investigator Assigned as Grievance Investigator, involving internal grievances Participated in grievance hearings and arbitrations involving department employee issues Grievance cases investigated included union and labor matters Police Officer II  Detective Headquarters Division - Investigator Field investigator with the Gun Detail, focused on citywide gun related crimes such as illegal sales and transfers, and illegal possession of firearms by convicted felons.  Foothill Patrol Division, Operations-Valley Bureau Patrol area comprised of total of 46 square miles, population of 182,000  Northeast Patrol Division, Operations-Central Bureau Patrol area comprised of total of 29 square miles, population of 250,000 RIALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT- CALIFORNIA 1991-1993    1987-1991    Sergeant, Patrol Division City of Rialto comprised of approximately 100, 000 residence and 27 square miles Department has 115 officers, 162 total employees Adjunct assignment as supervisor of K9 unit Police Officer, K-9 Corporal K9 Handler, assigned to Support Services Division, patrol and narcotics detection dog Member Street Crime Attack Team (Special Weapons and Gang Enforcement) Member of County Taskforce-San Bernardino movement against street hoodlums (SMASH) SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT- CALIFORNIA 1985-1986   Police Officer, Patrol Operations Division Patrol, DUI enforcement unit, plain-clothes assignments Comprised of 15 square miles, population 91,000, 152-officer department. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT- CALIFORNIA 1983-1985   Deputy Sheriff, Custody Division Assigned to Custody Division, with a combined daily inmate population of over 21,000 Various assignments included training deputy, perimeter patrol and member of the Emergency Response Team for emergency cell-extractions and inmate disturbances member of 1984 Olympics Mass Booking Team 3 HALLANDALE BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT – FLORIDA 1981-1983   Officer, Patrol Division Police department of approximately 100 officers City of approximately 38,000 covering five square miles _____________________________________________________________________________________________ PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE - LEGAL PRACTICE LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT L. SARGENT - CALIFORNIA 2003-current   Attorney, Owner/Operator General legal services and of-counsel support Active member of the California Bar ___________________________________________________________________________________ FIREARM/WEAPON SYSTEM EXPERIENCE Colt Trooper Mk III .357cal S&W 5906 9mm HK 91 7.62mm Ithaca 37 12g S&W Mdl 10 .38cal Browning HP 9mm HK MP5 Auto 9mm Benelli Auto 12g S&W Mdl 15 .38cal Browning BDA .380cal Colt M16A1 5.56mm S&W 3000 12g S&W Mdl 66 .357cal Berretta 92F 9mm Colt M4 Carbine 5.56mm Remington 870 12g S&W Mdl 686 .357cal S&W Body-Guard .380cal Ruger LCP .380cal ___________________________________________________________________________________ EDUCATION Juris Doctor 1998-2002 Southwestern University School of Law - Los Angeles, California  Recipient of the CALI - Excellence for the Future Award in Forensic Evidence (1999)  Recipient of the Wildman Scholarship (1998) Master of Arts: Organizational Management 1995-1997 Azusa Pacific University – Azusa, California  Master’s Project: 1992 Los Angeles Riot- A Los Angeles Police Department Leadership Perspective Bachelor of Science: Business Administration and Management 1988-1990 University of Redlands – Redlands, California  Bachelor’s Project: Narcotic investigations and controlled-examinations of suspects related to underthe-influence crimes; provided investigation guidelines from initial observations and consensual contact through detention, arrest, interview, physiological evaluation and chemical testing Associate of Arts: Law Enforcement 1976-1978 Dean College – Franklin, Massachusetts 4 RESEARCH EXPERIENCE Researcher, Force Science Institute, Ltd., Winnipeg, Canada October 2010 Biomechanics of Force Encounters - Assessing the Impact of Exhaustion on Officer Performance and Recall. Participants from the Winnipeg Police Service were tested to determine the impact of exhaustion on performance and recall. Researcher, Force Science Institute, Ltd., Hillsboro, OR. March 2010 Biomechanics of Force Encounters - Identifying Pre-Attack Indicators. Participants from the Portland, OR area were tested to determine speed and dangerousness of prone subjects firing a weapon in five directions; contributing-author of peer reviewed publication. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ CERTIFICATIONS IPICD – Prevention of In Custody Death - Excited Delirium Instructor 2010 AELE Certified (Police) Litigation Specialist 2010 Colt M4 Police [Patrol] Rifle Certification 2009 Force Science Institute – Force Science Analyst Certification 2009 California POST Management Certificate 2005 California POST Advanced Certificate 1998 FBI Basic SWAT Certification 1992 Heckler and Koch MP5 Rifle Certification 1992 California Police K-9 Narcotic Detection Certification 1990 California POST Police K-9 Certification 1987 Master K9 Police K9Agitation Course 1987 Florida Criminal Justice Standards & Training Commission Certification 1981 ARTICLES Force Science Institute (contributing-author) (2015); Peer Reviewed Prone Study, Published February 2015 Sargent, S. The Street as I See it (Column) (2012, July 13); Are we paying attention to lessons learned? Policeone.com. Retrieved from http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/5814524-Are-wepaying-attention-to-lessons-learned/ Sargent, S. The Street as I See it (2011, April 7); P1 First Person: How to Effectively Review and Adjudicate Use of Force Tactics. Policeone.com. Retrieved from http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/3465571P1-First-Person-How-to-effectively-review-and-adjudicate-use-of-force-tactics/ Sargent, S. The Street as I See it (2010, June 28); Ensuring Relevant Training After a Use-Of-Force Incident. Policeone.com. Retrieved from http://www.policeone.com/police-products/less- lethal/TASER/articles/2088597-Ensuring-relevant-training-after-a-use-of-force-incident/ Sargent, S. (2005, January). A Current Estate Plan – Your Other Partner. Journal of California Law Enforcement, Volume 39, No.1. (Reprinted in Police Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), February 2005) (Reprinted in Law Enforcement News, Vol. 37 No. 2, 2005) Sargent, S. (2002). The Grass is Not Greener - Preventing police, “lateral” attrition The LAPD Journal Sargent, S. (1999). Career Goal Setting in Law Enforcement. LAPD Career Development Newsletter 5 Sherry E. Woods Home Phone: Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ~ Fax: (734) 663-0915~ Email: svwoods50@comcast.net W O R K H I S T O R Y Corrections Commander Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office 1/12 - present Manage the corrections and administrative activities of the Corrections Division of the Sheriff's Office; direct Sheriff Correctional Lieutenants in the management of their assigned programs, operations, and staff; coordinate the work of the division with others in the department. Evaluate operations, staffing, training, and record keeping systems; ensure adequacy, efficiency and effectiveness of corrections and administrative operations; establish resource priorities based on program needs. Supervise, train, evaluate, and discipline staff. Department of Justice Contractee June – September 2014 Subject Matter Expert – reviewed and assessed Use of Force investigations for compliance with the Consent Decree (DOJ vs. City of Detroit) as well as departmental policies and procedures. Special Deputy/Background/Special Investigator 4/10 – December 2011 Conducted background investigations on law enforcement and civilian personnel for the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office as well as personnel for the county of Washtenaw. Also assisted with the investigation of department internal investigations. Independent Monitor’s Team Member Detroit Police Department 4/04-August/09 Member of the Arrest & Detention Team. Reviewed and assessed documentation relating to arrest and detention paragraphs. Assisted in the review and assessment of documentation for Use of Force paragraphs. Conducted inspections relating to Conditions of Confinement paragraphs; and performed fieldwork to assist the Audit Team. Salon Coordinator Class & Elegance Hair Care Center 3/02-4/04 Responsible for the scheduling of appointments for six hair stylists, answering the telephone; and overseeing the day-to-day operations of the salon. Deputy Chief Community Services Division 4/98- 7/01 Responsible for the direction, control and planning of community programs and services. Commanded two lieutenants, two sergeants, 22 sworn officers and eight civilians. Also supervised internal administration and training. Community Operations: Oversaw several community outreach programs including D.A.R.E., G.R.E.A.T., Police Explorer Program, Citizen Policy Academy, High School Liaison Program. Special Services: Coordinated traffic enforcement and special details including football games, art fair, student move-in, marathons, animal control, Safety Town, impound services. Field Training Officer (FTO) Commander: Supervised lieutenant in charge of 14-week officer training program. Determined which trainees matriculated through program. District Offices Supervisor: Managed the coordinators and civilian staff for four district police offices. Sherry E. Woods Lieutenant, Professional Standards Section Oversaw internal affairs and regulation compliance • • • Investigated all internal and external complaints made against officers. Submitted reports to the chief with recommendations for disciplinary action. Conducted staff inspections to assure compliance with CALEA accreditation standards. Maintained guidelines for training, detention, biohazard and gun handling. Lieutenant, Patrol Shift Commander Supervised and coordinated patrol shift. • • • 12/96-4/98 5/92-11/96 Managed four sergeants, 25 officers, and four civilians. Provided disciplinary action and conflict resolution. Scheduled and trained staff. Staff Sergeant, Administrative Services Section 6/88-4/92 Served as public information and community relations liaison. • • • Provided news reports to newspapers and other media; wrote policy and procedures for handling news releases. Met with major news stations to establish news protocol. Handled community-based complaints, providing conflict resolution and developing relationships among university and community groups. Patrol Division Staff Sergeant 11/87-5/88 One of four shift sergeants in citywide line-level duty; supervised shift officers. Officer, Administrative Services Section 10/85-11/87 Assigned to training section, responsible for recruitment, background investigations, hiring and training. • • • Researched and developed innovative recruitment tactics. Recruited on college campuses throughout the state of Michigan. Scheduled psychological and physical exams of prospective police recruits. Officer, Communications Dispatcher 12/81-10/85 Answered ‘911’ call and dispatched patrol units. Operated LEIN machine. Road Patrol Officer Responsible for routine patrol duties. • • 10/76-12/81 Worked with other police agencies, including University of Michigan security and housing. Attended meetings and responded to requests for police service. Community Services Officer 8/73-10/76 Provided patrol officer support, including juvenile intervention, particularly for runaways. Compiled accident and minor criminal incident reports where sworn officers were not required. E D U C A T I O N University of Michigan Bachelor of Science, 1972 Major: English/Social Studies Northwestern University Traffic Institute School of Police Staff and Command, 2/93-11/93 2 Sherry E. Woods FBI National Academy University of Virginia, Quantico, Virginia, 4/97-6/97 Classes: Law, Forensic Science, Labor Relations, Interviewing and Interrogation, White Collar Crime, Physical Training PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Jail Association Women Police of Michigan National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Officers FBI National Academy Associates N.A.A.C.P. REFERENCES Larry Jerue, Undersheriff ............................. (989640-3751 .................Clinton County Sheriff’s Office Joe Buczek, Chief Compliance Officer ..... (212)235-2096 ...............Kroll Dorian D. Moore, MD………………… (734)476-0093……… Washtenaw Internal Medicine Angela Abrams, Lieutenant (Ret)………… (734)649-7557…………Ann Arbor Police Department Elaine Lambert, Teacher .............................. (734)358-3806………….Willow Run Public Schools 3 Bruce C. Harber bchuofm@gmail.com EDUCATION 1974-1991 1992-1993 1997 2004-2005 2010-2014 University of Memphis (Memphis State University), Memphis, TN Bachelor’s Degree, Bachelor of Professional Studies – Police Administration Graduated Magna cum Laude University of Memphis, Graduate School (Education), Curriculum Development F.B.I. National Academy, 190th Session, Quantico, VA Graduate School, Executive Leadership, University of Virginia University of Memphis, Graduate School (Criminal Justice) University of Memphis, Graduate School Master’s Degree, Master of Professional Studies – Strategic Leadership Graduated with a 4.0 Grade Point Average PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1974-1976 1976 1976-1985 1985 1986 1987 1996 1996-1999 1999 2000-2001 2001-2006 2001-2014 2005 2009 & 2014 2014-present Police Cadet, Memphis Police Department, Memphis, TN Office duties while attending college as a full-time student Graduated, Memphis Police Academy, 42nd Police Basic Training Session Patrol Officer, Memphis Police Department Patrol and investigative duties, North and East Precincts, Traffic Bureau Promoted to Sergeant Detective, West Precinct General Investigation Bureau Instructor, Memphis Police Academy Promoted to Lieutenant (supervisor) Field Supervisor, South Precinct, 1986 Supervisor and Instructor, Memphis Police Academy, 1986-1990 and 1993-1996 Supervisor and Coordinator, Traffic Bureau, 1990-1991 Supervisor and Acting Detective Unit Commander, East Precinct, 1991-1993 Completed the F.B.I. Instructor Development Course Promoted to Major (manager) Executive officer and commander, Memphis Police Academy, managed all training and employment functions; also regularly served as the on-call, major incident response officer (i.e., Duty Chief) for the entire Memphis Police Department Retired from the Memphis Police Department effective April 1, 2000. Last day to work was December 24, 1999. Associate Director of Public Safety – Police Services, the University of Memphis, beginning January 3, 2000. Duties included: Managed the campus crime prevention program and all criminal investigations, served as the division training officer and coordinator, was the liaison with the Memphis Police Department, and acted as the interim director in the director’s absence. A member of several campus-wide committees including the Student Retention Committee, the Public Safety Council, and the campus Crisis Response Team, which is now known as the Behavioral Intervention Team (BIT) and on which I still serve. Staff instructor with The University of Memphis’s Mid-South (Law Enforcement) Training Institute. Instruct on the topics of the Police Field Training Officer program, Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED), and Rapid Deployment to High Risk Incidents (e.g., active shooter situations). Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police, the University of Memphis. Appointed Director on December 18, 2001, after serving as the Interim Director from May 25, 2001, through December 18. Duties include overseeing all activities and administrative operations of the Department of Public Safety, which includes Police Services and included Parking Services until July 2003. Responsible for the safety of all students, faculty, staff and visitors to The University of Memphis. Also responsible for the University’s Crisis Management Plan. Adjunct Professor, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, the University of Memphis, taught CJUS 4017, Criminal Investigation, senior-level course External Security Coordinator for the NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Championship South Regional Final. Organized and managed activities of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies for the national college basketball tournament held at FedExForum. Appointed Assistant Vice President for Administration and Chief of Police on March 17, 2014. In addition to Police Services, responsibilities include the University’s Shared Services Center and Process Improvement project; the Business and Finance Service Center at the Lambuth Campus in Jackson, TN; and University District neighborhood and business partnerships. Bruce Harber - page 1 of 2 CERTIFICATION Police Officer Certification, State of Tennessee, since 1976 (POST certificate #7387) Police Instructor Certification, Tennessee Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) Commission, since 1987 P.O.S.T. Certified Departmental Training Officer (2000 - Certificate #00006GD) PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP Tennessee Association of Chiefs of Police Memphis Metropolitan Association of Chiefs of Police SKILLS (Partial List) Computer: Public Speaking: Written: Windows 7, MS Office Suite 2013, and Adobe Acrobat XI Pro Memphis Police Academy graduation master of ceremonies, various media releases and interviews, presentations before the Tennessee P.O.S.T. Commission, various public speaking engagements, numerous instructional and teaching assignments Editor of newsletters, authored various lesson plans, policies, procedures, correspondence, and guidelines AWARDS and ACCOMPLISHMENTS 1982 1991 1992 1993 1998 1999 1999 2002 2003 2004 2006 2008 2011 2014-2015 Nominated for the Optimist Club’s Police Officer of the Year Award Inducted into Phi Kappa Phi National Honor Society for Academic Excellence University of Memphis University College Distinguished Special Project Award (Senior Thesis) Implemented the Memphis Police Department’s Field Training Officer (F.T.O.) program. Wrote the program’s general guidelines, Standardized Evaluation Guidelines, created field evaluations, and selected and trained F.T.O.s. City of Memphis Total Quality Service Award for restructuring the Police Department’s recruiting and employment processes Served on the City of Memphis’ labor negotiation team, negotiated the 1999-2001 Memorandum of Understanding with the Memphis Police Association Chairman, Special Olympics World of Winners 5K Run/Walk Organizing Committee Secretary-Treasurer of the Memphis Metropolitan Association of Chiefs of Police (MMACP) Vice President of the MMACP President of the MMACP Northeast Memphis Optimist Club Respect for Law, Citizen of the Year University of Memphis Distinguished Alumni Award – J. Millard Smith Illustrious Service to the Association Award University of Memphis Allen J. Hammond Presidential Service Award – Awarded by President Shirley C. Raines as special recognition for significant service to the University. Graduate, Leadership Memphis Executive Class 2015, which included mentoring Melrose High School juniors and seniors, and assisting high school seniors with the college admission process (e.g., FAFSA - Free Application for Federal Student Aid) PROFESSIONAL PROFILE I believe I have a well-rounded, versatile background with experience as a police officer, supervisor, manager, and trainer. Since 1976, I have completed numerous training programs and seminars. I have conducted specialized training in both the public and private sectors (e.g., AutoZone, Leadership Millington 2000, Mid-South Training Institute). I have also taught at the college level as both a guest and full-term instructor. HOBBIES and INTERESTS Running (completed 49 full marathons – 26.2 miles), sports, computers, music PERSONAL Spouse: Allison Betchick-Harber Children: 1 son, 2 step-daughters Bruce Harber - page 2 of 2 Curriculum Vitae Randolph Thomas Dupont University of Memphis School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice rdupont@memphis.edu McCord Hall 311 Memphis, TN 38152-3330 CJUS (901) 678-2737 Fax (901) 678-5279 Education University of Texas at Austin (Austin, Texas) Clinical Psychology (American Psychological Association Approved) September, 1973 - May, 1981 PhD awarded May, 1981 Loyola University of the South (New Orleans, Louisiana) Psychology Major September, 1969 - May, 1973 BA awarded May, 1973 Jesuit College Preparatory (Dallas, Texas) September, 1965 - May, 1969 Clinical Psychology Doctoral Internship University of Tennessee College of Medicine (Memphis, Tennessee) Clinical Psychology Internship (American Psychological Association Approved), September, 1976 - August, 1977 Licensure and Certification Clinical Psychologist, Health Care Provider Tennessee P791 (prior P848) - May, 1981 to present Certification of Professional Qualifications in Psychology (CPQ) April, 2001 to present 1 University Appointments Professor University of Memphis School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice August, 2003 - present Professor University of Tennessee, Memphis College of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Division of Clinical Psychology July, 2002 – August, 2003 Associate Professor University of Tennessee, Memphis College Of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Division of Clinical Psychology July, 1995 – June, 2002 Associate Professor (adjunct) University of Memphis School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice September, 2001 – August, 2003 Assistant Professor University of Tennessee, Memphis College Of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Division of Clinical Psychology January, 1989 - June, 1995 Course Instructor Union University, Memphis Campus, Baptist Hospital School of Nursing September, 1988 - May, 1989 Hospital Appointments St. Joseph Hospital Adolescent Unit Professional Staff (1987 – 1989) The MED (Regional Medical Center) Professional Staff (1989 - 2003) St. Jude’s Children Research Hospital Professional Staff (1997- 2002) Community Behavioral Health Hospital Professional Staff (2000- 2003) 2 Administrative Experience University of Memphis, School of Urban Studies and Public Policy, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Chair, 2005 – 2013 Memphis Fire Services, Critical Incident Services (Trauma Prevention and Recovery) Director, 1999 – Present Memphis Police Services, Critical Incident Services (Trauma Prevention and Recovery) Director, 1995 - Present University of Tennessee, Department of Psychiatry Administrative and Program Director, 1989 - 2003 Regional Medical Center at Memphis (THE MED) Psychiatric Services Mid-South Critical Incident Debriefing Program Clinical Director, Critical Incident Program, 1989 - 1998 Rhodes College (Southwestern at Memphis) Counseling Center. Director, 1977 - 1978. Clinical Experience University of Tennessee Medical Group Clinical Psychologist, 1989 - 2003 Private Practice - Memphis, Tennessee Clinical Psychologist, 1981 – 1988, 2003 - Present Frayser-Millington Community Mental Health Center Staff Psychologist/Therapist, 1978 - 1981 Consulting Experience, Program and Research Development (abbreviated) Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2010 – present United States Attorney, Western District of Washington, 2013 - Present CIT Program Development Consultant, Nation-wide sites, 1993 - present Memphis Police Training Academy Crisis Intervention Team (CIT), 1989- present New River Valley Mental Health Association Community Action Grant US Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, 2002 – 2004 Research Triangle Institute, Center for Digital Systems Engineering, US Department of Justice, Office of Science and Technology Grant, 2000 - 2002 Office of Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President Research Source Consultant, Mid-Year 2000, 2001, 2002 Pulse Check Project National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Linkages, 2000 - 2002 St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Crisis Management, 1996 – 2002 National Alliance On Mental Illness, Criminal Justice & MH Interface Meeting, April, 1999 US Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, Project & Grant Review, 1996 - 1997 State of Tennessee Health Related Boards, Board of Examiners in Psychology, 1988- 1992 Baptist Memorial Hospital Employee Assistance Program, 1985 - 1987 3 Publications and Technical Reports Dupont, RT (2015) Special Training on Building Trust. Technical Report Submitted to the Presidential Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 1-5. Dupont, RT (2014) Issues in Documenting Police Mental Health Contacts. Technical Report Submitted to the United States Department of Justice Attorney’s Office, Western Washington Office, 1-3. Dupont, RT, (2014) Needs Assessment and Progress in Developing a Crisis Intervention Team. Technical Report Submitted to the United States Department of Justice Attorney’s Office, Western Washington Office, 1-5. Dupont, RT (2014) The Needs of Veterans and Crisis Intervention Strategies. Technical Report Submitted by to the United States Senate, Staff Office of Senator Patty Murray, 1-3. Dupont, RT (2013) The Stress of a high risk occupation: Addressing the needs of firefighters. Technical Report submitted to International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF Local 1784), 1-8. Dupont, RT & Cochran, CS (2013) Mental Illness and Drug Dependency Crisis Intervention Team Training Evaluation. Technical Report submitted to the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, 1-35 Dupont, RT, McCuddy, T, Cochran, SC (2012) Crisis Intervention Team Curriculum Analysis. Technical Report submitted to the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 110. Dupont, RT & Turner, KB (2012). Crisis Intervention Team Development in Tennessee. Technical Report submitted to the State of Tennessee Division of Criminal Justice, 1-5. Dupont, RT (2010) Intervention strategies with individuals experiencing a mental illness crisis event. Technical Report submitted to the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, 1-12. Huang W, Payne TJ, Ma JZ, Beuten J, Dupont RT, Inohara N, Li MD (2009). Significant association of ANKKI and detection of a functional polymorphism with nicotine dependence in an African-American sample. Neuropsychopharmacology, 34(2):319-30. Dupont, RT (2008). The Crisis Intervention Team Model: An Intersection Point for the Criminal Justice System and the Psychiatric Emergency Service. In A. Fishkind (Ed), Emergency Psychiatry: Principles and Practice. Baltimore, MD, Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Publishers. 4 Publications (continued) Li, MD, Ma, JZ, Payne, TD, Lou, XY, Zang, D, Dupont, RT, Elston, RC (2008). Genome-wide linkage scan for nicotine dependence in European Americans and its converging results with African Americans in the Mid-South Tobacco Family sample. Molecular Psychiatry, 13(4):407-16. Huang W, Ma JZ, Payne TJ, Beuten J, Dupont RT (2008), Li MD. Significant Association of DRD1 with nicotine dependence. Human Genetics 123(2):133-40. Beuten, J. Ma, J.Z., Payne, T.D., Dupont, R.T., Lou, X.Y., Crews, K.M., Elston, R.C. (2007). Association of specific haplotypes of neurotrophic tyrosine kinase receptor 2 gene (NTRK2) with vulnerability to nicotine dependence in African-Americans and EuropeanAmericans. Biological Psychiatry, 61, 48-55. Li, M.D, Payne, T.D., Ma J.Z., Lou X.Y., Zhang, D., Dupont, R.T., Crews, K.M., G. Somes, G., Williams, N.J, Elston, R.C. (2006). A genomewide search finds major susceptibility loci for nicotine dependence on chromosome 10 in African Americans. Journal of Human Genetics 79: 745–51. Beuten, J., Ma, J. Z., Payne, T., Dupont, R. T., Crews, K.M., Somes, G., Williams, N.J., Robert C. Elston, R. C., Li, M.D. (2005). Single and multi-locus allelic variants within the GABAB receptor subunit 2 (GABABR2) gene that are significantly associated with nicotine dependence. American Journal of Human Genetics. 76:859-64. Ma, J.Z., Beuten, J., Payne, T.D., Dupont, R.T., Elston, R.C., Li, MD. (2005). Haplotype analysis indicates an association between the DOPA decarboxylase (DDC) gene and nicotine dependence. Human Molecular Genetics, 14, 1691-1698. Beuten, J., Ma, J.Z., Payne, T.D., Dupont, R.T., Quezada, P., Huang, W. Crews, K.M., Li, M.D. (2005), Significant association of BDNF haplotypes in European-American male smokers but not in European-American female or African-American smokers. American Journal of Medical Genetics B. Neuropsychiatric Genetics, 139, 73-80. Cowell, A. J., Broner, N., Dupont, R. T. (2004). The cost-effectiveness of criminal justice diversion programs for people with serious mental illness co-occurring with substance abuse: four case studies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20, 292-314. Li, M.D., Ma, J. Z., Cheng, R., Dupont, R. T., Williams, N., Crews, K. M., Payne, T. J. & Elston, R. C. (2003). A genome wide scan to identify loci for smoking quantity in the Framingham Heart Study population. BMC Genetics, 4, 103 Ma, J. Z., Zhang, D., Dupont, R. T., Dockter, M, Elston, R. C. & Li, M. D. (2003). Mapping susceptibility loci for alcohol dependence using number of grams of alcohol consumed per day as a phenotype measure. BMC Genetics, 4, S104. 5 Publications (continued) Dupont, R. T. (2002) The Crisis Intervention Model and Community Mental Health Services. Community Mental Health Report, 3, 3-5, 6-8. Dupont, R. & Cochran, S. (2001). Police and mental health linked programs: Promising Practices – The CIT Model. In G. Landsberg & A. Smiley (Eds.), Serving mentally ill offenders and their victims. New York, Springer Publishing. Steadman, H. J., Stainbrook, K. A., Griffin, P., Draine, J., Dupont, R. T. & Horey, C. (2001) Specialized Crisis Response Site as a Core Element of Police-Based Diversion Programs. Psychiatric Services, 52, 219-222. Dupont, R. T. (2001) A Real Chance at Recovery: Shelby County Detoxification Program. County Lines: Shelby County Government Newsletter, 3, 1-5. Dupont, R. & Cochran, S. (2000). Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies – Barriers to Change. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 28, 338-344. Arnold, V. K., Rosenthal, T. L., Dupont, R. T., and Hilliard, D. (1993) A Readily Observable Marker For Schizophrenia In the Psychiatric Emergency room Population. Journal Of Behavior Therapy And Experimental Psychiatry, 24, 45-47. Dupont, R. T. (1988) Strategies For State Associations. Psychotherapy In Private Practice, 6, 135-140. Dupont, R. T. & Prentice, N. M. (1988) The Relationship of Defensive Style and Thematic Content to Children's Enjoyment and Comprehension of Joking Riddles. American Journal Of Orthopsychiatry, 58, 249-259. 6 Convention Presentations and Proceedings (abbreviated) Dupont, R.T. (2015) Community Psychology and Crisis Intervention Programs. Invited Presentation to the American Psychological Association Division of Psychologists in Public Service annual meeting, Hartford, Connecticut, March. Dupont, R.T. (2015) Special Training on Building Trust. Invited Presentation to the Presidential Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Listening Session Training and Education, Phoenix, Arizona, February. Dupont, R.T. (2014) Basic Strategies for Developing a Community-Based Crisis Intervention Program. Presented at the Little Rock Regional Law Enforcement Meeting On Crisis Intervention, December. Dupont, R. T. (2014) Strategies for Community Engagement and Crisis Intervention. Invited Keynote Speaker, Annual Meeting of Police Chiefs, University of Texas System Police Services, San Antonio, Texas, October. Dupont, R.T. (2014) Trainers for Crisis Intervention Strategies. Presented at the Lauderdale County/Meridian Regional Southeast Mississippi CIT Trainer’s Meeting, Meridian MS, August. Dupont, R.T. (2013) Mental Illness and the Risk for Violence. Tennessee Legislative Briefing, Nashville, TN. Dupont, R.T. (2013) Community Involvement in Police Crisis Intervention Strategies. Presented at the 1st Meeting of the Seattle Police Department Community Crisis Intervention Task Force, Seattle, Washington, May. Dupont, R.T. (2012) Training Trainers for Crisis Intervention Strategies. Presented at the University of Southern Mississippi CIT Training Conference, Hattiesburg, MS, June, 2012. Dupont, RT, (2012) Training Trainers for Crisis Intervention Strategies. Presented at the State of Idaho Regional CIT Training Conference, Sandpoint, ID, February. Dupont, R.T. (2011) Leadership Strategies in Addressing Programs for Police-Based Crisis Intervention aw Enforcement Response to Individuals with Mental Illness. International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference, Chicago, Illinois. October 23-25. Dupont, R.T. (2011) Training Trainers for Crisis Intervention Strategies. Presented at the State of Idaho Regional CIT Training Conference, Boise, ID, October Dupont, R.T. (2011) Development of a Curriculum for Community Collaboration. Invited Presentation at the CIT International National Conference, Virginia Beach, Virginia, September 12 7 Convention Presentations and Proceedings (continued) Dupont, R.T. (2011) Crisis Intervention Teams – Communities, Planning and Implementing CIT. NAMI National 2011 Convention, Chicago, Illinois. July 6-9. Dupont, R.T. (2011) Responding to People with Mental Illness and the Returning Veteran Population. National Sheriff’s Association Annual Conference, St. Louis, Missouri. June 1822. Dupont, R.T. and Cocharn, S.C. (2011) The Crisis Intervention Team Model. Health Services Division and The Massachusetts Behavioral Health Partnership Conference on Mental Health and Law Enforcement, Worcester, Massachusetts. June 8. Dupont, R.T. (2011) CIT Presentations: San Francisco Police Commissioners and San Francisco National Alliance on Mental Illness. Crisis Intervention and Community Involvement. San Francisco, California: February 7-10. Dupont, R.T. (2010) Reaching out to those with Mentally Illness: Emerging Issues and Promising New Partnerships. Presentations with the Department of Justice Community Oriented Policing (COPS) at the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, October 26. Dupont, R.T. (2010) The Role of Law Enforcement in Preventing Suicide. Presentation at the joint Department of Defense/Veteran’s Administration Conference on Suicide Prevention, Washington, DC, January 11, 2010. Dupont, R.T. (2008) Veterans Administration Participation in the CIT Pre-Jail Diversion Program. Invited Presentation at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Justice Outreach National Planning Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, December 2-3. Dupont, R.T. (2008) Closing Remarks. Invited Comments at the 4th Annual Meeting of the CIT National Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, November 3 – 5. Dupont, R.T. (2008) Crisis Intervention Team Model. Invited Presentation at the Veterans Administration Trauma Center 2nd Annual Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii. February 27-28. Dupont, R.T. (2007) Recent Developments in De-Escalation Training. Invited Presentation at the 3rd Annual Meeting of the CIT National Conference, Memphis, Tennessee, August 23-25. Dupont, R.T. and Cochran, S.C. (2007) Coordinating Mental Health Services. Presented at the U.S. Department of Justice Conference, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, U.S., May, Dupont, R.T. (2006) Core Elements of the Crisis Intervention Team Model. Invited Presentation at the 2nd Annual Meeting of the CIT National Conference, Orlando, Florida, September 25-27. 8 Convention Presentations and Proceedings (continued, abbreviated) Dupont, R.T. (2004) The Crisis Intervention Team. Keynote Address at the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Canadian National Committee for Police/Mental Health Liaison. Hamilton, Canada, October 17-18. Dupont, R. T. (2003) Policing and Mental Illness. Keynote Address presented at the Best Practice Conference of the Queensland, Australia Departments of Health and Police Services, Brisbane, Australia, November 10-11. Dupont, R. T. (2003) Suicide Prevention and Police-Based Models. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Tennessee Suicide Prevention Network, Nashville, TN, May 5 – 6. Dupont, R. T. (2003) Outcome Research and the CIT Model. Presented at the Annual Training Conference of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Minneapolis, April 21 – 22. Dupont, R. T. (2002) Jail Diversion Models and Outcome Research. Paper presented at the Veteran’s Administration National Research Conference, Baltimore, MD, December 9-10. Li, M. D., Ma, J. Z.,Cheng, R., Dupont, R. T., Williams, N., Crews, K. M., Payn, T. J., & Elston, R. C. (2002). A genome wide scan to identify loci for smoking quantity in the Framingham Heart Study population. Proceedings of Genetic Analysis Workshop 13. p567-571. Ma, J. Z., Zhang, D., Dupont, R. T., Dockter, M., Elston, R. C. & Li, M.D. (2002). Mapping susceptibility loci for alcohol dependence using number of grams of alcohol consumed per day as a phenotype measure. Proceedings of Genetic Analysis Workshop 13. p572-576. Dupont, R. T. Skaff, E. & Campbell, M. (2002) Computer Driven Technology and CIT Training. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Tennessee Psychological Association, Nashville, TN, November. Dupont, R. T. (2002) Jail Diversion Research: Site Results. Presented at the 4th Annual New York University Forensics Conference, New York, NY, June 3. Dupont, R. T. (2002) September 11th: Lessons From Past Trauma, Implication For the Future. Presented at the 4th Annual New York University Forensics Conference, New York, June 4 Dupont, R. T. and Skaff, E. (2001) Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies: CIT Training. Meeting of the Tennessee Psychological Association, Nashville, TN. November Dupont, R. T. (2001) Partnerships between Mental Health and Law Enforcement. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Mental Health Association, Washington, D.C. June 6-8. 9 Editorial/Review Appointments American Journal of Public Health, 2014-2015 Psychiatric Services, 2006, 2014-2015 Community Mental Health Journal, 2007- 2015 Community Mental Health Report. 1999 – 2005 Editorial Consultant Funded Research, Grants and Contracts Awards: Regional One Health, Crisis Intervention Training and Technical Assistance grant (2014 Present). Principal Investigator, $35,000 Department of Justice, BJA Special Populations grant (2011- 2014). Police-Based Training Curriculum, and Technical Assistance Project. Principal Investigator, $900,000. State of Tennessee, Division of Criminal Justice (2009 – 2011). CIT Tennessee Technical Assistance Project, Principal Investigator, $398,000 Department of Justice, BJA (2006 - 2009). CIT National Project: Research and Technical Assistance. Principal Investigator, $987,228. City of Memphis Grant (2003- 2006). Community Project and Evaluation Grant (with Phyllis Betts, PhD, Richard Janikowsi, JD), Co-Principal Investigator, $115,000. National Science Foundation (2001 – 2005). Research grant (with Robert Hubal, PhD) for evaluation of responsive virtual human technology. Co-Principal Investigator, $3.1 million. National Institute of Drug Abuse (2000 - 2005). Research grant (with Ming Li, PhD) for identifying biological marker in nicotine addiction. Co-Investigator, $3.5 million. City of Memphis Contract (1999 – Present). Contract to provide Clinical Incident Services Program (Trauma Prevention/Recovery) to the Memphis Fire Services, Principal Investigator/Director, $252,000 Department of Justice, BJA Byrne Grant (1999-2002). Clinical grant (with Shelby County Government) for jail diversion intervention. Co-Principal nInvestigator, $220,000. Health and Human Services SAMHSA Grant (1997-2002). Research grant for systematic study of services to promote crisis intervention, jail diversion and health care access. Principal Investigator, $1.5 million. St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital (1996-2002). Contract to provide emergency assessment, crisis intervention and consultation. Principal Investigator/Dir., $144,000. Housing and Urban Development Grant (1996-2002). Clinical grant with Shelby County to promote access to mental healthtreatment. Co-Principal Investigator, $2.5 million. City of Memphis (1995 – Present). Contract to provide Critical Incident Services Program (Trauma Preventio) to the Memphis Police Services, Principal Investigator, $648,000 10 Invited Lectures and Training Presentations (abbreviated) Medical Care, Mental Illness Diagnosis and Complex De-Escalation Strategies Presented at Regional One Health Training Session, Memphis, TN, December 2014 Mental Illness Diagnosis and Complex De-Escalation Strategies Presented at the 26th Bi-Annual Memphis Regional CIT Training Session, Memphis Police Academy, Memphis, TN, October, 2014 Mental Illness Diagnosis and Complex De-Escalation Strategies. Presented at the 26th Bi-Annual Memphis Regional CIT Training Session, Memphis Police Academy, Memphis, TN, July, 2014 Mental Illness Diagnosis and Complex De-Escalation Strategies Presented at the 26th Bi-Annual Memphis Regional CIT Training Session, Memphis Police Academy, Memphis, TN, October, 2014 Mental Illness Diagnosis and Complex De-Escalation Strategies. Presented at the 25th Bi-Annual Memphis Regional CIT Training Session, Memphis Police Academy, Memphis, TN, July, 2013 Complex De-Escalation Strategies. Presented at the 1st Shelby County Corrections Regional CIT Training Session, Shelby County Sheriff Training Academy, Memphis, TN, January, 2012 Complex De-Escalation Strategies. Presented at the 1st Lauderdale County/Meridian Regional CIT Training Session, Meridian MS, September, 2012 Mental Illness Diagnosis and Complex De-Escalation Strategies. Presented at the 24th BiAnnual Memphis Regional CIT Training Session, Memphis Police Academy, Memphis, TN, October, 2012 CIT Train-The-Trainer Sessions, Idaho Statewide Policing Training, Boise, Idaho. October 3-6, 2011. Advanced De-Escalation Skills. Presented at the Murfreesboro/Rutherford County, TN Crisis Intervention Team Training, March, 2011. Complex De-Escalation Strategies. Presented at the Dyersburg Regional CIT Training Session, Dyersburg Police Academy, Dyersburg TN, January, 2011. Training Trainers for Crisis Intervention Strategies. Presented at the State of Tennessee CIT Training Conference, Pigeon Forge, TN, April, 2011. Mental Illness Diagnosis and Complex De-Escalation Strategies. Presented at the 23th Bi-Annual Memphis Regional CIT Training Session, Memphis Police Academy, Memphis, TN, July, 2011 11 Academic and Government Service University of Memphis Urban Affairs and Public Policy Doctoral Task Force, 2005- 2007 Co-Chair, Curriculum Committee, 2005 – 2014 School of Urban Affairs & Public Policy Executive Committee, 2005 – 2013 Community Initiatives and Hazards Mitigation Task Force, 2004 – 2006 School of Urban Affairs & Public Policy Curriculum Committee, 2003 – 2005 Co-Chair, 2004 - 2005 Homeland Security Task Force, 2003 – 2006 Chair, 2003 - 2006 University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry Executive Committee, 2000-2003 Psychology Internship Training Committee, 1997-2000 UTMG Practice Committee, 1993-2000 Regional Medical Center Quality Assurance Committee, 1989-1998 Medical Student Education Committee, 1989-1997 Shelby County Government Committee on Jail Mental Illness and Substance Abuse, 1998- 2003 Information Systems Subcommittee, 1998 – 2003, Chair Jail Quality Assurance Subcommittee, 2001 - 2003 Task Force on Criminal Justice and Community Linkages, 2001 - 2003 Steering Committee on Behavioral Health Strategic Planning, 2001 - 2003 State of Tennessee: Title 33 Commission (Mental Health and Mental Retardation Code) Powers and Duties Committee (completed September, 1999) US Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Criminal Justice Diversion Project Steering Committee 1997 – 2002 Policy Advisory Committee 2001 – 2002 US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Consultant, 2010 – present 12 Professional Association Service Tennessee Psychological Association Board of Directors, 1985-1987, 1997-2003 Former President’s Representative, 2000-2001 Secretary-Treasurer, 2002-2003 Chair, Ethics and Colleague Assistance Task Force, 2000-2001 Chair, Special Licensing Review Task Force, 1988-1990 Chair, Professional Affairs Committee, 1985, Insurance Committee, 1984 Memphis Area Psychological Association Board of Directors, 1984 - 1986 Chair, Programs and Continuing Education Committee, 1983 Clinical Service TLC (Tenncare Managed Care) Medical Care Organization (MCO) Quality Assurance Subcommittee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse, 1995-1996 Quality Assurance Subcommittee on Catastrophic (SPT) Care, 1995 – 1996 The MED (Regional Medical Center at Memphis) Emergency Services Committee (Ad Hoc), 1989-1996 Health Mark: Baptist Memorial Hospital Health Care PPO Psychologist Credentialing Committee, June, 1986 – 1994 Shelby County Case Manager Corporation Board of Directors, 1990-1992 Memphis and Shelby County and Bluff City Medical Society White Paper Task Force on Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment, 1999 – 2002 Executive Committee, 2001- 2002 NAMI-Memphis (National Alliance For the Mentally Ill, Memphis) Member, Professional Advisory Board, 1990, 1993-1995 Member, Board of Directors, 1991-1992 Professional Society Elected Offices Memphis Area Psychological Association President, 1985 Tennessee Psychological Association President, 1986 President, 1998 13 Honors and Awards (selected) W. Russell Smith Teaching Excellence, University of Memphis, College of Arts and Sciences, 2014 Teaching Excellence Award, University of Memphis, College of Arts and Sciences 2013 PI Millionaire, University of Memphis Funded Research Recognition, 2012 Certificate of Merit and Appreciation, San Francisco Police Commission 2011 National Psychologist of the Year, NAMI - National Alliance on Mental Illness 2009 Protector Award, NAMI Tennessee, NAMI State Conference 2008 Special Recognition, Founding Member, Crisis Intervention Team, 3rd Annual Conference, 2007 Above and Beyond Recognition, The Extra Mile (Jefferson Parrish, Louisiana), 2004 Certificate of Appreciation, Louisville Police Academy, 2004 Appreciation Award, Queensland Police Services (Australia), 2003 Certificate of Appreciation, Palm Beach County Crime Commission, 2003 Certificate of Appreciation, Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2002 Distinguished Psychologist in the Public Sector, Tennessee Psychological Association, 2001 Certificate of Appreciation, Office of the Mayor, Shelby County Government, 2001 Certificate of Appreciation, Office of the President, National Office of Drug Control Policy, 2001 National Law Enforcement Person of the Year, CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement News, 26, 2000 Distinguished Service Award, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Memphis, 2001 Distinguished Service Award, Memphis Police Services, 1996 Distinguished Service Award, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Memphis, 1996 Distinguished Service Award, Memphis Police Services 1992 Certificate of Appreciation, City of Memphis, 1991 Provider of the Year, NAMI Memphis - National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Memphis, 1991 Young Psychologist of the Year, Early Career, Tennessee Psychological Association, 1990 With Distinction, Doctoral Qualifying Exams, University of Texas, 1975 14 Vitae John Lamberth, CEO, Lamberth Consulting 2013 John C. Lamberth, Ph.D. Name: John C. Lamberth, Ph.D. Address: Lamberth Consulting 20 W. Miner St., 3rd Floor West Chester, PA 19382 Phone: Fax: (610) 358-5700 (610) 358-2890 Education: Austin College B. A. In 1958 1954-1958 Harvard University B.D. in 1961 1958-1961 1958-1961 San Jose State University 1966-1967 Texas University 1967-1969 Purdue University M.S. in 1970 Ph. D. In 1970 1969-1970 Fellowships and Scholarships Received N.S.F. Summer Teaching Assistant Traineeship N.I.M.H. Traineeship N.I.M.H. Pre-doctoral Research Fellowship 1968 1968-1969 1969-1970 Postdoctoral Positions Associate Professor Temple University Assistant Professor University of Oklahoma 1973-2002 1970-1973 Editorial Responsibilities Ad Hoc Consultant For: Journal of Personality Journal of Research in Personality Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Journal of Personality and Social Psychology NSF (Social and Developmental Psychology Panel) 2013 2 JCLVitae John C. Lamberth, Ph.D. Research Interests Racial Profiling; Capital Punishment; Jury Decision Making; Jury Composition; Publicity & Prejudice; Small Group Decision Processes; Interpersonal Attraction Teaching Interests Social and Personality Psychology Undergraduate Courses: Social Psychology, Theories of Personality, Psychology and the Law, Research Methods Graduate Courses Social Psychology, Psychology and the Law University Service Undergraduate Advisor (Psych. Dept.) Coordinator of Intro Psych. Director, Division of Social Psychology Chair, Department of Psychology Committee Memberships (a) Undergraduate Affairs (Dept) (b) Research (Dept) (c) College of Liberal Arts Computer Committee (College) (d) Weiss Hall Media Services Committee (University) (e) Graduate School Review Committee (Dept. Of Crim. Justice M.A.) (f) Committee on Evaluation of Teaching (College) (g) Committee on Social Responsibility (College) (h) Budget Priorities (College) (i) Merit Committee (College) (j) Increased Compensation (College) (k) Resource Allocation Committee (Dept.) (l) Computer Committee (Dept.) (m) Committee of Inquiry of History Department (College) (n) Academic Technology Committee(College) (o) Dean’s Fellow for Technology (College) 1973-1976 1973-1980 1982-1985 1989-1995 1973-1980 1978-1980 1977-1982 1976-1982 1981-1984 1983-1986 1987-1989 1990-1991 1991-1993 1993-1995 1996-1997 1996-1997 1996-1997 1998-2002 2000-2002 2013 3 JCLVitae John C. Lamberth, Ph.D. Committee Chairmanships (a) Undergraduate Affairs (Dept) (b) College of Liberal Arts Computer Committee (College) (c) Weiss Hall Media Services Committee (University) (d) Graduate School Review Committee (Crim. Jus. M.A.) (e) College Merit Committee (f) Computer Committee (Dept.) (g) Committee of Inquiry in History Department (h) CLA Academic Technology Committee 1974-1977 1979-1982 1977-1982 1980-1984 1991-1992 1996-1997 1996-1997 1998- Grants and Consultantships Consultant to U.s. Army for Modern Volunteer Army, 1971-1972 Consultant to Police Assaults Study, Funded by Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 1972-1975 Grant from Brown & Furst to Support Graduate Education in Psychology and Law, 1984 Consultant to N.J. Public Defender's Office in Composition Challenges in Death Penalty Cases, State V. Ramseur 1982-1984 State V. Long 1984-1986 State V. Russo 1986-1988 State V. Lewis 1985-1986 State V. Dixon 1985-1986 State V. Erazo 1989-1990 State V. Bey 1990-1992 State V. Wilson 1990-1991 State V. Pompey 1991-1993 State V. Thomas 1994-1995 State V. Cruz 1997-1998 State V. Premone 1998-1999 "Decision Making in Capital Jurors" Grant from NSF 1990-1993. 2013 4 JCLVitae John C. Lamberth, Ph.D. Consultant to Private attorneys and New Jersey Public Defender’s Office in cases in which there were allegations of illegal profiling by State or Local Police or other state agencies State V. Sprainis State V. Kennedy State V. Soto, et al. Wilkins V. Maryland State Police Morka V. New Jersey State Police State V. Maiolino Cutler V. City of Glenpool Rodriguez V. California Highway Patrol United States V. Garcia State V. Joel Devers U. S. V. Barlow Arizona V. Foulkes, et al. Gerald V. Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety State V. Lewis Jackson V. NJSP Maryland NAACP v. Maryland State Police Commonwealth vs. Rosansky Major Tours, et al. v. New Jersey Department of Transportation Martin v. Conner and Guissoni United States v. Johnson United States v. Maricopa County Weber v. City of Grand Rapids 1993 1994 1996 1994 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2001 2003 2004 2007 2008 2010 2012 2013 2014 2014 Professional Affiliations and Honors American Psychological Association Member of Divisions 2, 8, & 41, Teaching of Psychology, Personality and Social, and Psychology-law Society American Psychological Society, Founding Member Eastern Psychological Association Society of Experimental Social Psychology Listed in American Men and Women of Science Articles Reprinted as Chapters Byrne, D. Ervin, C.R., & Lamberth, J. The Continuity Between the Experimental Study of Attraction and "Real Life" Computer Dating. Reprinted In: 1. A. Snadowsky & S. Rosenberg (Eds.) Social Psychology: Research in Laboratory and Natural Settings. New York: Free Press, 1972 2013 5 JCLVitae John C. Lamberth, Ph.D. 2. H. Kaufman & L.Z. Solomon (Eds.) Readings In Introductory Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973. 3. S.W. Duck (Ed.) Theory and Practice in Interpersonal Attraction. New York: Academic Press, 1976 4. C. Mayo and M. La France (Eds.) Evaluating Research in Social Psychology. Belmont, Ca: Brooks/cole, 1977. 5. D. Byrne & L.A. Byrne (Eds.) Exploring Human Sexuality. New York: Harper & Row, 1977. Lamberth, J. & Knight, M. An Embarrassment of Riches: Effectively Motivating and Teaching Large Introductory Psychology Courses. Reprinted In: Daniel, R.S., Benjamin, L., Jr., & Brewer, C. (Eds.), Teaching Introductory Psychology. Earlbaum, 1986. Books Lamberth, J., Mccullers, J.C., & Mellgren, R. Foundations of Psychology. New York, Harper & Row, 1976. Lamberth, J., Rappaport, H., & Rappaport, M. Personality: an Introduction. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978. Lamberth, J. Social Psychology. New York, Macmillan, 1980. Lamberth, J. Psicologia Social. Madrid, Spain: Ediciones Piramide, S.a., 1982. Lamberth, J. Psicologia Social. (2nd Ed.) Madrid, Spain, Ediciones Piramide, S.a., 1986. Lamberth, J. Psicologia Social. (3rd Ed.) Madrid, Spain, Ediciones Piramide, S.a., 1989. Book Chapters Byrne, D. & Lamberth, J. The Effect of Erotic Stimuli on Sex Arousal, Evaluative Responses, and Subsequent Behavior. Technical Reports on the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, Vol 8, Washington, D.C., U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1970. Byrne, D. & Lamberth, J. Reinforcement Theories And Cognitive Theories as 2013 6 JCLVitae John C. Lamberth, Ph.D. Complementary Approaches To the Study of Attraction. In B.I. Murstein (Ed) Theories of Attraction and Love. New York: Springer, 1971. Lamberth, J., & Kimmel, A.J. the Application of Scientific Knowledge: Ethical Issues and Responsibilities in the Behavioral Sciences. In A.J. Kimmel (Ed.) New Directions for Methodology Of Social and Behavioral Science: Ethics for Human-subjects Research. San Francisco: Josey-Bass, 1981. Articles and Reports Byrne, D., Lamberth, J., Palmer, J., & London, O. Sequential Effects as a Function of Explicit and Implicit Interpolated Attraction Responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 13, 70-78. Byrne, D., Ervin, C.R., & Lamberth, J. The Continuity Between the Study of Attraction and "Real Life" Computer Dating. Journal of PersonAlity and Social Psychology, 1970, 15, 157-165. Lamberth, J., & Craig, L. Differential Magnitude Of Reward and Magnitude Shifts Using Attitudinal Stimuli. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1970, 4, 281-285. Gouaux, V.C., & Lamberth, J. The Effect on Interpersonal Attraction of Successive and Simultaneous Presentation of Strangers. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 21, 337-338. Byrne, D., Gouaux, C., Griffitt, W., Lamberth, J., Murakawa, N., Prasad, M.B., Prasad, A., & Ramiriz, M., Iii. The Ubiquitous Relationship: Attitude Similarity and Attraction. Human Relations, 1971, 24, 201-207. Lamberth, J. Sequential Variables as Determinants Of Human Performance Attitudinal Reinforcements. Psychonomic Science, 1971, 22, 350-352. with Lamberth, J., & Byrne, D. Similarity-attraction or Demand Characteristics? Personality: an International Journal, 1971, 2, 77-91. Gouaux, V.C., & Lamberth, J. Interpersonal Attraction as a Function of Izard's Firs Evaluation and Affective States. Personality: an International Journal, 1971, 2, 289-297. Gouaux, C., Lamberth, J., & Frederich, G. Affect And Interpersonal Attraction: a Comparison of Trait and State Measures. Journal of Personality And Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 53-58. Lamberth, J. Gay, R.A., & Dyck, D.G. Differential Reward Magnitude and Human Conditioning. Psychonomic Science, 1972, 28, 231-233. Lamberth, J., Gouaux, C., & Davis, J. Agreeing Attitudinal Statements as Positive Reinforcers in 2013 7 JCLVitae John C. Lamberth, Ph.D. Instrumental Conditioning. Psychonomic Science, 1972, 29, 247-249. Lamberth, J., & Padd, W. Student's Attitudes and Absenteeism: a Possible Link. Psychological Reports, 1972, 31, 35-40. Lamberth, J., & Dyck, D.G. Reward Magnitude and Sequence of Magnitudes as Determinants of Resistance to Extinction in Humans. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 96, 280-286. Byrne, D., Cherry, F., Lamberth, J., & Mitchell, H. Husband-wife Similarity in Response to Erotic Stimuli. Journal of Personality, 1973, 41, 385-394. Byrne, D., Clore, G.L., Griffitt, W. Lamberth, J., & Mitchell, H. When Research Paradigms Converge: Confrontation or Integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1973, 28, 313-320. Byrne, D., Clore, G.L., Griffitt, W., Lamberth, J. Mitchell, H. One More Time. Journal of Personality And Social Psychology, 1973, 28, 323324. Lamberth, J., Gouaux, C., & Padd, W. The Affective Eliciting and Reducing Properties of Attraction Stimuli. Social Behavior and Personality, 1973, 1, 95-107. Byrne, D., Fisher, J.D., Lamberth, J., & Mitchell, H.E. Evaluations of Erotica: Facts or Feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 111-116. Nation, J.R., Knight, J.M., Lamberth, J., & Dyck, D.G. Programmed Student Achievement: a Test of the Avoidance Hypothesis. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1974, 42, 57-61. Davis, J., & Lamberth, J. Enerigization Properties Of Positive and Negative Stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 103, 196-200. Lamberth, J., Rataj, G.W., & Padd, W. An Evaluation of Differential Topic Importance, Population Homogeneity, and Relatedness of Attitudinal Stimuli in Attraction Research. Journal of Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1974, 5, 84-92. Lamberth, J., & Knight, J.M. an Embarrassment of Riches: Effectively Teaching and Motivating Large Introductory Psychology Sections. Teaching of Psychology, 1974, 1, 16-20. Lamberth, J., & Knight, J.M. to Curve or Not to Curve: the Defense. Teaching of Psychology, 1975, 2, 82-83. 2013 8 JCLVitae John C. Lamberth, Ph.D. Byrne, D., Lamberth, J., Mitchell, H.E., & Winslow, L. Sex Differences in Attraction: Response to the Needs of the Opposite Sex. Journal Of Social and Economic Studies, 1976, 2, Lamberth, J., & Kosteski, D. Mastery Teaching with And Without Incentives for Repeating Quizzes. Teaching of Psychology, 1979, 6, 71-74. Lamberth, J., & Kosteski, D. Student Evaluations: An Assessment of Validity. Teaching of Psychology, 1981. 8, 8-11. Lamberth, J., & Kosteski, D. Using TA Ratings to Validate Evaluations: the Important Issues. Teaching of Psychology, 1982, 9, 102. Lamberth, J., Kreiger, E., & Shay, S. Juror Decision-making: a Case of Attitude Change Mediated by Authoritarianism. Journal of Research In Personality, 1982, 16, 419-434. Lamberth, J. Driving While Black. Washington Post, August 16, 1998, C1. Buckman, W.H., & Lamberth, J. Challenging Racial Profiles: Attacking Jim Crow on the Interstate. The Champion, Sept./October, 1999. Cole, D., & Lamberth, J. The Fallacy of Racial Profiling. New York Times, May 13, 2001. Lamberth, J. A Multi-jurisdictional Assessment of Traffic Enforcement and Data Collection in Kansas. Printed for the Office of the Governor in the State of Kansas. Fall, 2003. Lamberth, J. Racial Profiling Data Analysis Study. Final Report for the San Antonio Police Department. Printed for the San Antonio Police Department, December, 2003. Lamberth, J. Ann Arbor Police Department Traffic Stop Data Collection Methods and Analysis Study. Printed for the City of Ann Arbor. February, 2004. Lamberth, J Grand Rapids Police Department Traffic Stop Data Collection Program: Report for the City of Grand Rapids. Printed for the City of Grand Rapids. May, 2004. Lamberth, J. Interim Report for the Montgomery County Police Department’s Traffic Stop and Data Collection Project. A report for the Montgomery County Police Department. May, 2006. Lamberth, J Methodological Consultant. Ethnic Profiling in the Moscow Metro by the Open Society Justice Initiative. Summer, 2006. Kadane, J.B. & Lamberth, J. In the Matter of the Study of State Police Stop Activity at the Southern end of the New Jersey Turnpike. Report prepared for the New Jersey ACLU and submitted to the Governor’s Advisory Committee on Police Standards. 2007 2013 9 JCLVitae John C. Lamberth, Ph.D. Lamberth, J. Methodological Consultant. Ethnic Profiling in Paris. Open Society Justice Initiative. 2008. Lamberth, J. Traffic Stop Data Analysis Project of the Sacramento Police Department. 2008 Kadane, J.B. & Lamberth. J. Are blacks egregious speeding violators at extraordinary rates in New Jersey? Law, Probability & Risk, 2009. Lamberth, J. Traffic Stop Data Analysis Project, The City of Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety. 2013. Jobard, F., Levy, R., Lamberth, J. and Nevaneb, S. Measuring appearance based discrimination: An analysis of identity checks in Paris. Population, 2013. Papers Read "Sequential Effects in Responding to Attitudinal Stimuli," at the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, October, 1968. "Differential Magnitude of Reward and Magnitude Shifts Using Attitudinal Stimuli," at the SouthWestern Psychological Association, Austin, April, 1969. "Differential Reward Magnitude Using a Performance Measure and Attitudinal Stimuli," at the Western Psychological Association, Vancouver, June 1969. "The Effects of Continual Responding on the Contrast in Attraction Research," at the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, November, 1969. " Reinforcement Theories and Cognitive Theories as Complementary Approaches to the Study of Attraction," at a Symposium on Attraction Theory, Connecticut College, October, 1970. "The Effect of Sequential Variables on Performance Using Attitudinal Stimuli," at the Psychonomic Society, San Antonio, November, 1970. "Competence as a Variable in Interpersonal Attraction," at the Southwestern Psychological Association, Oklahoma City, April, 1972. "Conditioning and Attraction: a Relationship," at The Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, Nov., 1972. "Stimulus Generalization: Affect and Attraction," At the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, Nov., 1973. "The Lawyer's Dilemma: Authoritarianism and Jury 2013 10 JCLVitae John C. Lamberth, Ph.D. Selection," at the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May, 1974. "Jury Verdicts of Authoritarians and Equalitarians In Simulated Criminal Trials," at the Psychonomic Society, Denver, November, 1975. "Deliberation: A Crucial Aspect of Jury Research," At the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, Nov., 1976. "Introductory Psychology-a Student's Perspective," At a Symposium "Teaching Introductory Psychology: Issues, Innovation and Perspectives," at the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., August, 1976. "Mastery Instructional Systems: Innovations, Problems, and Possibly Some Solutions," as Part of A Symposium at the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, August, 1977. "Scientifically Selecting Juries." Invited Address at the Camden County Bar Association, Cherry Hill, N.J., March 1980. "Jury Selection: a Psychological Approach." Invited Address at the American Trial Lawyers Association-New Jersey, Moorestown, N.J., Jan., 1981. "The Ubiquitous and Mysterious Jury." Invited Address at the American Criminal Defense Lawyers-New Jersey Seminar on Experts, New Brunswick, New Jersey, April, 1989. "Juror Acceptance of Diminished Capacity in Capital Cases." Invited Address at the International Conference of Law and Society, Amsterdam, June, 1991. "Selecting the Right Jury." Invited Address at The New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education, New Brunswick, N. J., October, 1991. "Systematic Jury Selection." Invited Address at the Inn of Court, Montclair, N.J., November, 1991. "The Psychological Cost of Serving on a Capital Jury." Paper Presented at the Law and Society Convention, Philadelphia, May, 1992. "How Juries Perceive Women Lawyers." Invited Address at the Trial Lawyers of New Jersey Seminar On Women in Litigation, New Brunswick, N.j., October, 1992. "In Their Own Words: Capital Jurors Thoughts about Serving on a Capital Jury." Discussant at the American Crimnologists Society, New Orleans, November, 1992. "The Disappearing and Reappearing Penalty Trial." Convention, Chicago, May, 1992. Paper Presented at the Law and Society 2013 11 JCLVitae John C. Lamberth, Ph.D. “Driving While Black.” Invited Address at the Convention of the Congressional Black Caucus, Washington, D.C., September, 1998. “Racial Profiling.” Town Meeting in Norfolk, VA. Sponsered by “Citizens Opposed to Police Profiling Stops. December, 1998. “Racial Profiling.” Guest on “It’s Your Call”, CN8, Comcast Network. March 3, 1999. “Driving While Black.” Guest on “It’s Your Call”, CN8, Comcast Network. March 9, 1999. “New Jersey and Maryland Racial Profiling.” Testimony before the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus of the New Jersey Legislature. April 20, 1999. “Racial Profiling.” Guest on “Radio Times”, WHYY 91 FM, Philadelphia. April, 1999. “Profiling.” Guest on “Due Process”, New Jersey Network, April 30, 1999. “Statistics on Racial Profiling.” Testimony before the Pennsylvania House Democratic Policy Committee, May 27, 1999. “Making Sense of the Numbers”. Invited Address at the Martin Luther King Day Celebratory Seminar, Chicago, January 17,2000. "Urban Benchmarks in Racial Profiling". Invited presentation at The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. Washington, D.C., July 2000 "Benchmarks for Urban Areas". Invited Presentation on Racial Profiling at The 11th Annual Regional Law Enforcement Executives Training Conference, St. Louis, August, 2000. "Hit Rates for Searched Motorists and Pedestrians". Invited Panelist on Racial Profiling at Conference on Race, Community and Police. Harvard Law School, December, 2000. "Proof Differences between Litigation and Peer Reviewed Research". Invited Panelist on Litigation Solutions at Conference on Race, Community and Police. Harvard Law School, December, 2000. “Best Practices: Collecting, Analyzing and Reporting Traffic Stop Data for Cities and Suburban Areas”. Invited Address at the 2001 National Traffic Stop and Racial Profiling Summit for Law Enforcement. Washington, D.C. July, 2001. “Racial Profiling Data Collection and Analysis in Urban/Suburban Areas,” Testimony before the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Corrections. October, 2001. “Fallacious Reasoning: Minority Motorists are Not More Likely to be Carrying Contraband.” Invited Panelist at “Shaking the Foundations” Conference. Stanford Law School, November, 2001. “Data Collection and Analysis in Racial Profiling.” Invited Presentation at the Legal and Defenders Annual Meeting. Miami, November, 2001. 2013 12 JCLVitae John C. Lamberth, Ph.D. “Racial Profiling, Assessment and Evaluation”. Invited Lecture at the Conference on Racial Statistics and Public Policy. University of Pennsylvania, March, 2002. “Developing Appropriate Benchmarks for use in Analyzing Stop Data”. Invited Presentation at the National Summit on Racial Profiling, Washington, D.C., March 2002. “Data Collection and Analysis.” Invited Presentation at 2002 Training Series on Racial Profiling and Use of Force. Alexandria, VA, August, 2002. “Technical Presentation of 4 Case Studies of Racial Profiling Analysis.” Invited Presentation at Confronting Racial Profiling in the 21st Century: Implications for Racial Justice conference. Boston, MA, March, 2003. “Risk Management,” and “Observation Benchmarks.” Invited Presentation at National Symposium on Racial Profiling. Rosemont, IL, November, 2003. “Observation Benchmarking.” Invited Presentation at By the Numbers conference. Las Vegas, NV, July, 2004. “Observation Benchmarking.” Invited Presentation at Addressing Ethnic Profiling and Discrimination in Policing in Europe conference. Budapest, Hungary, January, 2005. “Issues/Problems in the Statistical Proof of a Pattern or Practice of Racial Profiling”. Invited Presentation at Open Society Institute Summit on Systemic Racial Discrimination in The Criminal Justice System. New York, September, 2008. "The Effectiveness of Stop and Frisk in the United States. Invited Address at the Roundtable on Current Debates, Research Agendas and Strategies to Address Racial Disparities in Police Initiated Stops in the UK and USA. John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, Aug. 2011. “Collection of Disaggregated Data, Analysis and Research.” Invited Address at the Meeting of Experts on Racial Profiling convened by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance for the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Los Angeles, November, 2014. Expert Testimony Qualified as an Expert in Statistics, Surveying and Social Psychology for Change of Venue Motions, Jury Composition Challenges, Racial Profiling Cases or Other Motions Requiring Statistical Expertise in the Following Courts: Federal Court: Newark Vicinage of the District of New Jersey, 1982. Norfolk Division of the Eastern District of Virginia, 1983, Eastern District of Maryland, 1996, 2007, 2012. Trenton Vicinage of the District of New Jersey, 2005, Camden Vicinage of the District of New Jersey, 2011, Middle District of North 2013 13 JCLVitae John C. Lamberth, Ph.D. Carolina, 2014. State Courts: Atlantic County, N. J. 1906, 1988, Camden County, N.J., 1986, Coconino County, AZ., 2000, Essex County, N.J., 1984 and 1990. Franklin County, Pa., 1986. Gloucester County, N.J., 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1998. Hanover County, Va., 1986, 1990, Henrico Co., Va. 1986, Morris County, N. J., 1989, 1993. Richmond City, 1986, Suffolk Co., MA. 2008, Warren County, N.J., 1992 & 1994. 2013 14 JCLVitae our people Seth A. Rosenthal Partner T 202.344.4741 F 202.344.8300 Washington, DC Office sarosenthal@Venable.com Seth Rosenthal is an experienced trial attorney representing individuals and businesses in criminal matters, investigations by federal and state regulators, and complex commercial and civil rights litigation. He handles a wide range of cases, including procurement fraud, public corruption, partnership and commercial contract disputes, antitrust and civil rights enforcement. Mr. Rosenthal also directs Venable’s pro bono program and serves as chair of the firm’s pro bono committee. AREAS OF PRACTICE Investigations and White Collar Defense Commercial Litigation Congressional Investigations Litigation State Attorney General Investigations Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Anti-Corruption Antitrust BAR ADMISSIONS District of Columbia COURT ADMISSIONS Mr. Rosenthal developed an extensive body of courtroom experience over the span of nearly a decade as a federal prosecutor in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. He conducted grand jury investigations and successfully tried to verdict or obtained guilty pleas in noteworthy cases involving human trafficking, police misconduct and hate crimes, as well as related charges of obstruction of justice, false statements and fraud. He also handled all facets of class-wide civil litigation, including trial, in cases arising under the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Early in his career, Mr. Rosenthal litigated death penalty and prison reform cases at the Southern Center for Human Rights. RECENT EXPERIENCE Government Contracts  Avoided both criminal charges and Justice Department intervention in qui tam False Claims Act suit against construction contractor for purportedly submitting inflated invoices to the government  Represented services contractor suspended temporarily and investigated criminally for suspected violation of the Procurement Integrity Act U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit  Persuaded Justice Department not to intervene in qui tam False Claims Act suit accusing organization of falsely certifying contractor’s eligibility to secure awards under set-aside program and prevailed on motion to dismiss whistleblower’s claims upheld on appeal U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia  Representation of services contractor suspected of utilizing workers underqualified to perform contract requirements U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland  Avoided False Claims Act enforcement action against construction contractor wrongfully alleged to have underpaid employees in violation of Davis-Bacon Act EDUCATION  Conducted multiple internal investigations on behalf of contractors involving allegations of false claims, theft, data misappropriation, misuse of source selection information and conflicts of interest U.S. Supreme Court J.D., cum laude, Harvard Law School, 1993 A.B., summa cum laude, Dartmouth College, 1989 Phi Beta Kappa Antitrust and Unlawful Trade Practices  Tried O’Bannon v. NCAA as member of plaintiffs' team, winning historic judgment against NCAA for violating Sherman Act by conspiring with member schools to bar MEMBERSHIPS college football and basketball players from receiving compensation for use of their names, images and likenesses in TV broadcasts, rebroadcasts and videogames District of Columbia Bar, Criminal Law and Individual Rights Section  Avoided federal charges for founder of payment processing company suspected of illegally processing online gaming payments American Bar Association, Criminal Justice and Individual Rights and Responsibilities Sections  Represented online marketer facing allegations of deceptive trade practices by coalition of 40 state attorneys general Edward Bennett Williams Inn of Court Public Corruption  Obtained below-Guidelines sentence for city council member accused of misappropriating government funds  Secured probationary sentence in federal court for government employee accused of receiving kickback  Cleared political appointee investigated by agency inspector general for purportedly violating conflict of interest laws Commercial Litigation  Won favorable judgment, after federal court trial, for former partners whose law firm improperly reduced their liquidating capital account balances by more than $1 million  Won dismissal with prejudice of all claims against real estate developer alleged to have conspired with city official to deprive competitor of government contract to develop land  Won dismissal with prejudice of nuisance suit against solid waste processing facility in the District of Columbia and helped secure comprehensive settlement agreement allowing facility to remain in operation  Won dismissal of suit alleging malpractice and breach of contract against law firm Civil Rights and Criminal Justice  Negotiated settlement agreement with Justice Department on behalf of community bank accused of lending discrimination  Led successful effort to secure release of a DC man wrongfully imprisoned for 19 years for murder he did not commit  Won reversal on appeal of murder conviction of DC man wrongfully imprisoned for over 21 years  Obtained precedent-setting ruling from Maryland Court of Appeals in suit seeking police records regarding investigation of racial profiling complaints under Maryland public information act  Secured substantial settlement in federal court for individual racially profiled by state troopers  Court-appointed to represent federal death row prisoner in post-conviction proceedings in Maryland HONORS Selected for inclusion in Washington DC Super Lawyers, 2013 - 2015 Recognized in Super Lawyers Business Edition, Criminal Defense: White Collar, Washington, DC, 2013 Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project Defender of Innocence Award, 2009 Benjamin R. Civiletti Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year Award, 2009 Named one of Washingtonian magazine's "Top 40 under 40" lawyers, 2006 Selected to serve on an Attorney General's Task Force that investigated the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1999-2000 Various Special Commendations and Special Achievement Awards, U.S. Department of Justice, 1995-2005 Skadden Public Interest Fellow, 1993-95 ACTIVITIES Mr. Rosenthal has been an instructor in a number of trial advocacy courses, including National Institute for Trial Advocacy programs, and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center and George Washington University Law School. He is on the boards of directors of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project and Anne Frank House, the advisory committee of the DC Bar Foundation, and the Board of the DC Access to Justice Commission Foundation. A coach for many years in Cap City Little League, he helped lead the league’s all-stars in 2013 to the District of Columbia championship and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Semi-Finals. PUBLICATIONS  March 2012, FCPA Snapshot 2011, FCPA and Anti-Corruption News E-lert  April 2011, Could the Hospitality Industry be the Latest to Fall Under the FCPA Microscope?, FCPA and Anti-Corruption News E-lert  March 2011, Frequently Asked Questions & Answers about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)  November 12, 2009, Amicus Briefs For Nonprofit Organizations  Spring 2008, "Tired of Kabuki? Time to Tango: The Case for Litigator-Led Questioning of Supreme Court Nominees", Advance: Journal of American Constitution Society Issue Groups  March 21, 2007, The Civil Rights Division's Criminal Section During the Bush Years, Semi-Annual Report of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights  December 18, 2006, The Jury Snub, Slate  June 27, 2006, Fair to Meddling: The Myth of the Hands-Off Conservative Jurist, Slate SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS  March 26, 2015, "Antitrust and the NCAA: The O'Bannon Litigation on Appeal" for the ABA Antitrust Section's Trade, Sports and Professional Association's Committee  January 14, 2015, "CFPB Supervision: Smart Strategies for Getting Ready," a Venable CFPB Webinar  October 9, 2014, WMACCA Government Contractors Forum: Is the Sky Really Falling? Best Practices for Government Contractors on Handling Internal Investigations and Making Disclosures Under the Mandatory Disclosure Rule  April 17, 2013, Government Contracts Symposium  October 26, 2012, "Sentencing Lessons from the Battlefield" at the American Bar Association's (ABA) Criminal Justice Section's Fall Conference  November 10, 2009, Legal Quick Hit: "Amicus Briefs: Rules, Strategies and Opportunities for Nonprofits" for the Association of Corporate Counsel  October 21, 2009, American Bar Association, CLE Teleconference, "The Supreme Court Confirmation Process"  June 8, 2009 - June 14, 2009, National Institute for Trial Advocacy "Building Trial Skills" program  January 15, 2009, Litigating Actual Innocence Claims: Strategic and Investigative Challenges  May 16, 2007, Addressing the Problem of Human Trafficking  February 8, 2007, Forced Labor and Slavery: The Other Side Of Trafficking Stephen C. Parker Butler Snow LLP Crescent Center 6075 Poplar Avenue, Suite 500 Memphis, TN 38119 P.O. Box 171443 Direct: (901) 680-7365 Fax: (901) 680-7201 Steve.Parker@butlersnow.com Cell (901) 601-1335 EXPERIENCE        March 16, 2015-Present Attorney, Butler Snow LLP Commercial Litigation Investigations and White Collar Crime Civil Rights Appellate and Written Advocacy Court and Corporate Monitoring Law Enforcement Risk Management 2012–2014 United States Attorney’s Office Assistant United States Attorney (Retired) Eastern District of Louisiana Assigned to Special Detail to the Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Unit, based in New Orleans, Louisiana, to litigate and administer the Consent Decree reforming the New Orleans Police Department. o Duties include review of Police Operations and Policy, Use of Force, Search and Seizure, Misconduct Investigations, Disciplinary Procedures, Police Training, Racial Profiling/Bias Free Policing, and Secondary Employment. 1987–November, 2012 Office United States Attorney’s Page 1 of 6           EDUCATION Assistant United States Attorney Western District of Tennessee 2010-2012 Chief of the Civil Rights and Law Enforcement Corruption Unit. 2002-2010 assigned to the Anti-Terrorism Section. Extensive experience in prosecution of complex crimes including civil rights, bank fraud, securities fraud, healthcare fraud, and public corruption cases. Extensive appellate experience in the United States Courts of Appeals briefing and arguing over 50 cases. Extensive trial experience as the first chair prosecutor in excess of 75 jury trials, including complex securities, tax, and white collar cases. Experience includes trials lasting as long as 3, 7, 9, and 11 weeks. 1996–1997 Office of the Independent Counsel Associate Independent Counsel-The Whitewater Investigation Detailed from the Department of Justice to Office of Independent Counsel for the Whitewater Investigation, Judge Kenneth Starr. Investigated the death of Associate White House Counsel, Vincent Foster. Lead counsel for the Investigation and preparation for indictment of Webster Hubbell, the former Associate Attorney General of the United States and Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court. 1983–1987 United States Attorney’s Office LECC/ Victim Witness Coordinator Law enforcement coordinator for the Western District of Tennessee. Organized training and education for Federal, State, and local law enforcement.    1978-1983 Memphis Police Department Police Officer Uniform patrol Vice Squad Instructor, Memphis Police Training Academy  Research and Development Unit  1982 University of Memphis B. A. Criminal Justice Graduated Cum Laude  1987 University of Memphis Juris Doctorate Five American Jurisprudence Awards for the Highest Grade in the Class Page 2 of 6 Graduated Cum Laude SIGNIFICANT CASES United States v. City of New Orleans – member of Evaluation and Litigation Team – Special Litigation Unit lawsuit to reform the New Orleans Police Department.  United States v. Powers- Ancillary Civil Bench trial of a lawsuit filed by the Fraternal Order of Police and the Police Association of New Orleans asserting portions of the consent decree violated the United States and Louisiana Constitution. Office of Independent Counsel for the Whitewater Investigation- 1.) Lead Counsel for the reinvestigation of the death of Associate White House Counsel Vincent Foster. 2.) United States v. Webster Hubbell – Lead Counsel to investigate Webster Hubbell, the former United States Associate Attorney General, (Third in Charge of the Department of Justice and former Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court) for fraud and tax evasion. Lead counsel for “Operation Latina Libre-Human Trafficking Investigation” - a prosecution of an organized ring of Mexican Brothel owners who would lure young girls to the United States under the guise of providing jobs as waitresses. Once in this country the girls were raped, held captive, and forced into prostitution in the brothels. The victims ages ranged from 13-17. Lead Counsel for the Western District of Tennessee for “Operation Rockytop”, an undercover corruption investigation of the Tennessee Legislature and lobbyist for the gambling industry. Sixty-five convictions statewide. United States v. David W. Lanier – Lead Trial Counsel for the landmark Civil rights prosecution of a State Judge who was sexually assaulting litigants and courthouse employees. See United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997). This was the first criminal prosecution using the civil rights statutes for a public official committing sexual assaults. Subject of the book Power to Hurt by Darcy O’Brien, Harper Collins 1996. United States v. David I. Namer – Lead Counsel- five year Joint Departent of Justice/Securities and Exchange Commission investigation and seven week trial of $34 million Securities Fraud, Money Laundering, and Tax Evasion. Listed by the SEC as one of their top 10 cases of the year in 2002. United States v. Dennis Harris - Largest Mass Murder in Tennessee history. Six individuals tied up and burned alive in an arson/murder. United States v. Wayne Baskin - Corruption investigation of Tipton County Sheriff taking bribes from drug dealers. Page 3 of 6 TEACHING 2013 – University of Memphis Law Symposium – “Breaking the AND Silence: Legal Voices in the Fight against Human Trafficking”. PRESENTATIONS 2013- University of Tennessee Chattanooga “Tarnished Badge” presentation on investigating and prosecuting police misconduct. 2012-2013 - Adjunct Professor Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law (University of Memphis) - Trial Advocacy. 2012- Federal Bureau of Investigation National Human Trafficking training for Special Agents, Quantico, VA. 2011- United States Department of Justice International Human Trafficking Conference- Saipan & Guam. 2004 - National Law Enforcement Academy of Malaysia (PULAPOL), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, International Money Laundering for Prosecutors. 1988-1992 Adjunct Professor –University of Memphis, Criminal Justice Department. Memphis Police Academy 1989-Present - Instructor on Criminal Procedure, Substantive Criminal Law, Ethics, and Civil Rights. Tennessee State Law Enforcement Academy - Federal Arson Investigations, Investigating White Collar Crimes. Department of Justice National Advocacy Center, Columbia, S.C. – Basic Trial Advocacy, Advanced Trial Advocacy for Experienced Prosecutors, Legal Skills for Paralegals, Advanced Civil Rights Seminars. AWARDS AND HONORS 1. Attorney General’s John Marshall Award 2013 (The Department of Justice’s highest award for litigation for the New Orleans Consent Decree Litigation). 2. Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award 2010 (The Department of Justice’s second highest award for Operation Latina Libre). 3. Assistant Attorney General’s for Civil Rights Distinguished Service Award 2012 (Distinguished Service in the Case of United States v. City of New Orleans, Civil Action forcing the New Orleans Police Department to implement full scale reform). Page 4 of 6 4. Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law – Adjunct Professor of the Year. 5. Two commendation letters from the Attorney General. 6. 1997 Shelby County Women’s Political Caucus Courage Award. 7. United States Attorney’s Awards:  Sustained Superior Performance Award 2000, 2001, 2003, 2006  Outstanding Performance Award 2002, 2007  Distinguish Service Award 2001, 2007  Special Achievement Award 2008 Page 5 of 6 8. Various Awards:  Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms  Federal Bureau of Investigation  International Association of Arson Investigations  Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement  Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations Division 9. Five American Jurisprudence Awards for Highest Class Grade, Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law:  Professional Responsibility  Equity  Decedents’ Estates  Torts I  Criminal Procedure II PUBLICATIONS Cecil C. Humphreys, University of Memphis Law Review - Pimps Down: A Prosecutorial Perspective on Domestic Sex Trafficking. 43 U. Mem. L. Rev. 1013, Westlaw cite 43 UMPSLR 1013. 25783957 v1 Page 6 of 6 EXPERIENCE 2010-present FLOWERS LAW LLP Partner Washington, DC Founded law firm, which specializes in trying criminal and civil cases. Recognition: 2014-2015: “AV Preeminent” highest peer reviewing rating by Martindale-Hubbell 2014-2015: National Criminal Defense College - Faculty 2013-2015: Super Lawyers – White Collar Criminal Defense – Washington, DC 2015: National Black Lawyers – Top 100 – Washington, DC 2013-2014: National Trial Lawyers – Top 100 – Washington, DC 2013-2014: Super Lawyers – White Collar Criminal Defense – Washington, DC (Business Edition) 2009-2010 COBURN & COFFMAN, PLLC Partner Washington, DC Helped start this white-collar litigation firm. Notable Cases: 2010: Simpkins v. Louisiana State University et al.: represented plaintiff trauma surgeon whistleblower in state lawsuit against LSU 2009: U.S. v. Omar Khadr: represented only child soldier ever prosecuted in the modern history of the United States 2008 KAZAN MCCLAIN ABRAMS LYONS GREENWOOD & HARLEY, PLC Associate Oakland, CA Assisted with trial preparation and trial strategy of multiple mass toxic tort cases against corporate defendants. 2007 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP Associate Moved to California to support wife’s career. San Francisco, CA Represented clients in all phases of litigation, including complex commercial litigation and whitecollar criminal defense litigation. Served on the White Collar Crime-Corporate Investigations Team, Securities Litigation Team, False Claims Act Task Force and the Foreign Corrupt Practices working group. 2004-2007 FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Assistant Federal Public Defender Baltimore and Greenbelt, MD Represented over 100 clients accused of federal crimes at all phases of the criminal process including grand jury investigation, motions practice, trial, sentencing and appeals. Notable Cases: 2006: U.S. v. Smith: hung jury in re-trial of perjury and obstruction case 2005: U.S. v. Briggs: seven-level variance for a probation sentence in theft case 2005: U.S. v. Hawkins: acquittal in gun case Recognition: 2007: Commendation for Service at Federal Public Defender’s Office RESUME OF KOBIE FLOWERS PAGE 2 OF 3 2000-2004 UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, CRIMINAL SECTION Federal Prosecutor - Attorney General’s Honors Program Washington, DC Prosecuted federal criminal civil rights statutes involving excessive force under color of law, hate crimes and involuntary servitude. Conducted several complex grand jury investigations. Researched, authored and argued complex legal motions. Recognition: 2003: U.S. Justice Department, Civil Rights Division, Special Commendation for Outstanding Service for U.S. v. Lavallee et al (trial) 2003: U.S. Justice Department, Civil Rights Division, Performance Award 2002: U.S. Justice Department, Civil Rights Division, Assistant Attorney General’s Letter of Commendation for U.S. v. Jones (trial) 1995-1997 UNITED STATES PEACE CORPS Volunteer Odienné, Côte d'Ivoire, West Africa Helped the district of Odienné improve the percentage of people vaccinated against preventable diseases. Taught English. BAR ADMISSIONS Maryland, New Jersey, Washington, D.C. COURT ADMISSIONS D.C. Circuit, District Court of District of Columbia, Fourth Circuit, District Court of Maryland, Military Commissions, Civilian Defense Counsel, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Bar Association, White-Collar Crime Committee National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Body Camera Task Force Federal Bar Association, Board of Governors (D. Md.) Federal Bar Association (D.D.C.) Maryland Bar Association District of Columbia Bar Association Criminal Justice Act Felony Panel (D. Md.) Association of Federal Defense Attorneys LECTURES AND PRESENTATIONS “Adjudicatory Criminal Procedure,” George Washington Law School, Guest Lecturer (2013-2015) “Perspectives on the Criminal Justice System,” Stanford Black Alumni Association, Panelist (2014) “Hot Topics in Whistleblower Qui Tam Litigation under the False Claims Act,” Maryland Federal Bar Association, Moderator (2013) Open Doors Program for U.S. District Court, Maryland Federal Bar Association, Speaker (2011-2013) “Cross Examining DNA and Fingerprint Experts,” Criminal Justice Act Panel Training D. Md., Lecturer (2006) SECURITY CLEARANCE Department of Defense - Secret Level Security Clearance, which may be elevated to Top Secret or Sensitive Compartmented Information RESUME OF KOBIE FLOWERS PAGE 3 OF 3 LANGUAGES French (proficient in both written and spoken forms) EDUCATION GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, J.D., 2000 Dean’s List Criminal Justice Clinic STANFORD UNIVERSITY, B.A., Political Science, with Honors, 1994 Stanford in Washington (House Crime and Crim. Just. Subcommittee intern) Stanford Baseball Team Appendix References LAW ENFORCEMENT LEADERS Chief Robert Stewart Subject Matter Expert - USVI Police Department Consent Decree Sherri N. Lewis, Esq. Legal Counsel Virgin Islands Police Department Criminal Justice Complex St. Thomas, VI 00802 340.774.2211 Ext. 5531 slewis@vipd.gov.vi Police Practices Expert – Mora vs. Arpaio, CV 0901719 PHX-DGC Police Practices Expert – Melendres vs. Arpaio, CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS Cecillia D. Wang Director ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415.343.0775 cwang@aclu.org Consultant – Detroit, MI Police Department Consultant – Cincinnati, OH Police Department Consultant – Oakland, CA Police Department Robert Wasserman Chairman Strategic Policy Partnership, LLC Box 577 West Tisbury, MA 02575 617.721.0520 wasserman@policy-partners.com Consultant – Colorado Springs, CO Police Department Consultant – Florida Highway Patrol Consultant – Ocala, FL Police Department Consultant – Boynton Beach, FL Police Department Consultant – Seattle, WA Police Department Michael Walker President Berkshire Advisors, Inc. 24734 Lake Road Bay Village, OH 44140 216.496.2437 berkshire11@oh.rr.com Consultant/Facilitator – San Antonio, TX Police Department Anthony Trevino Police Chief San Antonio Police Department Bobcat Training and Consulting, Inc. 315 South Santa Rosa San Antonio, TX 78207 210.207.7360 anthony.trevino@sanantonio.gov Consultant - Hollywood, FL Police Department Charles A. Gruber Charles A. Gruber Consulting, Inc 6N302 Ferson Woods Drive St. Charles, IL 60175 630.762.1095 cagconsulting@comcast.net Chief Mary Ann Viverette Subject Matter Expert - New Orleans, LA Police Department Consent Decree Michael Harrison Superintendent New Orleans Police Department 715 S. Broad Street New Orleans, LA 70113 504.658.5760 msharrison@nola.gov Jonathan Aronie Independent Court Monitor Sheppard Mullin Law Firm 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington, DC 20006-6801 Office: 202.747.1902 Cell: 202.302.4855 jaronie@sheppardmullin.com Deputy Chief Jay Ginsberg Chief of Consent Decree Compliance New Orleans, LA Police Department 715 S. Broad Street New Orleans, LA 70113 Office: 504.658.5281 Cell: 504.330.7475 jaginsberg@nola.gov Chief Dennis Nowicki Deputy Independent Court Monitor 4n400 S Robert Frost Circle St. Charles, IL 60175 Office: 630.584.0353 Cell: 630.853.7866 nopdmonitor_den@att.net Deputy Chief Arlinda Westbrook New Orleans Police Department Public Integrity Bureau 118 N Rocheblave St, New Orleans, LA 70119 Office: 504.658.6800 Cell: 504.329.1209 apwestbrook@nola.gov Daniel Rosenblatt Executive Director (Ret) International Association of Chiefs of Police 204 West Walnut Street Alexandria, Virginia 22301 Home: 703.548.5345 Cell: 703.203.1080 Commander John Thomas Compliance Bureau New Orleans Police Department 715 S. Broad Street New Orleans, LA 70113 Office: 504.658.5281 Cell: 504.235.6573 jthomas@nola.gov Consultant – Lorain, OH Police Department R. Jonas Geissler, Esq. Senior Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Office: 202.353.8866 Cell: 202.532.5537 jonas.geissler@usdoj.gov Sheriff Jerry Clayton Subject Matter Expert – Detroit, MI Police Department Consent Decree Honorable Judith Levy U.S. District Court Judge Eastern District of Michigan Federal Building 200 E. Liberty Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Courtroom: 100 734.887.4700 Consultant – Reno, NV Police Department Shannon Wiecking Commander Administrative and Support Division Reno Police Department 1 East First Street Reno, NV 89501 775.334.2421 Marc DeLuca Lieutenant Detroit Police Department 11187 Gratiot Avenue Detroit, MI 48213 313.596.5900 delucam537@detroitmi.gov Consultant – Kalamazoo, MI Police Department Shelley Holderbaum Sergeant Detroit Police Department OIC TCRU 1301 Third Street Detroit, MI 48226 313.267.4646 holderbaums080@detroitmi.gov Consultant – Grand Rapids, MI Police Department Subject Matter Expert - Suffolk County, NY Police Department Consent Decree Consultant – Aurora, IL Police Department Brian Buehler Trial Attorney U.S. Justice Department Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 202.353.1100 brian.buehler@usdoj.gov Chief Jeffrey Hadley 150 E. Crosstown Parkway Kalamazoo, MI 49001 269.337.8120 Chief Harry Dolan (Retired) Chief Dan Oates Miami Beach Police Department 1100 Washington Avenue Miami Beach, Fl. 33139 305.673.7925 danieloates@miamibeachfl.gov Captain Scott Sargent Compliance – Los Angeles, CA Police Department Consent Decree Gerald L. Chaleff Bureau Chief Los Angeles Police Department 203 2nd Anita Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 310.694.7159 chaleff@lapd.lacity.org Use of Force Expertise Jim McDonnell Sheriff Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department 4700 Ramona Blvd Monterey Park, CA 91754 323.267.4800 Honorable Andre Birotte Jr. United States District Court Judge Central District of California 300 S. Spring Street, Suite 2752 Los Angeles, CA 90013 213.894.2833 Bill Bratton Commissioner New York City Police Department 1 Police Plaza New York NY 10038 646.610.5000 Alexander A. Bustamante Inspector General Figueroa Plaza 201 N. Figueroa Street, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213.482.6833 alex.bustamante@lapd.lacity.org Geoff Alpert Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice University of South Carolina 1305 Greene Street Columbia, SC 29208 803.446.4139 geoffa@mailbox.sc.edu Django Sibley Assistant Inspector General Use of Force Section Figueroa Plaza 201 N. Figueroa Street, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213.482.6833 django.sibley@lapd.lacity.org Commander Sherry Woods Subject Matter Expert – Detroit, MI Police Department Consent Decree Marc DeLuca Lieutenant Detroit Police Department 11187 Gratiot Avenue Detroit, MI 48213 313.596.5900 delucam537@detroitmi.gov Shelley Holderbaum Sergeant Detroit Police Department OIC TCRU 1301 Third Street Detroit, MI 48226 313.267.4646 holderbaums080@detroitmi.gov Ainsley Cromwell Supervising Investigator Office of the Chief Investigator Detroit Police Department 65 Cadillac Square, Suite 4000 Detroit, MI 48226 313.596.5900 cromwella@detroitmi.gov Honorable Judith Levy U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Federal Building 200 E. Liberty Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734.887.4700 Joseph Buczek Head of Compliance Investigations Marsh & McLennan Companies 1166 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 646.235.2096 Chief Bruce Harber Police Practices Expertise Toney Armstrong Director of Police Services Memphis Police Department 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 901.636.3700 toney.armstrong@memphistn.gov Honorable Sheryl H. Lipman United States District Judge Western District of Tennessee Clifford Davis/Odell Horton Federal Building 167 N. Main Street Memphis, TN 38103 901.495.1337 sheryl_lipman@tnwd.uscourts.gov Rosie Phillips Bingham, Ph.D. Vice President for Student Affairs The University of Memphis 235 Administration Building Memphis, TN 38152 901.678.2114 rbingham@memphis.edu Honorable Mark H. Luttrell, Jr. Shelby County Mayor Vasco A. Smith, Jr. County Administration Building 160 N. Main Street, 11th Floor Memphis, TN 38103 901.222.2000 mark.luttrell@shelbycountytn.gov David Cox, Ph.D. Professor Public and Nonprofit Administration School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy The University of Memphis McCord Hall, Room 200 Memphis, TN 38152 Office: 901.678.3046 Cell: 901.258.5050 davidcox@memphis.edu William P. Oldham Shelby County Sheriff 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 Office: 901.545.5503 Cell: 901.598.0464 bill.oldham@shelby-sheriff.org W. Richard Janikowski Principal Strategic City Solutions 104 Gap Creek Road Fletcher, NC 28732-8491 901.830.1052 richard.janikowski@gmail.com ACADEMICS Dr. Randolph Dupont Crisis Intervention – Seattle, WA Police Department Consent Decree Crisis Intervention -- San Francisco, CA Police Department Mike Diaz Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney’s Office Western District of Washington 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Seattle, WA 98101-1271 206.553.4358 michael.diaz@usdoj.gov Angela Chan Policy Director-Senior Staff Attorney Criminal Justice Reform Program Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus 55 Columbus Avenue San Francisco, CA 94111 Former member - San Francisco Police Commission 415.848.7719 angelac@advancingjustice-alc.org Crisis Intervention -- New Orleans, LA Police Consent Decree Crisis Intervention – Collingswood Police Department and New Jersey State Police Danny Murphy Consent Decree Compliance Manager New Orleans Police Department Compliance Bureau 715 S. Broad Street New Orleans, LA 70119 504.658.5080 dpmurphy@nola.gov Chief Thomas Garrity, Jr, MA Chief - Security Staff, Supervisory Security Specialist Administrative Office of the US Courts (AO – US Courts) Washington, District of Columbia Former Police Chief – Collingswood, NJ 202.502.1241 tgarrity@ccprosecutor.org Dr. John Lamberth Consultant - Reno, NV Police Department Consultant – Kalamazoo, MI Police Department Shannon Wiecking Commander Administrative and Support Division Reno Police Department 1 E. First Street Reno, NV 89501 775.334.2421 Chief Jeffrey Hadley Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety 150 E. Crosstown Parkway Kalamazoo, MI 49001 269.337.8120 Consultant - Metropolitan Police Department Consultant – Grand Rapids, MI Police Department Chief Charles H. Ramsey (Now Police Commissioner, Philadelphia) Metropolitan Police Department Anne C. Grant Office of Organizational Development 300 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 202.727.9099 Chief Harry Dolan (Retired) Kristen Rewa City of Grand Rapids Civil Litigation Division 1120 Monroe Avenue, NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 616.456.3103 ATTORNEYS Seth Rosenthal Police Practices Litigation and Consultation – Maryland State Police Ronald M. Levitan Principal Counsel Maryland Department of State Police Office of the Attorney General 1201 Reisterstown Road Pikesville, MD 21208 410.653.4224 ronald.levitan@maryland.gov Honorable Robert L. Wilkins U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 333 Constitution Avenue, NW #5205 Washington, DC 20001 202.216.7240 Corporate Investigations and Compliance Reviews (Privileged Matters) Matthew Lepore General Counsel Jonathan Harper Associate General Counsel BASF Corporation Florham Park, NJ 07932 matthew.lepore@basf.com 973.245.7813 973.245.6079 jonathan.harper@basf.com Clement V. Mitchell Chief Executive Officer Bilfinger Government Services Holding, GmbH 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 201 Woodbridge, VA 22192-5199 703.586.6060 clem.mitchell@bilfinger.com Honorable Karl Racine Attorney General for the District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General 441 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 202.727.3400 karl.racine@dc.gov Steve Parker New Orleans, LA Police Department Consent Decree Danny Cazenave Chief of Staff for the Superintendent New Orleans Police Department 1930 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70113 Office: 504.658.5760 Cell: 504.330.5544 Mary Howell 205 S. Telemachus Street New Orleans, LA 70119 Office: 504.822.4455 Cell: 504.822.4455 maryhowell316@gmail.com Jay Ginsberg Deputy Chief Chief of Consent Decree Compliance New Orleans Police Department 1930 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70113 Office: 504.658.5281 Cell: 504.330.7475 jaginsberg@nola.gov Wesley Ware Operation Breakout 1001 S. Broad Street, #119 New Orleans, LA 70125 504.473.2651 Arlinda Westbrook Deputy Chief New Orleans Police Department Public Integrity Bureau 118 N Rocheblave Street New Orleans, LA 70119 Office: 504.658.6800 Cell: 504.329.1209 Susan Hutson New Orleans Independent Police Monitor 525 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70130 Office: 504.681.3275 Cell: 504.427.3774 shutson@nolaoig.org Kenneth Polite United States Attorney 650 Poydras Street, Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70130 504.680.3000 kenneth.a.polite@usdoj.gov Yihong "Julie" Mao Staff Attorney New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice National Guestworker Alliance 217 N. Prieur Street New Orleans, LA 70112 504.309.5165 jmao@nowcrj.org James Letten (Former United States Attorney) Assistant Dean Tulane University Law School 6329 Freret Street Weinmann Hall, Room 216-B New Orleans, LA 70118 Office: 504.862.8840 Cell: 504.421.0020 jletten@tulane.edu Police Practices Jonathan Aronie Independent Court Monitor Sheppard Mullin Law Firm 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington, DC 20006-6801 Office: 202.747.1902 Cell: 202.302.4855 jaronie@sheppardmullin.com Joseph Murphy Chief Criminal Division United States Attorney’s Office Memphis, TN 38103 901.544.4231 joe.murphy@usdoj.gov Chief Dennis Nowicki Deputy Independent Court Monitor Office: 630.584.0353 Cell: 630.853.7866 nopdmonitor_den@att.net Tracey Harris-Branch Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation 225 North Humphreys Boulevard, Suite 3000 Memphis, TN 38120 Office: 901.747.9590 Cell: 901.268.8810 tracey.branch@ic.fbi.gov William Oldham Sheriff Shelby County Sheriff 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 Office: 901.545.5503 Cell: 901.598.0464 bill.oldham@shelby-sheriff.org Kobie Flowers Corporate Investigations and Compliance Reviews (Privileged Matters) Marc Axelbaum Pillsbury Shaw Pittman LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5998 415.9830.1000 marc.axelbaum@pillsburylaw.com Constitutional Litigation/Grand Jury Investigation/Trial Experience Jim Wyda Federal Public Defender Federal Public Defender’s Office District of Maryland 100 S. Charles Street, Suite 900 Baltimore, MD 21201 410.962.3962 jim_wyda@fd.org David Douglass Deputy Independent Court Monitor New Orleans Police Department Sheppard Mullen Law Firm 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington, DC 20006 202.747.1904 ddouglass@sheppardmullin.com Appendix Writing Samples DATA COLLECTION AND BENCHMARKING OF THE BIAS POLICING PROJECT Final Report for the Metropolitan Police Department in the District of Columbia Written by: Dr. John C. Lamberth Lamberth Consulting September 2006 LAMBERTH CONSULTING This project was supported by cooperative agreement #2002HSWX0008 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official opinion of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement of the product by the author or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. Lamberth Consulting was formed in 2000 in an effort to provide racial profiling assessment, training, and communication services to universities, states, counties, cities, civil rights groups, litigators, and communities. Dr. John Lamberth, CEO and founder of Lamberth Consulting, developed the nation’s first racial profiling methodology in 1993. Since that time we have revised and adapted our methodology for highways, urban areas, suburban areas, and pedestrian populations. We have expanded our service offerings to include training solutions targeted towards law enforcement and community members, as well as communication planning services to help educate and inform all parties concerned about racial profiling issues. Lamberth Consulting, LLC 20 West Miner Street West Chester, PA 19317 phone 610.358.5700 fax 610.358.2890 on the web www.lamberthconsulting.com email us at info@lamberthconsulting.com LAMBERTH CONSULTING Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................................. II LIST OF MAPS ................................................................................................................................................III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................ 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 6 BENCHMARKS................................................................................................................................................. 10 COMPLETE STOP DATA ................................................................................................................................... 12 DATA ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................. 13 Violators ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Agency and Community Role ..................................................................................................................... 15 METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT INITIATIVE ........................................................................................... 16 METHODOLOGY: OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................... 19 RED LIGHT AND PHOTO RADAR BENCHMARKING ............................................................................................. 24 SITE SELECTION .............................................................................................................................................. 29 SURVEYOR TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................... 30 MOTORIST BENCHMARKS ................................................................................................................................ 31 PEDESTRIAN BENCHMARKS ............................................................................................................................. 31 VIOLATOR SURVEYS ....................................................................................................................................... 32 BENCHMARKING LOCATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 34 BENCHMARKING SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................................ 35 Traffic Schedule Construction.................................................................................................................... 35 PEDESTRIAN AND VIOLATOR SCHEDULES ........................................................................................................ 35 Pedestrians................................................................................................................................................ 35 Violators ................................................................................................................................................... 36 BENCHMARKING SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................................ 37 Traffic Surveying (November 8 – November 21) ......................................................................................... 38 Pedestrian, Red Light and Photo Radar Surveying (December 2 through December 15) ............................. 39 MAKEUP DATES.............................................................................................................................................. 40 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 41 TRAFFIC-RACE ............................................................................................................................................... 41 TRAFFIC-ETHNICITY ....................................................................................................................................... 48 PEDESTRIANS-RACE ........................................................................................................................................ 50 PEDESTRIANS-ETHNICITY................................................................................................................................ 52 PHOTO RADAR-RACE ...................................................................................................................................... 53 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................................... 56 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 60 APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................................................... 64 MAPS OF SURVEYED INTERSECTIONS ............................................................................................................... 64 12/12/2006 i MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF CENSUS TRACT AND TRAFFIC FOR BLACKS ...................................... 21 TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF CENSUS TRACT AND TRAFFIC FOR HISPANICS ................................. 22 TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF CENSUS TRACT AND PEDESTRIANS FOR BLACKS ............................ 23 TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF CENSUS TRACT AND PEDESTRIANS FOR HISPANICS ....................... 23 TABLE 5. MAKEUP DATES FOR SCHEDULE 1 (NOVEMBER 8 THROUGH NOVEMBER 21 ............. 40 TABLE 6. MAKEUP DATES FOR SCHEDULE 2 (DECEMBER 2 THROUGH DECEMBER 15)............. 40 TABLE 7. TRAFFIC-RACE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 45 TABLE 8. TRAFFIC-ETHNICITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 49 TABLE 9. PEDESTRIAN-RACE ANALYSIS................................................................................................. 51 TABLE 10. PEDESTRIAN-ETHNICITY ANALYSIS.................................................................................... 53 TABLE 11. PHOTO RADAR CAMERAS FOR BLACK MOTORISTS........................................................ 54 TABLE 12. PHOTO RADAR CAMERAS FOR HISPANIC MOTORISTS .................................................. 55 12/12/2006 ii MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department LIST OF M APS TRAFFIC INTERSECTIONS.......................................................................................................................... 64 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 4TH ST SE & CHESAPEAKE SE ............................................................................................................... 64 1ST ST NW & M STREET NW................................................................................................................. 65 ALABAMA AVE SE & AINGER PL SE ...................................................................................................... 66 17TH ST NW & EUCLID ST NW.............................................................................................................. 67 5300 BLK CLAY TER NE........................................................................................................................ 68 GEORGIA AVE NW & LONGFELLOW ST NW........................................................................................... 69 GEORGIA AVE NW AND SHEPHERD ST NW ............................................................................................ 70 ALABAMA AVE SE & F ST SE ................................................................................................................ 71 3200 BLK 23RD ST SE ........................................................................................................................... 72 1ST ST NW & CHANNING ST NW ...................................................................................................... 73 2700 BLK 13TH ST NW ..................................................................................................................... 74 200 BLK DIVISION AVE NE ............................................................................................................... 75 400 17TH ST NE................................................................................................................................ 76 14TH ST NE & SARATOGA AVE NE ................................................................................................... 77 2600 BLK STANTON RD SE................................................................................................................ 78 MONTELLO ST NE & NEAL ST NE ..................................................................................................... 79 11TH ST NW & PARK RD NW ........................................................................................................... 80 1ST ST NW & R ST NW .................................................................................................................... 81 WISCONSIN AVE NW & M ST NW..................................................................................................... 82 21ST ST NE & MARYLAND AVE NE................................................................................................... 83 PEDESTRIAN INTERSECTIONS .................................................................................................................. 84 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4TH ST SE & CHESAPEAKE SE ............................................................................................................... 84 17TH ST NW & EUCLID ST NW.............................................................................................................. 85 2100 ALABAMA AVE SE ........................................................................................................................ 86 WISCONSIN AND M STREET NW............................................................................................................. 87 21ST ST NE & MARYLAND AVE NE ....................................................................................................... 88 PHOTO RADAR LOCATIONS....................................................................................................................... 89 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 100 BLK MICHIGAN AVE NE.................................................................................................................. 89 3RD ST NW & MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW.............................................................................................. 90 4700 BLK MACARTHUR BLVD NW ........................................................................................................ 91 5400 BLK 16TH ST NW.......................................................................................................................... 92 600 NEW YORK AVE NE W/B ................................................................................................................ 93 RED LIGHT CAMERA LOCATIONS............................................................................................................ 94 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. NEW YORK AVE NW W/B & 4TH ST NW ................................................................................................ 94 RHODE ISLAND AVE NE W/B & REED ST NE ......................................................................................... 95 M ST NW W/B & WHITEHURST FRWY NW ............................................................................................ 96 NEW YORK AVE NE W/B & MONTANA AVE NE .................................................................................... 97 SOUTH CAPITAL ST RAMP S/B BEFORE I ST ............................................................................................ 98 12/12/2006 iii MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) for their support and cooperation during the course of this study. From the beginning of the effort, we were able to call upon the resources of the Department for the components that are necessary to complete a study of this nature. For a period of 6 weeks we had surveyors out on the streets of the District of Columbia at all hours of the day or night. The Department provided manned vehicle escort for all survey sessions, which allowed the surveyors to concentrate on their basic task, accurately determining the race/ethnicity of motorists. Each benchmark location was observed in daylight and/or at night, and MPD personnel accompanied us on all of those observational trips. We worked closely with members of the agency to understand traffic patterns and enforcement. They provided us with information about police activity, special deployments, special circumstances within the City that influenced policing, and many other aspects of their work that would be necessary for us to understand when conducting this study. We thank them for their willingness to share their knowledge of this jurisdiction with us. The successful identification of benchmark locations and of stop data that accurately reflects traffic in that location is essential to the successful completion of a study of racial profiling. The personnel of the Department who were assigned to this project worked and shared their insight and experience with us and helped to make the study run smoothly. Completing a project of this magnitude in the time frame allotted required superior cooperation from the Department, which we greatly appreciate. Fall 2006 1 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department It is impossible to thank everyone who assisted in this project, but we would particularly like to thank Chief Charles Ramsey for his support and Anne C. Grant, Director of the Research and Resource Development Division, who were instrumental in the successful completion of the project. We would like to extend special thanks to Captain Ricky Mitchell for his diligence and unwavering support in providing information and accompanying us when we observed potential benchmarking locations, coordinating vehicle escorts for surveyors, and providing critical information relative to the functioning of MPD. We would also like to extend thanks to Peta Myers, Research Analyst with the Research and Resource Development Division, whose handson assistance with the data throughout the project proved very helpful. We would also like to thank the individuals of the Community-Police Task Force for their critical review of the approach to conduct this study. These members included James D. Berry, Jr., Stephen Block, Cynthia Brock-Smith, Phillip Eure, Ronald Hampton, Bradley Hicks, Alexander M. Padro, Richard J. Rosendall, Mark Thompson, Nawar Shora, Nola Joyce, Michael J. Fitzgerald, William Ponton, Ani Russell, Kevin Morrison, Tejpal Chawla, Debra Hoffmaster, Richard J. Rosendall, Sampson O. Annan, Bradley Hicks, Enrique Rivera, and Charles H. Ramsey. We would like to thank the MPD for their attention to the data collection effort. The collection of these data allowed for a much more complete analysis. Finally, we would like to thank the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), Department of Justice, which provided funding for this project. Fall 2006 2 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The past decade has seen increased awareness of the issue of racial profiling among lawmakers, law enforcement agencies, and the communities in which they work. As a result, data collection efforts have begun in many jurisdictions. Some efforts are due to threats of litigation or settlements; others have been legislatively mandated, while still others have been voluntary in nature. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) data collection efforts fall into this latter category. Collecting traffic stop data is of little use unless some level of analysis of that data is conducted. Further, for the analysis to have meaning, some level of action must be taken resulting from interpretation of the analysis results. If the analysis demonstrates that stop practices are unbiased, then the agency should ensure that community members and other stakeholders are aware of this and the agency and officers should be congratulated for their practices. If the analysis demonstrates that issues exist that may be caused by bias, then the agency should commit real resources to the issue and seek to change the behaviors that led to this concern. One of the major issues in data analysis to date has been in determining the appropriate benchmark or standard to which the stop data are to be compared. The methodology employed in this study is one that has been employed in several studies across the country and is relied upon by several courts. This methodology employs what we believe to be the only appropriate benchmark for such an analysis; that is, a direct measure of the transient populations (driving populations and pedestrian populations) in specific locations. This allows a comparison of racial/ethnic groups as they are represented in the transient population to police stops of those groups at specific locations. Fall 2006 3 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department This study addressed the following questions:  Is there evidence of racial profiling by the MPD?  Which minority groups (i.e., Blacks and Hispanics), if any, are targeted?  In which locations is profiling of any group likely to occur?  Are Black and/or Hispanic drivers more likely to drive 11mph or more over the speed limit than White drivers? MPD began collecting data a number of years ago using the PD 76 form. The form was adapted prior to the start of this study and has been adapted during the course of the study. The data utilized for analysis were collected between February 2005 and January 2006. Data on the transient traffic population were collected at 20 locations throughout the city during November and December of 2005. These locations were selected due to the high number of stops at each, traffic patterns that were relatively representative of the jurisdiction1 and accessibility for surveyors. Traffic surveys, including those for the photo radar and red light camera locations, were conducted by highly trained surveyors on randomly selected days and times at each location over a three-month period. These surveys provided the benchmark data to which stop data for that location were compared. Five locations were also benchmarked for the pedestrian transient population. In addition, the five photo radar locations were not only benchmarked, but the race/ethnicity of those exceeding the speed limit by at least 11 mph was also collected. The results of this study with respect to traffic are excellent and about as good as can be expected. They provide no evidence of targeting of either Blacks or Hispanics in Washington, DC by the MPD. The proportion of Black and Hispanic motorists stopped at the 20 locations 1 Every effort was made to benchmark locations in all Police Districts in the District. Fall 2006 4 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department was virtually the theoretically expected outcome based upon their presence in the transient population2. The pedestrian transient population was monitored at five locations. At three locations the benchmark data indicated that the transient population was made up of overwhelmingly Black pedestrians. However, at the location where the pedestrian population was roughly evenly divided between Black, Hispanic, and White pedestrians, there was a somewhat elevated tendency to over-stop Black and Hispanic pedestrians. At the location where White pedestrians were a large majority, there was strong evidence that Black pedestrians were being targeted. There was no evidence that either Black or Hispanic motorists are more likely to exceed the speed limit by 11 mph or more than are any other drivers. In fact, slightly fewer Black and Hispanic motorists than expected were identified as violating speed laws3. 2 Note that the 20 locations selected for surveying were not randomly selected and results, thus, cannot be generalized to the entire city of Washington DC. 3 Some have questioned whether an underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic motorists among the motorists egregiously speeding actually means that proportionate representation of motorists stopped by MPD indicates an over-stopping of Black and Hispanic motorists. In our view, speeding is but one violation among hundreds for which motorists can be stopped. In addition, there are at least two potential reasons for stopping minority motorists more than nonminority motorists as explained on pp. 53-54 of this report. Thus, it would not be appropriate to suggest that MPD over-stops black motorists based upon the speeding findings. Fall 2006 5 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department INTRODUCTION Representatives from minority groups have provided anecdotal evidence of racial profiling by law enforcement agencies on the roadways that spans back decades. The specific measurement of the practice, however, was not formalized until 1994. During a criminal litigation case in New Jersey (State v. Soto et al.), a group of defendants alleged that New Jersey state troopers were targeting and stopping minorities on the highway, not because of their driving behavior, but because of the color of their skin. During the course of this case, the race and ethnicity of the driving population was observed and recorded on portions of the New Jersey Turnpike 4. The driving population was then compared to the racial and ethnic make-up of the individuals stopped in New Jersey to determine whether a disproportionate percentage of minority drivers were being stopped relative to their presence on the roadway. This method was also used in Maryland (Lamberth, 1996) during a civil litigation case (Wilkins v. Maryland State Police) in which Robert Wilkins alleged that the rental car driven by his cousin on the Maryland State highway was stopped and searched by a drug-sniffing dog due to a “profile” prepared by the Maryland State Police that included Black males driving rental cars. In the former case, the courts held for the defendants. The latter case was settled, and the issue of racial profiling began to develop greater national attention and exposure. It is important to note that the early work performed in this field, while groundbreaking, was limited because it was conducted within the context of litigation. That is, the issue was reviewed in a combative forum between community and law enforcement participants. The work was completed slowly, and dialogue surrounding the science was limited. A dramatic shift resulting from state 4 Lamberth, J. Revised Statistical Analysis…(1994) Available at http://www.lamberthconsulting.com/downloads/new_jersey_study_report.pdf Fall 2006 6 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department legislation and agency participation and leadership relative to this science began to take place in the late 1990s. State legislatures have mandated data collection and/or developed laws prohibiting racial profiling by law enforcement agencies. At the time of this report, 26 states have enacted legislation relative to this issue. An additional 12 states have legislation pending on the issue, and agencies in all but 2 states in the nation have undertaken data collection efforts due to mandate, decree, or of their own volition. Several significant events have occurred nationally that have influenced this shift in focus and have helped to direct activities in this field. In June 1999, the Department of Justice (DOJ) hosted a conference on “Strengthening Police-Community Relationships.” The conference recognized that police are more effective when they have the trust and cooperation of the residents in their community. However, in many communities, especially minority communities, a lack of trust remains between law enforcement and local residents. This tension is exacerbated by allegations of police misconduct such as racial profiling. The conference highlighted the need to identify proactive police practices to build trust, enhance police integrity and reduce police misconduct. Members at the conference determined that collecting data on traffic and pedestrian stops, analyzing this data, and providing the results for public review can help to shift debates on racial profiling from anecdotal reports to informed discussions. By being proactive about recognizing and addressing racial profiling, police communities can go a long way towards managing perceptions around racial profiling and strengthening police-community relationships. Fall 2006 7 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department In February 2000, the DOJ held a conference entitled “Traffic Stops and Data Collection: Analyzing and using the Data.” In this session, more than 75 federal, state, and local police administrators, prosecutors, civil rights advocates, and government officials as well as police labor leaders, researchers, and community leaders gathered to examine the collection, analysis, and use of data on traffic, pedestrian, and other law enforcement stops. Collectively the participants reached several conclusions:  Traffic stop data collection systems are needed to respond to the perceptions of racial profiling, to measure the reality, and to bridge the gap between minorities and police.  Core data elements of traffic stop systems should include: date and time, location, race and ethnicity, gender, reasons for initiating the stop, actions taken by the officer, and duration of the encounter.  Benchmarks for comparing data collected on stops are essential for conducting valid analyses. Without valid control groups, supportable statistical analyses are not possible.  Data that is complete, accurate, and truthful is critical.  Analysis of data must be conducted by a capable and credible party.  Publicizing traffic stop data can help to build trust between public law enforcement agencies and the public. In August of 2001, the Police Executive Research Forum, under a DOJ grant, held a conference for leading researchers in the field to discuss issues relating to benchmarking for stop data collection and analysis. The conference was attended by social scientists, legal scholars, and practitioners from several police departments. This conference was the first of its kind to bring leading scientists and researchers together to discuss the best methods for analyzing stop data. In March of 2003, the SOROS Foundation provided support for a conference on racial profiling that was co-hosted by the Institute on Race and Justice at Northeastern University, the Fall 2006 8 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, and Lamberth Consulting. The Conference, “Confronting Racial Profiling in the 21st Century: Implications for Racial Justice,” featured 30 of the leading researchers in the country. The intent of the conference was to bring together researchers, law enforcement representatives, and community representatives to collectively review the latest and most progressive methods for stop data collection and analysis. The conference also focused on poststop activity, community engagement, and data auditing as primary subject topics. In November 2003, the Northwestern University Center for Public Safety and the Police Executive Research Forum held the Third National Symposium on Racial Profiling. The third day of that conference was given over to discussing issues of data collection and analysis. Specifically, issues of risk management, benchmarking, post-stop activity, and related topics were discussed. Observational benchmarks, which were pioneered by Lamberth Consulting, were cited as the most used and reliable of the strong benchmarks discussed. In February of 2004, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) of the Department of Justice sponsored the Western Regional Racially Biased Policing Summit in conjunction with the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento Police Department. This conference explored benchmarking, post stop analyses, community police engagement, training, and a variety of other issues integral to the racial profiling debate. In the summer of 2004, the COPS Office funded two workshops hosted by the Police Executive Research Forum on the assessment of Racial Profiling and the best practices for conducting assessments. Fall 2006 9 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department In January 2005, the Open Justice Initiative hosted a workshop in Budapest, Hungary in which ethnic profiling was considered as an issue in several European countries. John Lamberth presented a paper on the methodology utilized in the United States that allowed for the scientific study of racial profiling. Among other outcomes, this initiative led to a monograph, “Ethnic Profiling by Police in Europe,” and a study of ethnic profiling in the Moscow metro system.5 From these and other conferences, a central and critical focus has become clear. To manage public perception about racial profiling and to strengthen community-police relationships, the method used for collecting and analyzing stop data is critical. Two primary components must be in place to determine whether racial profiling is occurring: benchmarks and complete stop data. Benchmarks When a police department develops stop data that designates the race/ethnicity of each motorist stopped, the next necessary ingredient for accurately analyzing those data is the data against which to compare the stops. This has been termed the “denominator” issue by some, but we prefer to refer to this comparison data as the benchmark. Knowing that a police department stops 50% Black motorists does not tell us anything about whether they are targeting Black motorists, because until we know how many motorists who are Black are driving on the streets and highways patrolled by that police department, we are not in a position to assert that police are stopping too many Black motorists, about the right percentage, or too few. Some researchers in the late 1990s and early 2000s proposed that census data might estimate driving populations reasonably well. Studies were conducted for individual 5 Ethnic Profiling in the Moscow Metro. (2006). Open Society Institute, New York, N.Y. Fall 2006 10 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department jurisdictions and for some states using census data as the primary data set for benchmarks. Examples include San Diego6, Connecticut7, and the Texas Department of Public Safety8, 2000. These data were also attractive to other organizations, such as newspapers, which had easy access to census data. Journalists reported on simple percentage comparisons of stop data against census data estimates, often claiming that these differences indicated racial profiling. The field has since learned that census data do not provide a good estimate of driving populations. Today, experienced researchers argue against the use of these data9, citing, for example, that census data alone do not account for driving populations such as commuter traffic, university populations, and tourists. The benchmark that has both been relied upon by courts in reaching decisions (Soto, 1996; Wilkins, 1996; Foulkes, 2000) and utilized by other researchers in attempting to validate possible alternative benchmarks10 (Alpert, Smith & Dunham, 2003, Farrell, et al., 2004) is observations of traffic. Observational surveys of specific locations are reliable measures of the traffic from which police officers select motorists to stop at that location and thus are appropriate benchmarks. 6 Cordner, et al. (2001) Vehicle stops in San Diego, 2001. Available at http://www.sandiego.gov/police/pdf/stoprpt.pdf 7 Cox, et al. (2001) Interim report of traffic stops statistics for the state of Connecticut. Available at: http://www.ocjc.state.or.us/Racial_Profiling/ct.pdf 8 Traffic Stop Data Report, 2001. Available at: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/public_information/trafrep2001totals.pdf 9 Fridell, L. (2004) By the Numbers. Available at: http://www.policeforum.org/upload/BytheNumbers%5B1%5D_715866088_12302005121341.pdf; Farrell, et al. (2005). Learning from Research and Practice. Available at: http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu/IRJ_docs/Report_NewChallenges21.pdf 10 Alpert, et al. (2003) The Utility of Not at Fault Traffic Crash Data in Racial Profiling Research. Farrell, et al. (2003) The Driving Population Estimate Available at: http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu/IRJ_docs/Report_NewChallenges21.pdf Fall 2006 11 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Complete Stop Data The second set of critical data is the police stop data. These data are a compilation of all traffic stops that are initiated by the officer. This includes stops that result in a citation as well as those that do not. It excludes stops that are made by officers in which they are instructed as to which motorists to stop, such as those made during a DUI checkpoint, or stops made of individuals who fit the description of a suspect in a particular crime (be on the lookout stops). Pedestrian stops are those self-initiated stops made by officers for investigative purposes. Pedestrian encounters that occur because of an officer’s wish to talk to and get to know residents in a particular area, but are not investigatory in nature, are not included in the pedestrian stop database. The MPD collects data on both traffic and pedestrian stops using the PD 76 form. Officers are instructed to fill out the PD 76 form whenever a traffic stop is made, whether it is self-initiated or the result of a spot check. Vehicle spot checks occur during DUI checkpoints and other similar programs in which vehicles at specific points are checked. Generally speaking, the vehicle to be checked is predetermined; i.e., every vehicle, every third vehicle, or some other variant of predetermination that is used for the selection of the vehicles that are actually stopped. For purposes of this report, Lamberth Consulting advised and the MPD agreed that the appropriate stops to analyze were the vehicle stops, not the vehicle spot checks. This is because there is little or no officer discretion involved when a vehicle spot check is made. Pedestrian data are also collected on the PD 76 form with the appropriate notation that the particular stop was of a pedestrian. Fall 2006 12 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Data Analysis Considerations It should be noted that the question of how to perform data analysis is not simple, nor have all researchers historically agreed on the best methods to conduct the analysis. This makes sense given the relative youth of this discipline and the burgeoning nature of the issue. As mentioned previously, most researchers today agree that the best method for determining transient populations is observational surveys. It is important, however, to discuss some points of current interest and review in the academic community relative to conducting this type of analysis. Violators One question facing those attempting to analyze traffic stop data involves the selection of the most appropriate benchmark to use for comparison. A number of measures have been used in the research to date, and an open question remains as to whether using estimates of the population violating traffic laws is an improvement over estimates of drivers operating on a community’s roadways. Courts (beginning with the Soto and Wilkins decisions) have stated that violators represent the appropriate measure, but then quickly changed their focus when it became obvious that the two were virtually synonymous. Court decisions uniformly support the notion that any motorist violating a traffic law is subject to being stopped by police and are the appropriate group to benchmark. However, to date, empirical evidence supports the contention that traffic and violators are synonymous, and in the Soto case the court essentially used traffic and violators interchangeably. The first scientific measurement of the appropriate comparison number for traffic stops determined both the proportion of Black motorists in the traffic stream and those violating at Fall 2006 13 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department least one traffic law (New Jersey v. Soto, et al.). The evidence in that case subsequently has determined that the two are virtually synonymous. First in Soto and in Wilkins v. Maryland State Police, virtually every motorist was speeding (98.3% in Soto and 93.3% in Wilkins). More recently, Lamberth (2003)11 reported a study in which police officers were given 5 minutes to determine whether randomly selected cars were violating some traffic law. The study concluded that fully 94% of the drivers were violating some law, and it took a mean of 28 seconds for the officers to spot the violation. For the reasons stated above, and due to constraints on resources, we have used the traffic estimates as our benchmarks in Washington, DC. However, we should note that direct research measuring differences between racial or ethnic groups and driving behavior is very limited. While empirical evidence suggests that traffic violators and traffic motorists are virtually identical, a question remains as to whether one racial or ethnic group is more likely to violate traffic laws egregiously than another. That is, it is theoretically possible, while perhaps not intuitive, that one racial or ethnic group is more likely to speed excessively, or drive vehicles with severe vehicle codes violations, or run traffic lights more often, etc. To date, empirical evidence is scant and mixed on the issue of whether one racial/ethnic group or another violates traffic laws more egregiously than do others. Two studies commissioned by state police agencies have found that minorities and particularly Black motorists violate speeding laws more egregiously than do White motorists. Both of these studies considered excessive speeding (defined as 15 mph above the limit) as the egregious violation to be studied. These studies have 11 Lamberth, John, “Measuring the racial/ethnic make up of traffic: The how, what and why.” Paper presented at Confronting Racial Profiling in the 21st Century: Implications for Racial Justice. Boston, March, 2003. Fall 2006 14 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department been severely criticized on methodological grounds.12 One study done under a DOJ grant also suggests that Blacks speed more egregiously than do Whites. Finally, another study, conducted by Lamberth Consulting has found that, while slightly more Black motorists apparently violate the speeding laws more egregiously than do other groups, the differences are small and are likely caused, at least in part, by the fact that there appear to be more young Black motorists on the roadway than young White motorists. We feel that this area of research is vitally important and to that end, with the agreement and support of MPD, designed the present study so that some of the questions concerning differences in violation of traffic laws by different racial/ethnic groups could be addressed. Agency and Community Role The early studies conducted in the context of litigation were necessarily limited in the amount of agency and community participation to conduct the work. In more recent work, researchers have had the benefits of working closely with agencies to conduct these studies. Indeed, agency support for providing perspective, stop data, deployment patterns, enforcement activities, crime statistics, policy and procedures, training, and other department information and activities targeted towards these issues has provided a plethora of valuable information for 12 Lange, et al utilized pictures of motorists who were speeding 15 miles per hour (mph) or more over the speed limit. The major criticism of this study is the large percentage of pictures that could not be reliably classified as to the race of the driver. When the criterion was two out of three raters agreeing on the race of the driver, 32% of the pictures could not be classified. When all three raters had to agree, 60% of the data was unusable. Engle, et al. also argued that Black drivers and what they called non-Caucasian drivers (which included Hispanics, many of whom are Caucasian) were more likely to be speeding at least 15 mph above the speed limit than were white drivers. This study suffered from, among other things, the fact that 1) only drivers who were not in a group were selected to be measured as to their speed, 2) counties in Pennsylvania were not selected randomly for inclusion, 3) after 20 counties were chosen to be included in the study, an additional 7 counties were added and these new additions were much more likely to have Blacks and non-Caucasians as egregious speeders, and 4) the data underlying the study are not available to other researchers. Fall 2006 15 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department researchers studying this issue. We found the participation and contributions of the Metropolitan Police Department invaluable in our efforts to conduct this study. However, the communities and rank-and-file officers affected by this issue must also be considered when conducting these studies. Practically speaking, if the results of any analysis prove favorable to the agency, there may be some community representatives or civil rights groups that have concerns about the legitimacy of the work produced by a researcher who is paid by the agency. Conversely, results that reflect negatively upon an agency may be viewed with skepticism by agency officers who do not engage in biased police practices. We feel strongly that the best method to reduce the skepticism of both of these groups is to involve them early and to keep them involved throughout the process. The MPD provided community representatives an opportunity to learn about the project and methodology at the outset of the program. In fact, the group that was responsible for reading the proposals submitted to the City and selecting a researcher to conduct this study included not only representatives from the City and the MPD but from the community as well. Further, the Community-Police Task Force has met throughout this project, discussing issues, making recommendations to the police, and commenting upon developments. We applaud the MPD for their foresight in recognizing and working with the community. We strongly recommend that future research efforts, in the city of Washington, DC or elsewhere, include both of these stakeholder groups in efforts to conduct studies of this kind. Metropolitan Police Department Initiative As indicated earlier in this report, there are three ways that stop data collection studies come about. Historically, the earliest of these were in connection with litigation. Subsequent to Fall 2006 16 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department litigation, some agencies have entered into consent decrees with the Department of Justice that have the effect of monitoring the agencies’ activities with regard to the race/ethnicity of motorists stopped and whether there are differences in the way that different races/ethnicities are treated subsequent to the stop. Next, voluntary data collection was conducted by agencies dealing proactively with a potential problem. Finally, there are those agencies that collect these data in response to a legislative mandate. The data collection project in Washington, DC falls into the voluntary collection category. The advent of community policing, which requires working with community members to prevent crime and the fear of crime, began in 1997 in the MPD. The effort was reinvigorated in 1998 when the current Chief, Charles Ramsey, began his tenure by setting the ambitious goal of making Washington, DC the safest city in America. Policing for Prevention, which is founded on the police conducting focused law enforcement and systemic prevention activities and entering into partnerships with the community to solve problems and share information, was adopted as the strategy to accomplish this goal. In 2002 the Biased Policing Project, intended to strengthen partnerships with the community by ensuring that the delivery of police services is free of any bias, began. The first steps involved the development of the Community Police Task Force and Employee Committee, the development and implementation of a comprehensive citizen telephone survey, focus groups with community and agency members and a report on these activities by the Police Foundation. One of the recommendations of that report was that a stop data analysis research study be conducted. The present study is the result of the implementation of that recommendation by the MPD. Fall 2006 17 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department When the decision was made in 2005 to proceed with the stop data analysis portion of the Biased Policing Project, bids were solicited from a variety of vendors. The group that reviewed these proposals and decided upon Lamberth Consulting as the vendor consisted of MPD employees (Anne C. Grant and Lieutenant Linda Nischan) and a representative from the Task Force (Ronald Hampton). The stop data collected for this study were collected using a modification of the existing PD 76 form. This form, which was modified with the input of the Task Force, has been the primary data collection instrument, but not the only one. Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) data were utilized in helping to determine the areas of the city where substantial numbers of stops of vehicles and pedestrians occurred. The benchmark data were collected by surveyors under the direction of Lamberth Consulting at various points in the city. Fall 2006 18 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department METHODOLOGY: OVERVIEW The methodology used in this study has been developed and refined based upon experience with similar efforts in determining whether racial profiling is occurring in the states of New Jersey, Maryland, Arizona, Kansas, California, Texas, and Michigan (State of New Jersey v. Soto,13 Wilkins v. Maryland State Police,14 Arizona v. Foulkes15, Lamberth, 2001, 2002, 2003), and through our experience in working with national leaders on this issue in US DOJ conferences and work sessions. Our belief is that the most effective approach is a holistic one and includes the assessment of racial profiling, intervention to train employees and to improve processes and behaviors if the problem exists, and communication with the stakeholder communities and groups that are affected by the practice. It is not possible to conduct benchmarking in every part of a city or highway to assess racial profiling. The logic of our work, elemental to statistical analysis in other contexts, is to sample certain portions of city drivers on randomly selected days and times of day. This method enables the generalization of the study results to the police department’s activity in the areas that we study. The selection of locations to assess in a city is necessarily determined by traffic patterns and police activity in that city. Days and times of day are selected randomly to assure the greatest generalization possible. In this study, we assessed in great detail specific locations within Washington, DC. 13 State v. Pedro Soto, A. 734A. 2d 350(N.J. Super: Ct. Law Div. 1996) 14 Wilkins v. Maryland State Police, et al., Civ. No MJG-93-468 15 State v. Barrington Foulkes, et al. Fall 2006 19 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department As previously described, the appropriate standard of comparison, or benchmark, must be established. Existing stop data then must be compared against that benchmark to assess whether any group is stopped more frequently than their presence in the transient demographic would predict. That is, the percentage of minorities stopped by police departments must be compared to the benchmark data to assess whether minorities are stopped at a disproportionate rate to that at which they travel the roadways or walk on the streets. Furthermore, most experts agree that the appropriate benchmark is not city or surrounding area population that can be obtained in census data. The appropriate benchmark is the motoring, or transient, population. The racial composition of this transient population may or may not mirror the population of the city or county. For example, as shown in Table 1, the Black population residing within the Wisconsin and M census tract is 3.1 percent16. If we used this percentage as the benchmark to which to compare the stops made by the MPD in that area, we would significantly underestimate the percentage of Blacks in the driving population (27.3%). However, as Table 1 shows, had census data been used to estimate the Black transient population at 1st and Channing, Black motorists would have been substantially overestimated. Table 1 provides the percentage of Black motorists in the driving population at each of the traffic locations benchmarked in Washington, DC. To provide a comparison to census data, the specific census tracts in Washington, DC that corresponded to the intersections that were benchmarked were determined. The Black and Hispanic populations in the census tracts at those intersections were then determined. This gives 16 These data were compiled by identifying the census tracts (i.e., geographic units that average 4,000 residents) contained within the perimeters of each benchmark location. Then, demographics were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. In cases where more than one census tract fell within these perimeters, weighted averages were calculated. Fall 2006 20 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department the most comparable census vs. traffic data for each minority at each location. Tables 1 and 2 provide both the observational and census data for each traffic location. Table 1. Comparison of Census Tract and Traffic for Blacks # Location 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 4th St SE & Chesapeake SE 1st St NW & M Street NW Alabama Ave SE & Ainger Pl SE 17th St NW & Euclid St NW 5300 Blk Clay Ter NE Georgia Ave NW & Longfellow St NW Georgia Ave NW and Shepherd St NW Alabama Ave SE & F St SE 3200 Blk 23rd St SE 1st St NW & Channing St NW 2700 Blk 13th St NW 200 Blk Division Ave NE 400 17th St NE 14th St NE & Saratoga Ave NE 2600 Blk Stanton Rd SE Montello St NE & Neal St NE 11th St NW & Park Rd NW 1st St NW & R St NW Wisconsin Ave NW & M St NW 21st St NE & Maryland Ave NE Percent Black Census 98.8 93.2 98.9 34.1 98.8 79.7 71.5 98.7 98.8 92.5 65.1 98.9 97.7 97.8 98.7 97.5 62.9 92.7 3.1 97.8 Percent Black Benchmark 95.6 69.8 95.0 35.5 96.8 59.8 67.6 96.1 91.8 66.7 50.4 93.6 92.3 95.5 93.7 91.9 53.2 72.9 27.3 94.2 Comparative Disparity17 + 3.2% +25.1% + 3.9% - 4.1% + 2.0% +25.0% + 5.5% + 2.6% + 7.1% +27.9% +22.6% + 5.4% + 5.5% + 2.4% + 5.1% + 5.7% +15.4% + 21.4% -780.6% + 3.6% It is obvious that census data for Black residents overestimates the driving population in 18 of the 20 locations benchmarked. Only at Wisconsin and M and 17th and Euclid is this not true. Washington, DC is a city in which the majority of the population is Black. In addition, there are a large number of individuals who drive into the city each day from the surrounding suburbs, and these factors contribute to the results shown in Table 1. The under-representation 17 The comparative disparity is computed by subtracting the benchmark percentage from the census percentage of the minority group and dividing by the census percentage. Therefore, a negative comparative disparity means that the minority is underrepresented by census data when compared to traffic. Fall 2006 21 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department of Black drivers by census data at Wisconsin and M is one of the largest that Lamberth Consulting has encountered in our work around the country. Table 2 provides the transient benchmark data and census data for Hispanics at the 20 traffic locations benchmarked. Table 2. Comparison of Census Tract and Traffic for Hispanics # Location 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 4th St SE & Chesapeake SE 1st St NW & M Street NW Alabama Ave SE & Ainger Pl SE 17th St NW & Euclid St NW 5300 Blk Clay Ter NE Georgia Ave NW & Longfellow St NW Georgia Ave NW and Shepherd St NW Alabama Ave SE & F St SE 3200 Blk 23rd St SE 1st St NW & Channing St NW 2700 Blk 13th St NW 200 Blk Division Ave NE 400 17th St NE 14th St NE & Saratoga Ave NE 2600 Blk Stanton Rd SE Montello St NE & Neal St NE 11th St NW & Park Rd NW 1st St NW & R St NW Wisconsin Ave NW & M St NW 21st St NE & Maryland Ave NE Percent Hisp. Census 0.5 1.1 0.7 27.7 0.7 15.5 25.7 0.8 0.6 3.1 23.6 0.7 1.4 1.5 0.9 1.4 32.5 2.8 4.5 1.3 Percent Hisp. Benchmark 1.8 6.8 1.6 23.1 1.6 15.1 10.4 2.0 3.6 6.3 17.3 3.1 3.7 3.3 1.6 3.9 20.5 5.7 5.7 2.7 Comparative Disparity -260% -518% -129% + 17% - 90% + 3% + 60% -150% -500% -103% + 27% -342% -164% -120% - 78% -179% + 37% -104% - 27% -108% Table 2 shows that in 5 of the benchmarked locations, census data overestimates the Hispanic traffic, and in the other 15 it underestimates that traffic. In the 200 Block of Division NE, census data underestimates Hispanic traffic by a factor of almost 3.5. Tables 3 and 4 show the benchmark and census data for each of the five pedestrian locations that were surveyed. Fall 2006 22 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Table 3. Comparison of Census Tract and Pedestrians for Blacks # Location 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4th St SE & Chesapeake SE 17th St NW & Euclid St NW 2100 Alabama Ave SE Wisconsin and M Street NW 21st St NE & Maryland Ave NE Percent Black Census 98.8 34.1 99.0 3.1 97.8 Percent Black Benchmark 100.0 40.9 99.4 13.0 99.8 Comparative Disparity18 - 01% - 20% -0.4% -319% - 02% Black pedestrians are underestimated by census data at all five of the locations benchmarked. Note that four of the five intersections benchmarked for pedestrians were also benchmarked for traffic. At two of them, Black traffic was underestimated by census data and was overestimated by those data at the other two. It is equally important to provide an accurate benchmark of pedestrians if pedestrian stops are to be considered. Note that while the proportions of Black motorists and Black pedestrians are not largely different at 17th and Euclid, Black motorists in the traffic stream at Wisconsin and M are more than twice as numerous as are Black pedestrians. Table 4. Comparison of Census Tract and Pedestrians for Hispanics # Location 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4th St SE & Chesapeake SE 17th St NW & Euclid St NW 2100 Alabama Ave SE Wisconsin and M Street NW 21st St NE & Maryland Ave NE Percent Hisp. Census 0.5 27.7 0.8 4.5 1.3 Percent Hisp. Benchmark 0.0 13.6 0.0 2.9 0.2 Comparative Disparity +100% + 50.1% +100% + 35.6% + 84.6% 18 The comparative disparity is computed by subtracting the benchmark percentage from the census percentage of the minority group and dividing by the census percentage. Therefore, a negative comparative disparity means that the minority is underrepresented by census data when compared to traffic. Fall 2006 23 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Hispanic pedestrians are overestimated by census data at all five locations benchmarked. Of the four locations where both traffic and pedestrians were benchmarked, Hispanic motorists were underestimated by census data at three of the locations and overestimated at the other location. Clearly, using census data for the city of Washington would have overestimated Black and Hispanic motorists and pedestrians at some locations and underestimated them at others. The discrepancy between the transient population and census data, and among different geographic locations, is fundamental to understanding racial profiling and assessing whether or not it is occurring. It is this precision of measurement—accurately identifying the transient population at specific locations—that the methodology used in this study allows. Having determined the percentages of minorities in the driving population as the benchmarks, these data are then compared to the percentages of minorities stopped by MPD officers. The data sets that were utilized to determine the proportions of minority stops were provided to us by the MPD. Red Light and Photo Radar Benchmarking There was another component of the research in Washington, DC, namely, the issue of whether minority drivers violate traffic laws more egregiously than do nonminority drivers. To assess at least two components of this issue, five red light locations and five photo radar locations were benchmarked. The MPD utilizes both red light cameras to deter the running of red lights at specific locations and photo radar cameras to deter speeding. We will discuss these two related but methodologically different traffic law violation enforcement procedures separately. Fall 2006 24 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Red light cameras are positioned around the city, typically at locations that have shown a relatively large number of accidents caused by motorists running red lights. It is generally agreed that running a red light is an egregious violation because of the high probability of an accident occurring when a motorist violates this traffic signal. To curtail such accidents, cameras are installed that take a picture of the car and the license plate of the car that runs a red light. The camera does not report an infraction unless the light is red when the car enters the intersection. The summons is sent to the owner of the vehicle that violates the law, not necessarily to the driver of the car. This introduces the first caveat to the results obtained here. There may be differences in the race of the owner of the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle. However, while we have no data to support this idea, it seems intuitive that people do not allow a great number of other drivers to use their vehicles and that many if not most of these “others” using the vehicle are family members. In Washington, DC and Virginia, racial/ethnic statistics are not kept by vehicle owner. However, Maryland does keep racial statistics by vehicle owner. Therefore, the second caveat for analytic purposes is that only those vehicles from Maryland could be included in the analysis. While this certainly would have curtailed our ability to generalize the results that were obtained on Maryland motorists who drive in Washington, DC, in addition to the results observed in this study, we could have compared the red light camera data to Maryland motorists who drive in Montgomery County, MD, where Lamberth Consulting has collected comparable data. While our intentions were to conduct this analysis, we were unable to do so, as is described below. Fall 2006 25 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Five locations were benchmarked for Red Light Camera analysis. These locations were chosen because of the large number of violations recorded. The Red Light Camera locations benchmarked were: 1. New York Ave NW W/B & 4th St NW 2. Rhode Island Ave NE W/B & Reed St NE 3. M St NW W/B & Whitehurst Frwy NW 4. New York Ave NE W/B & Montana Ave NE 5. South Capital St Ramp S/B before I St. Photo radar cameras are used at a number of locations in the city to help curb excessive speeding. There are mobile and stationary locations for these cameras. Because the mobile locations are not in the same place every day and may be displaced by construction, breakdown in the vehicles that carry the equipment or availability of trained officers on a specific shift, the decision was made to benchmark five of the fixed photo radar locations. At each site, when a vehicle is exceeding the speed limit by 11 mph or more, the equipment detects the violation and takes a picture of the violating vehicle. This means, of course, that there is no one absolute speed at all locations that will trigger the camera, but it is tied to the speed limit at the specific location. The primary requirement for selecting the photo radar sites was a high volume of violations, but also important, since the vehicles benchmarked would be traveling at a relatively high rate of speed, were the number of lanes at the location. Locations with two lanes of traffic in the direction the camera was trained would be ideal. Fall 2006 26 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department The speed limit at the five locations selected ranged from 25 to 45 mph, meaning that the vehicles violating would be traveling at a reasonably high rate of speed, a minimum of 36 mph and ranging up to at least 56 mph. This fact would cause difficulties for monitors; therefore, it was decided to monitor only during daylight hours. Thus, the monitoring occurred between the hours of 6:30 AM to 5:30 PM. In addition, not only were the locations benchmarked, but the surveyors were instructed to benchmark the location for a short period of time and then position themselves so that one of them could get the license plate of offending vehicles each time the strobe light attached to the camera went off while the other observer noted the race/ethnicity of the driver of the vehicle. This would allow a comparison of the observed violations with the license plate numbers of those violating at that location, which in turn would allow the determination of the actual speed of the violator as recorded by the photo radar camera. In this way, a more precise measurement of the actual speed of offending vehicles could be matched with the race/ethnicity of the driver. Other than those violations observed by our monitors, only those motorists from Maryland could be classified as to race/ethnicity. In an attempt to assure that enough violations were observed, the photo radar locations were observed for twice as long as were other locations. Calculations led to the conclusion that there would be at least 100 violations in the time our surveyors were at each location. This was true for photo radar locations but not for red light cameras because on average each photo radar location had far more violations than did each red light location.19 The five photo radar locations selected to be benchmarked were: 19 On average each of the 40 photo radar locations recorded 13,125 violations in 2005, while each of the 47 red light locations recorded only 1,748 violations in 2005. Fall 2006 27 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 1. 100 Blk Michigan Ave NE 2. 3rd St NW & Massachusetts Ave NW 3. 4700 Blk MacArthur Blvd NW 4. 5400 Blk 16th St NW 5. 600 New York Ave NE W/B. During the development of the benchmarking plan, Lamberth Consulting and representatives from the MPD discussed this type of benchmarking and determined to go ahead with it because of its importance in understanding why there may be racial/ethnic differences in who is stopped. We understood that both of these types of enforcement relied on pictures of the license plate of the vehicle that was violating traffic laws and that neither Washington, DC nor Virginia was able to provide race data based on license plates. However, Maryland does collect such data, so the decision to proceed with benchmarking these two types of violations was made with the intention of utilizing those data from Maryland. This would have meant that approximately half of those individuals who committed either a red light violation or a speeding violation could have been racially identified. Furthermore, we determined that there were enough speeding violations for our surveyors to collect racial/ethnic data from the photo radar locations that were benchmarked. However, the State of Maryland did not provide MPD with the relevant racial information. Therefore, we are unable to present any data relating to the violation of red light cameras by the race/ethnicity of the violators. Nevertheless, because the benchmarking plan called for observing violators of the photo radar cameras that measure speed, we are able to present race/ethnicity data with regard to those motorists who violated the speed limit by at least 11 mph. Fall 2006 28 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Site Selection In observational benchmark work in urban/suburban areas, specific intersections are selected for surveying generally based upon high police activity (known as a deployed analysis), with approximately one-quarter square mile perimeter (polygon) drawn around them. We worked with the MPD to determine which specific locations to survey. The factors that went into these decisions are provided below:  Location of agency stop activity gathered from a review of existing PD Form 76s  Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) data on police stops  Agency deployment information (Hot Spots)  Local demographics at reviewed locations (businesses, schools, etc.)  Traffic (motorist and/or pedestrian) patterns and volume  Suitability of site for surveying (safe surveying areas, ambient lighting). We identified police stop activity using the following sources of information: Historical PD 76 data from 2002-2004; PD 76 data for February, March, and April of 2005; and police CAD data. Using these sources of information, we developed a list of locations that have generated a high volume of stops. We reviewed each location identified. During these site reviews, we developed a composite of the locations using videotape, recording landmarks, and apparent lighting (direct lighting from streetlamps and ambient lighting from nearby businesses); street direction and number of lanes; and by conducting traffic counts to estimate traffic volume. Fall 2006 29 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Surveyor Training Teams of surveyors were hired and trained to visually identify and manually record the race and ethnicity of individuals who comprise the transient populations. Training sessions and dry run-throughs were held on Sunday, November 6 for team leaders, and Monday, November 7 for surveyors participating in the first benchmarking schedule for traffic benchmarking. A second training session was conducted for pedestrian, photo radar and red light surveying on Thursday, December 1. Makeup sessions were conducted by team leaders for any surveyors participating in the first or second surveying session who missed the training class. Survey training is critical to ensure that surveyors understand the surveying process, surveyor positioning, daytime and nighttime surveying guidelines, data recording procedures, quality assurance reviews such as the assessment of inter-rater reliability, and the data cataloguing steps required for this work. During this session, survey team leaders also were trained on survey management tasks such as status reporting, interacting with police department personnel, and supervising surveyors. The survey training consisted of: 1. A high-level overview of the purpose of the Washington, DC study. The intent of this portion of the training was to provide surveyors with a basic understanding of the importance of the study and the critical role that they would play in the study. 2. An explanation of the survey method, schedule, and roles. Additionally, the survey procedures were diagrammed and reviewed. The intent of this portion of the training was to provide surveyors with a basic understanding of how the survey would be conducted. 3. Hands-on practice in the field in which surveyors practiced on location, using the actual data sheets developed for the survey. During this portion of the training, guidance was provided on data capture, review, and feedback to surveyors on the methods and tips for positioning and data recording. Surveyor data sheets were reviewed, and feedback was provided on performance. The intent of this portion of the training was to provide surveyors a chance to practice in a “consequence-free” environment before conducting the actual survey. Inter-rater reliability coefficients Fall 2006 30 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department were computed to ensure that surveyors were trained to criterion20. 4. Dry run-throughs with team leads and with surveyors. The run-throughs served to assist surveyors in determining driving routes, driving timing, break timing, and survey protocol. The intent of the run-throughs was to ensure that surveyors would hit the ground running during surveying. Motorist Benchmarks “Motorist Benchmarks” refer to the capture of racial and ethnic data of motorists traveling the roadways. Teams of two surveyors visually identify and record the racial and ethnic composition of motorists traveling at the location surveyed. Most survey locations have four survey directions—North, South, East and West. Each surveyor surveys one lane of traffic at a time for one direction. After surveying the lanes in the first two directions, the surveyors move to survey the third and fourth directions. During site review, traffic estimates were developed for the number of cars traveling through each location. Estimates are adjusted for time of day (increased during off-peak hours, decreased during rush hour, etc.) The goal is to capture enough observations at each location to conduct a meaningful analysis. Pedestrian Benchmarks “Pedestrian Benchmarks” refer to the capture of racial and ethnic data for pedestrians traveling in specific areas. Similar to motorist surveys, teams of two surveyors visually identified and recorded the racial and ethnic composition of pedestrians traveling at the four intersection points of the locations surveyed. Pedestrian populations differ from motorist populations in that motorists travel in one direction and in a direction necessitated by the 20 A minimum inter-rater reliability coefficient (i.e., the percent of agreement between 2 surveyors observing the same car at the same time) of .80 was used as this criterion. This is a commonly accepted standard in social science research. Fall 2006 31 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department roadway. Pedestrians are not restricted by traffic lanes and can walk in any direction. To accommodate for this, we divided benchmarking locations into sections within a grid. Race and ethnicity were recorded for individuals entering sections within the grid. Surveyors monitored each section within the grid according to a pre-determined schedule. The fifth pedestrian location, the 2100 Blk Alabama Ave SE, is primarily made up of a strip mall that includes a liquor store, a fried chicken restaurant, and a convenience store. Consistent with the methodology utilized in other places where a location consists of an area greater than an intersection, surveyors made their observations from a slowly moving vehicle. The procedure was for the vehicle to pass the strip mall with the surveyors enumerating the pedestrians in the strip mall, then to wait for 10 minutes before again driving past the mall and enumerating pedestrians. In all, four passes were made of the mall at approximately 10-minute intervals for each of the eight surveying sessions. Violator Surveys Egregious violator surveys were conducted to determine the racial/ethnic makeup of violators within the city. These surveys were conducted using red light cameras and stationary photo radar cameras. We incorporated photo radar guns to measure speeding and specifically egregious speeding, which is defined as 11 miles an hour or greater over the posted speed limit. A team of two surveyors was used. One surveyor observes the vehicles that the photo radar captures for citation (by observing the camera flash created when a violator is photographed), noting the race/ethnicity of the driver. The second surveyor captures the license plate number and time so that the speeding record can be isolated. These teams were also used to capture the traveling Fall 2006 32 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department populations by identifying the race and ethnicity of all motorists during a specified time period of the same surveying sessions at the same locations. Fall 2006 33 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Benchmarking Locations The following table provides the traffic locations surveyed. The district and surveying parameters have been identified for each location. Team 1 Northbound Road 1. Georgia Ave NW & Longfellow St NW 2. Georgia Ave NW and Shepherd St NW 3. 11th St NW & Park Rd NW 4. 2700 Blk 13th St NW 5. 17th St NW & Euclid St NW 4 4 3 3 3 Georgia Georgia 11th 13th 17th Team 2 District 1. Wisconsin Ave NW & M St NW 2. 1st St NW & Channing St NW 3. 1st St NW & R St NW 4. 1st St NW & M Street NW 5. 14th St NE & Saratoga Ave NE 2 5 5 1 5 Wisconsin 1st 1st 1st 14th Team 3 Intersection 1. Montello St NE & Neal St NE 2. 21st St NE & Maryland Ave NE 3. 400 17th St NE 4. 5300 Blk Clay Ter NE 5. 200 Blk Division Ave NE 5 5 1 6 6 Montello 21st 17th 53rd Division Team 4 Tm 1. 2600 Blk Stanton Rd SE 2. 3200 Blk 23rd St SE 3. Alabama Ave SE & Ainger Pl SE 4. Alabama & F St. SE 60 5. 4th St SE & Chesapeake SE 7 7 7 7 6 Douglass 23rd Alabama Alabama 4th Int Survey Survey Minutes Mins/Lane 30 45 40 30 60 205 36 45 48 30 30 189 60 60 30 60 40 250 60 45 25 60 30 220 Survey Lanes 10 15 20 30 30 N 2 2 1 1 1 S 2 2 1 1 1 E 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 W 1 1 1 N/A 1 9 30(15) 24 15 10 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 N/A 1 1 1 30 30 7.5(15) 60 40 60 7.5(15) 12.5 30 30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 2 1 1 Count all cars regardless of road they are on 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 1 1 N/A 2 2 1 1 1 2 N/A 1 N/A 1 2 N/A 1 N/A The following table provides traffic locations that were surveyed for red light, photo radar, and pedestrian surveying. The district and surveying parameters have been identified for each location. Fall 2006 34 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Team 4 Team 3 Team 2 Team 1 Tm Intersection 1. 4th St SE & Chesapeake SE 2. 17th St NW & Euclid St NW 3. 21st St NE & Maryland Ave NE 4.2100 Alabama Ave SE 5. Wisconsin and M Street NW Pedestrian Surveying 1. 4700 Blk MacArthur Blvd NW 2. 3rd St NW & Mass. Ave NW 3. 100 Blk Michigan Ave NE 4. 5400 Blk 16th St NW 5. 600 New York Ave NE W/B Photo-radar Surveying 1. 4700 Blk MacArthur Blvd NW 2. 3rd St NW & Mass. Ave NW 3. 100 Blk Michigan Ave NE 4. 5400 Blk 16th St NW 5. 600 New York Ave NE W/B Photo-radar Surveying 1. NY Ave NW W/B & 4th St NW 2. Rhode Island Ave NE W/B & Reed St NE 3. M St NW W/B & Whitehurst Frwy NW 4. NY Ave NE W/B & Montana Ave NE 5. South Capital St Ramp S/B before I St District 7 3 5 7 2 1 5 5 1 5 5 1 5 5 1 Northbound Road Int Survey Survey Minutes Mins/Lane 4th Street 17th Street 21st Street Alabama Wisconsin MacArthur Blvd 3rd Street Michigan 16th Street N/A MacArthur Blvd 3rd Street Michigan 16th Street N/A 4th Street Reed Whitehurst Fwy Montana Ave Capitol St. Ramp Red Light Camera Surveying 50 50 50 48 30 228 55 55 55 55 55 275 55 55 55 55 55 275 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 7.5 97.5 Survey Lanes 50 50 50 8 7.5 N 1 1 1 N/A 1 S 1 1 1 1 1 E 1 1 1 N/A 1 W 1 1 1 N/A 1 *5/45 *5/45 *5/45 *5/45 *5/45 N/A 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A N/A 2/3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 *5/45 *5/45 *5/45 *5/45 *5/45 N/A 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A N/A 2/3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 2/3 3 3 2 N/A 2 2 2 3 N/A Notes: * 5/45 - 5 mins surveying each lane for population. 45 minutes surveying for violators captured by photo-radar. Benchmarking Schedule Traffic Schedule Construction Traffic surveying was conducted in 6-hour time blocks. Time blocks were divided into four segments per day – 1) midnight to 6am, 2) 6am to noon, 3) noon to 6pm, and 4) 6pm to midnight. There are fifty-six 6-hour blocks in every 2 weeks (four 6-hour blocks per day, 14 days over 2 weeks.) Each location surveyed was visited eight times. One team can survey five locations across a 2-week time period. Four survey teams were used. Pedestrian and Violator Schedules Pedestrians Pedestrian surveys typically differ from traffic surveys in that normally pedestrians are not out on the streets 24 hours a day. To accurately survey pedestrian activity, it was necessary to tailor the survey times to the times of highest pedestrian and police activity. Therefore, we Fall 2006 35 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department selected times for surveying that corresponded with the highest number of pedestrian stops. This means that surveying was conducted between the hours of 5pm and 1am. Each shift began between 5pm and 7pm and lasted from 11pm to 1am accordingly. Each survey location was visited eight times. One team was used across a 2-week time period to survey the five chosen pedestrian locations. Violators There are two types of violator surveys that we conducted. First, we surveyed five red light camera intersections. Similar to traffic surveys, time blocks were divided into four segments per day – 1) midnight to 6am, 2) 6am to noon, 3) noon to 6pm, and 4) 6pm to midnight. There are fifty-six 6-hour blocks in every two weeks (four 6-hour blocks per day, 14 days over 2 weeks.) Each location surveyed was visited eight times. One team was used to survey the five chosen red light cameras. Secondly, we surveyed the activity of stationary photo radar cameras. Five stationary photo-radar camera locations were chosen to survey. Because surveying of this nature involves observing and recording speeding vehicles as determined by the flash of the photo radar cameras, this surveying cannot be conducted at night. Surveying was conducted in two shifts, one beginning at 6:30 am and lasting until 12:30pm, and the second shift beginning at 11:30am and lasting until 5:30pm. Because there would be a smaller volume of captured violators, each location surveyed was visited 16 times. Traffic surveying was also conducted at each of these locations to measure the traveling population. Two teams were used to conduct this surveying. Fall 2006 36 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Benchmarking Schedule On the following pages, the schedule for conducting benchmarking is provided. Two schedules have been included. The first schedule corresponds to the traffic surveying locations and was conducted from November 8 through November 21. The second schedule corresponds to red light, photo radar and pedestrian surveying and was conducted from December 2 through December 15. Note that due to inclement weather or surveyor no-shows, some makeup sessions were required. The makeup dates are presented following the initial benchmarking schedules. Fall 2006 37 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Traffic Surveying (November 8 – November 21) Time Tue 11/8 Wed 11/9 Thur 11/10 Week 1 Fri 11/11 Sat 11/12 Sun 11/13 Mon 11/14 Tue 11/15 Wed 11/16 Thur 11/17 Week 1 Fri 11/18 Sat 11/19 Sun 11/20 Mon 11/21 Midnight to 6:00 AM 6:00 AM to 12 Noon 12 Noon to 6:00 PM 6:00 PM to Midnight Team 1 1. Georgia Ave NW & Longfellow St NW 2. Georgia Ave NW and Shepherd St NW 3. 11th St NW & Park Rd NW 4. 2700 Blk 13th St NW 5. 17th St NW & Euclid St NW Team 2 Team 3 1. Wisconsin Ave NW & M St NW 2. 1st St NW & Channing St NW 3. 1st St NW & R St NW 4. 1st St NW & M Street NW 5. 14th St NE & Saratoga Ave NE 1. Montello St NE & Neal St NE 2. 21st St NE & Maryland Ave NE 3. 400 17th St NE 4. 5300 Blk Clay Ter NE 5. 200 Blk Division Ave NE Team 4 1. 2600 Blk Stanton Rd SE 2. 3200 Blk 23rd St SE 3. Alabama Ave SE & Ainger Pl SE 4. Alabama & F St. SE 60 5. 4th St SE & Chesapeake SE Notes: 1. 1st session for each team starts with intersection 1 2. 2nd session for each team starts with intersection 2 3. Each subsequent session start begins with the next intersection in order Fall 2006 38 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Pedestrian, Red Light and Photo Radar Surveying (December 2 through December 15) Time Fri 12/2 Sat 12/3 Sun 12/4 Week 1 Mon Tues 12/5 12/6 Wed 12/7 Thurs 12/8 Fri 12/9 Sat 12/10 Sun 12/11 Week 1 Mon Tues 12/12 12/13 Weds 12/14 Thurs 12/15 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 Team 1 Pedestrian 1. 4th St SE & Chesapeake SE 2. 17th St NW & Euclid St NW 3. 21st St NE & Maryland Ave NE 4.2100 Alabama Ave SE 5. Wisconsin and M Street NW Team 2 Photo-radar 1. 4700 Blk MacArthur Blvd NW 2. 3rd St NW & Mass. Ave NW 3. 100 Blk Michigan Ave NE 4. 5400 Blk 16th St NW 5. 600 New York Ave NE W/B Team 3 Photo-radar 1. 4700 Blk MacArthur Blvd NW 2. 3rd St NW & Mass. Ave NW 3. 100 Blk Michigan Ave NE 4. 5400 Blk 16th St NW 5. 600 New York Ave NE W/B Team 4 Red Light Cameras 1. NY Ave NW W/B & 4th St NW 2. Rhode Island Ave NE W/B & Reed St NE 3. M St NW W/B & Whitehurst Frwy NW 4. NY Ave NE W/B & Montana Ave NE 5. South Capital St Ramp S/B before I St Notes: 1. 1st session for each team starts with intersection 1 2. 2nd session for each team starts with intersection 2 3. Each subsequent session start begins with the next intersection in order Fall 2006 39 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Makeup Dates Due to inclement weather or logistical issues, some survey dates were rescheduled. Rescheduled dates were conducted during the same day of the week as the originally scheduled session, and surveying was conducted in the same time slot. A list of makeup dates is provided below in the following table. Table 5. Makeup dates for Schedule 1 (November 8 through November 21 Date 11/11/05 11/17/05 Team 2 3 Time 6pm-Midnight 12 Noon-6pm Makeup Date 11/18/05 12/8/05 Table 6. Makeup dates for Schedule 2 (December 2 through December 15) Date 12/3/0521 12/6/0522 12/6/05 12/8/05 12/9/05 12/10/05 12/12/05 12/15/05 12/15/05 Team 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 4 1 Time 6:30am-12:30pm 6:30am-12:30pm 7pm-1am 7pm-1am 11:30am-5:30pm 6:30am-12:30pm 5pm-11pm 6pm-Midnight 7pm-1am 21 Makeup for 600 New York Avenue NE location only. 22 Makeup for 100 Blk Michigan Ave NE only. Fall 2006 40 Make up Date 01/28/06 01/24/06 12/20/05 12/22/05 01/20/06 01/21/06 01/23/06 01/19/06 01/19/06 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department RESULTS Traffic-Race The race of each motorist stopped by MPD was recorded based on the perception of the officer. That is, officers do not ask the motorist to indicate his/her race when the stop occurs. This makes sense for at least two reasons. First, if an officer is targeting motorists based on race, then that targeting occurs based on the perception of the officer. For example, in most instances, prior to the time the stop is made, all the officer knows about the race of the motorist is based upon that officer’s perception. The second reason that officers do not ask for the race of the motorist is that in an already tense situation, it is generally agreed that officers should not potentially intensify the situation by asking the motorist what his/her race is. The stop data for all of the stops in this study were captured by MPD via the PD 76 form23. Over the course of this study, MPD required officers to fill out PD 76s for each stop. While MPD has used this form to collect data for several reasons, compliance was required during the course of the study. Indeed, compliance went up as the study progressed so that by the end of the study, there were more than twice as many PD 76s turned in as there were at the beginning at the 20 benchmarked locations for traffic. 23 An important measure in determining the quality of data is the amount of missing data found when the data from the PD 76s are considered. Overall, there were 77,966 PD 76s accumulated during the year of the study. For our purposes, there are three or four crucial variables: type of stop, location, and race of the individual stopped. There were 2,783 PD 76s that did not have one of these variables entered. This means that there was 3.6% missing data in the database for the crucial variables. Additionally, 0.7% of the entries indicated that the officer could not determine the race of the individual. The fact that the officer cannot determine the race/ethnicity of an individual is not the same issue as missing data, but we provide it for the sake of completeness. Finally, the time of the pedestrian stops was important, and 1.8% of those data did not have the time. This means that 96.4% (95.7% if unknowns are included) of the data from traffic stops were useable. Additionally, 94 to 95% (depending upon whether unknowns are included) of pedestrian data were useable. This is a low level of missing data. Fall 2006 41 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department One concern is whether the race information collected was materially different early in the study than later because of increased compliance. However, the data do not support this concern. Overall, 72.8% of the stops at the 20 benchmarked traffic locations were of Black motorists. The month with the highest Black motorist stops was July, 81.5%, and the month with the fewest Black motorist stops was August, when 63.6% of the motorists stopped were Black. In other words, the increased compliance efforts by MPD seemed to have little or no effect on the racial composition of those stopped at the locations benchmarked. During the course of the study, 27,544 traffic stops were made by MPD. The benchmarked locations were selected on the basis of stops known to have occurred from February to May. One of the criteria used to select these locations was the number of stops at each one. Note that it is always possible that police stopping patterns will change for one reason or another over time. Thus, it is always possible that one or more of the benchmarked locations will have fewer minority stops than expected based upon original estimates. This means that it is possible that one or more locations will have so few minority stops during surveying that the data for that location(s) will not be sufficient for purposes of analysis. Our target for stops at any location is generally 100 stops over the course of the year. Of course, the more crucial number is the number of minority stops at a given location. Again, speaking in generalities, Lamberth Consulting prefers to see at least 20 minority stops at each location. While this is not always possible, for Black motorists we achieved 20 minority stops at all 20 benchmarked locations, even though one location did not reach 100 stops. There were 10,318 stops at the 20 benchmarked locations, or 37.5% of the total number of traffic stops made by MPD. This is a relatively high percentage of the total number of traffic Fall 2006 42 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department stops when one considers that the City of Washington, DC has approximately 68 square miles in its city limits. The logic of the methodology utilized for this study and other studies that Lamberth Consulting has conducted is that specific areas of high police activity were identified and then the traffic at those locations was benchmarked. The race/ethnicity of those motorists in the traffic stream was then compared to the race/ethnicity of motorists who are stopped by the MPD. This apples-to-apples comparison is the best one to make in determining whether a police department is targeting one or more minority groups and allows for a series of analyses, one for each race/ethnicity, at each specific area. Consider some of the advantages of conducting this type of analysis:  Only stops in the specific location are compared to the benchmark at that location. This means that officer stops are compared to the traffic stream at the location in which the stop was made.  This method controls for differing officer deployment patterns. In studies where greater geographic generalizations are used, higher or lower officer deployment (resulting in more or fewer officer stops) may interfere with overall results.  Since time of day and day of week are randomly selected, the survey can be generalized to the entire driving or pedestrian population. However, because we notate the times at which surveying occurs, we can detect changes in traffic patterns from, for example, lunchtime and the evening hours. This enables a more accurate comparison of stops made at different times of day to the benchmarks (if they change) from day to night.  Other data elements used by some researchers are made moot using this method. Information such as crime activity and calls for service are controlled for because we account for deployment patterns and because we exclude calls for service.  We find this method direct, elegant, and simple to communicate to individuals concerned about these issues. Fall 2006 43 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department There were 20 locations identified in Washington, DC, based on police activity that was benchmarked. The results of these 20 analyses are contained in Table 7. Fall 2006 44 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Table 7. Traffic-Race Analysis # Location 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 4th St SE & Chesapeake SE 1st St NW & M Street NW Alabama Ave SE & Ainger Pl SE 17th St NW & Euclid St NW 5300 Blk Clay Ter NE Georgia Ave NW & Longfellow St NW Georgia Ave NW and Shepherd St NW Alabama Ave SE & F St SE 3200 Blk 23rd St SE 1st St NW & Channing St NW 2700 Blk 13th St NW 200 Blk Division Ave NE 400 17th St NE 14th St NE & Saratoga Ave NE 2600 Blk Stanton Rd SE Montello St NE & Neal St NE 11th St NW & Park Rd NW 1st St NW & R St NW Wisconsin Ave NW & M St NW 21st St NE & Maryland Ave NE Bench N 1046 1338 1845 918 249 1590 Bench Black % 95.6 69.8 95.0 35.5 96.8 59.8 Stop N 348 889 504 316 363 543 Stop Black % 94.8 74.1 93.7 42.7 91.2 58.4 Diff 24 % -0.8 +4.3 -1.3 +7.2 -5.6 -1.4 Odds Ratio 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.5 0.3 1.0 2403 67.6 837 67.3 -0.3 1.0 304 1750 2131 2225 1194 455 246 762 467 1087 1518 2773 788 96.1 91.8 66.7 50.4 93.6 92.3 95.5 93.7 91.9 53.2 72.9 27.3 94.2 386 1134 228 281 74 638 420 316 427 722 398 968 339 93.5 94.7 75.4 61.9 93.2 88.7 84.3 94.0 79.9 58.7 81.2 27.8 83.5 -2.6 +2.9 +8.7 +11.5 -0.4 -3.6 -11.2 +0.3 -12.0 +5.5 +8.3 +0.5 -10.7 0.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 0.9 0.7 0.3 1.1 0.4 1.3 1.6 1.0 0.3 Table 7 and the following tables that provide data on benchmark and stop data should be considered with the following information. The first column gives the benchmark and stop location. Each location includes stops within a quarter of a square mile in each direction (generally about three blocks) with the named intersection being the center of the polygon. The second column gives the number of vehicles enumerated during the eight benchmarking sessions conducted, while the third column provides the percentage of minority motorists enumerated at that location during the benchmarking. The fourth column provides the number of MPD stops at that location, with the fifth column providing the percentage of minority motorists stopped. The sixth column is arrived at by subtracting the percentage of minority 24 The difference is the percentage of the minority stopped subtracted from the percentage of the minority enumerated in the benchmark. A negative number means that there are fewer minorities stopped than were captured in the benchmark enumeration. Fall 2006 45 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department motorists benchmarked at that location from the percentage of minority motorists stopped at that location. Thus, a negative number in Column 6 means that fewer minority motorists were stopped than would be expected based on the benchmarking. The seventh column is the odds ratio for that particular location. The odds ratio is best understood by filling in the blank in the following sentence: “If you are a Black motorist/pedestrian, you are _____ times as likely to be stopped as if you are not a Black motorist/pedestrian.” If no racial profiling were occurring, all of the ratios would be 1.0. This would mean that Black motorists/pedestrians are no more likely to be stopped than nonminority motorists/pedestrians. Of course, in practice, this rarely occurs, as there is always variability in the data that are collected. Odds ratios between 1.0 and 1.5 generally are seen as benign. Ratios between 1.5 and 2.0 provide an indication that a review of stops in these locations should be conducted by the MPD. Ratios above 2.0 point to the potential targeting of minority motorists, and further action may be required from the agency. The community demographics and inter-rater reliability must be considered, however, when discussing these guidelines. At 9 of the 20 locations, MPD stopped fewer Black motorists than would be expected by the percentage of minority motorists seen in the traffic stream, reflected by odds ratios that were less than 1. At three of the locations, MPD stopped the percentage of minority motorists that would be expected based on the traffic stream, or an odds ratio of 1. At eight of the locations, more Black motorists than would be expected were stopped. These are reflected by odds ratios above 1. Fall 2006 46 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department It is often helpful from a practical point of view to aggregate the data from all locations and provide an overall odds ratio. We provide this aggregate odds ratio but caution that it is for descriptive, not analytic, purposes, as not all statistical assumptions for further statistical tests can be met with these aggregated data. The weighted (by number of stops) odds ratio for the MPD for Black motorists at all 20 traffic locations is 1.0, which is, of course, the theoretically expected value. To describe the data contained in 7, it is possible to use one of several descriptive approaches. Lamberth Consulting has used two. First, we normally describe how many of the odds ratios were below 1, at 1, and above 1 as was done here. In addition we have presented an aggregate odds ratio weighted by the number of stops by the police at each location. In our view, that is the most accurate aggregate description. In addition, it is possible to provide an unweighted odds ratio, which in these data is .975. In response to an earlier version of this report, one of the Community-Police Task Force members suggested that the aggregate odds ratio should be calculated by determining the percentage of minority motorists that would be predicted by the overall percentage of motorists benchmarked compared to the overall percentage of minority motorists stopped. We strongly reject this approach for several reasons: 1. The benchmark should be seen as a way to determine the expected proportion of minority motorists at a specific location. Then the comparison of the actual proportion of stops of minority motorists is determined from the stop data. 2. The data of most concern are the stop data, and to determine an aggregate odds ratio combining the expected percentage with the actual percentage is in error. Fall 2006 47 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 3. The suggested approach, at least in these data, capitalizes on the fact that far fewer vehicles were seen during benchmarking sessions in some of the areas that were heavily African American. The correlation between benchmark sample size and percentage of Black motorists in the sample was (r = - 61, p. <,004). This means that as the percentage of Black motorists increases, the sample size decreases. This, of course, we knew going into the study as there were a number of locations that contained large numbers of Black motorists but had small numbers of vehicles when we planned the benchmarks. We stayed at some of these locations for an hour on each of the eight times they were benchmarked. We have found in the past that while more vehicles will be viewed if we stay more than eight hours, it makes little difference to the racial/ethnic mix of motorists, which is the most crucial data obtained from benchmarking. Traffic-Ethnicity In addition to categorizing motorists with regard to race, ethnicity was examined, specifically for Hispanic motorists. There were far fewer Hispanic motorists noted in the benchmarking at the 20 traffic locations and in the MPD stop data. For example, Hispanics made up 7.9% of motorists benchmarked and approximately 6.7% of the motorists stopped at those locations. The data for Hispanic motorists is found in Table 8 below. Fall 2006 48 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Table 8. Traffic-Ethnicity Analysis # Location 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 4th St SE & Chesapeake SE 1st St NW & M Street NW Alabama Ave SE & Ainger Pl SE 17th St NW & Euclid St NW 5300 Blk Clay Ter NE Georgia Ave NW & Longfellow St NW Georgia Ave NW and Shepherd St NW Alabama Ave SE & F St SE 3200 Blk 23rd St SE 1st St NW & Channing St NW 2700 Blk 13th St NW 200 Blk Division Ave NE 400 17th St NE 14th St NE & Saratoga Ave NE 2600 Blk Stanton Rd SE Montello St NE & Neal St NE 11th St NW & Park Rd NW 1st St NW & R St NW Wisconsin Ave NW & M St NW 21st St NE & Maryland Ave NE Bench N 1046 1338 1845 918 249 1590 Bench Hisp. % 1.8 6.8 1.6 23.1 1.6 15.1 Stop N 348 889 504 316 363 543 Stop Hisp. % 0.6 4.4 0.8 15.2 0.6 22.1 Diff % +1.2 -2.4 -0.8 -7.9 -1.0 +7.0 Odds Ratio25 N/A .6 N/A .6 N/A 1.6 2403 10.4 837 16.7 +6.3 1.7 304 1750 2131 2225 2.0 3.6 6.3 17.3 386 1134 228 281 0.8 0.8 6.1 12.1 -1.2 -2.8 -0.2 -5.2 N/A N/A N/A .7 1194 455 246 762 467 1087 1518 2773 788 3.1 3.7 3.3 1.6 3.9 20.5 5.7 5.7 2.7 74 638 420 316 427 722 398 968 339 2.7 0.8 4.3 0.0 2.1 18.8 2.8 8.6 1.8 -0.4 -2.9 +1.0 -1.6 -1.8 -1.7 -2.9 +2.9 -0.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A .9 N/A 1.6 N/A As can be seen by an inspection of Table 8, there are 16 locations where fewer Hispanic motorists were stopped than were in the traffic stream and 4 where there were more Hispanic motorists stopped than were in the traffic stream. There are, however, only seven locations where there were enough Hispanic motorists stopped to analyze the data. In those seven locations, four of them show that there are fewer Hispanic motorists stopped relative to the benchmark of Hispanic motorists at that location, and three of them show more Hispanic motorists stopped at that location than would be expected on the basis of the benchmark. 25 Where there are too few stops of any minority, Lamberth Consulting does not analyze that particular location. While there is no hard and fast minimum number of minority stops that determine when the data should be analyzed, our strategy is to provide the analysis for each location only if there are 20 or more stops of minorities. Fall 2006 49 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department The overall odds ratio, provided only for descriptive purposes, for the seven locations analyzed above is 1.1. If, however, we compute the odds ratio for all 20 locations, we find that it is 0.9. The odds ratios for both Black and Hispanic motorists are what is expected theoretically if there is no evidence of racial or ethnic targeting. Pedestrians-Race There were five locations selected on the basis of police activity to benchmark for pedestrian stops. After reviewing the data available when these locations were selected, it was determined that the majority of stops of pedestrians occurred in the late afternoon until the early morning hours. Therefore, benchmarking was limited to 5pm to 1am, as were the stops analyzed. On eight separate occasions, surveyors returned to each location to observe pedestrian traffic. At four of the locations, both traffic and pedestrians were benchmarked. The pedestrian benchmarking sessions were conducted at different times than were the traffic benchmarking sessions and are separate from them. The comparison of Black pedestrians benchmarked to Black pedestrians stopped is contained in Table 9. At one location, Wisconsin Ave NW & M St NW, the percentage of Black motorists in the traffic stream is more than double the percentage of Black pedestrians. Fall 2006 50 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Table 9. Pedestrian-Race Analysis # Location 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4th St SE & Chesapeake SE 17th St NW & Euclid St NW 21st St NE & Maryland Ave NE 2100 Alabama Ave SE Wisconsin and M Street NW 26 Bench N 223 848 429 310 1765 Bench Black % 100.0 40.9 99.8 99.4 13.3 Stop N 176 49 162 302 7727 Stop Black % 90.9 55.1 94.4 95.4 46.8 Diff % -8.9 +14.2 -5.8 -4.5 +33.5 Odds Ratio N/A 1.8 N/A N/A 5.8 The results show that the unweighted odds ratio of stops of Black pedestrians is 1.6. However, the pattern that is seen in these data suggests that there are two different sets of results. In the areas where the benchmark shows an overwhelming percentage of Black pedestrians, there appears to be under-stopping of Black pedestrians. In these locations, there is no evidence of over-stopping of any racial/ethnic group28. In the locations where Black pedestrians are not in the majority, there is an over-stopping of Black pedestrians. The stops of Black pedestrians at 17th St NW & Euclid St NW are in the region where we recommend that the department conduct a review of these stops. 26 Because the random selection of times and travel time for Wisconsin and M did not include benchmarking at 1700 and 1800, the stops analyzed were from 1900 to 0100. 27 There were nine stops at Wisconsin Ave NW & M St NW that were of such low discretion that Lamberth Consulting suggested that they be omitted, with appropriate explanation for why they were omitted. MPD decided that to be consistent with other locations, they should be included. Three were of pedestrians who were arrested and six for violating the District’s panhandling ordinance. All of these individuals were Black, meaning that if these stops had been omitted, the odds ratio would have been lower, although the odds ratio would have still indicated targeting of Black pedestrians. 28 In response to an earlier version of this report, it was suggested that we not report an odds ratio for the three areas where there is an overwhelming number of Black pedestrians in the benchmark data. That suggestion has been adopted. A question was also raised with regard to the three areas where Black pedestrians were overwhelmingly present: are meaningful analyses possible at these three locations because the benchmark percentages are so high? One important element in racial profiling is the inherent notion that someone of any race/ethnicity may be stopped because they “do not belong” in the area where they are. This often manifests itself in a Black individual being in an area that is overwhelming White. However, it can also manifest itself in a white/Hispanic/Asian individual being in an area that is overwhelmingly Black. First, it is apparent that there are not enough individuals of any one race/ethnicity stopped at any of the three locations to analyze. Secondly, it is apparent that Asians, Whites and Hispanics were stopped at these three locations in roughly equal percentages. Thus, there is no apparent evidence that some race/ethnicity is being targeted in these three areas. Fall 2006 51 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department In determining the size of the polygon surrounding 17th St NW & Euclid St NW, Lamberth Consulting felt that a perimeter that went out .25 miles was too large, as it crossed over Columbia Road and took in some areas that were clearly different from 17th & Euclid, both in population and in usage. The odds ratio for Black pedestrians at Wisconsin Ave NW & M St NW is clearly in the range that indicates targeting of Black pedestrians, absent some explanation from the department. At Wisconsin Ave NW & M St NW, Lamberth Consulting also utilized a reduced-size polygon because the area usage changes from commercial to residential within a block or two from that intersection. As it turned out, the stops within both the larger and the smaller polygons were substantially the same with regard to race/ethnicity. The polygons at the other three pedestrian locations were maintained at the .25 mile area because the areas around those locations appeared to be much more homogeneous with regard to population and function. Pedestrians-Ethnicity At four of the locations benchmarked, there were too few Hispanic pedestrians stopped to analyze the data. There were no Hispanic pedestrians stopped at 2100 Alabama and four or five Hispanic pedestrians stopped at three other locations. Only at 17th St NW & Euclid St NW were there a relatively large number of Hispanic pedestrians stopped. This is not surprising as there were more than 14 times as many stops of Black pedestrians as there were of Hispanic pedestrians throughout the city. Fall 2006 52 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Table 10. Pedestrian-Ethnicity Analysis # Location Bench N th 1. 4 St SE & Chesapeake SE 223 2. 17th St NW & Euclid St NW 848 429 3. 21st St NE & Maryland Ave NE 4. 2100 Alabama Ave SE 310 5. Wisconsin and M Street NW 30 1765 Bench Hisp. % 0.0 13.6 0.2 Stop N 176 5229 162 Stop Hisp. % 2.2 (4) 24.4 2.4 (4) Diff % + 2.2 +10.8 + 2.2 Odds Ratio N/A 2.0 N/A 0.0 2.9 302 108 0.0 3.8 (5) 0 + 0.9 N/A N/A The stops of Hispanic pedestrians at 17th St NW & Euclid St NW are in the range where we recommend that the department conduct a review of stops in that area. Photo Radar-Race There were five locations where permanent photo radar positions were benchmarked with respect to traffic. In addition, surveyors determined the race/ethnicity of the driver of the vehicle when the photo radar camera detected a violation. The benchmarking and the observation of violators were done in the same session; thus, the violations observed occurred during the same time of day as the benchmarking. During the time that the surveyors were in place, there were 642 violations observed at the five locations. In 10.4% (67) of the cases, the surveyors could not successfully identify the race/ethnicity of the driver. While this is higher than the normal percentage of unknowns, 37% of the unknowns occurred at 3rd St NW & Massachusetts Ave NW, the location with the highest posted speed limit. It should be noted that the surveyors had a relatively difficult task. They positioned themselves so that they could 29 There were two individuals who were arrested and two individuals who were panhandling. As these were low discretion stops, Lamberth Consulting recommended that they not be included in the analysis with appropriate notation that they had been removed. MPD decided for the sake of consistency with other locations that they be included. The odds ratio for Hispanic pedestrians would have been somewhat lower with those stops omitted. Both of the individuals arrested were Hispanic; one of the panhandlers was Black and the other was White. The number of Hispanic pedestrians stopped is below the number generally used to indicate that there are too few stops to analyze. However, the stops of Hispanic pedestrians in the larger perimeter area were quite similar to the percentage of stops in the smaller area, and thus this analysis is presented. 30 Because the random selection of times and travel time for Wisconsin and M did not include benchmarking at 1700 and 1800, the stops analyzed were from 1900 to 0100. Fall 2006 53 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department observe the flash of the photo radar camera, and then they had to determine the race/ethnicity of the driver of the vehicle that was violating the speed law. At 3rd St NW & Massachusetts Ave NW, the posted speed limit is 45 mph. Therefore, the vehicle was traveling at a minimum speed of 56 mph to be targeted by the photo radar camera. Even at this location, there were less than 15% unknowns. The data for the photo radar locations with respect to Black motorists is shown in Table 11. Table 11. Photo Radar Cameras for Black Motorists # Location Bench Bench N Black % 444 55.4 1. 100 Blk Michigan Ave NE rd 873 47.9 3 St NW & Massachusetts 2. Ave NW 14.7 3. 4700 Blk MacArthur Blvd NW 409 th 5400 Blk 16 St NW 914 38.9 4. 1585 51.1 5. 600 New York Ave NE W/B Viol N 125 143 Viol Black % 47.2 32.9 Diff % - 8.2 -15.0 Odds Ratio .72 .53 133 52 124 11.3 34.6 45.2 - 3.4 - 4.3 - 5.9 .74 .83 .79 There were two purposes for the benchmarking of motorists at the photo radar locations. First, a better understanding of violations by racial/ethnic group would help sharpen our analysis of whether one or another group was being stopped more than would be expected. The logic here is that if one racial/ethnic group were more egregiously violating one or more traffic laws, it would allow us to use this information in our final determination of whether some group was being targeted. The second reason was to explore the contention that one reason for the over-stopping of minority motorists is that they more egregiously violate traffic laws than do nonminorities. An inspection of Table 11 indicates, at least at these locations in Washington, DC and for 11 miles an hour and above over the speed limit, Black motorists are less likely to be violating speed laws than would be expected given the motorist population. Fall 2006 54 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department The results for Hispanic motorists with respect to photo radar violations are shown in Table 12. Table 12. Photo Radar Cameras for Hispanic Motorists # Location Bench Bench N Hisp. % 444 6.8 1. 100 Blk Michigan Ave NE rd 873 8.5 3 St NW & Massachusetts 2. Ave NW 5.4 3. 4700 Blk MacArthur Blvd NW 409 5400 Blk 16th St NW 914 9.6 4. 1585 8.3 5. 600 New York Ave NE W/B Viol N 125 143 Viol Hisp. % 3.2 4.9 Diff % - 3.6 - 3.6 Odds Ratio N/A N/A 133 52 124 3.8 13.4 8.9 - 1.6 +3.8 +0.6 N/A N/A N/A At three of the five locations, Hispanics were underrepresented among the violators and were overrepresented at two of the locations. There were, however too few Hispanic violators at all of the locations to provide odds ratios. Over all the locations, 8.2% of the benchmarked traffic was Hispanics. This would mean that there would be an expected 47 Hispanic motorists captured violating speed laws at 11 mph above the speed limit. In actuality, 34 Hispanic motorists were observed violating by the photo radar cameras during the observation periods, which indicates, as with Black motorists, that Hispanic motorists are somewhat less likely to violate the speed laws at these locations by 11 mph and above than would be expected based upon their presence in the transient population. Fall 2006 55 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department CONCLUSIONS While we have not reported any data by location of stops by gender, because it was not called for in the contract, it should at least be noted that at the 20 locations benchmarked, 64.4% of drivers were male and 35.6% were female. At these same locations, 67.4% of the stops were of males and 32.1% were of females. This suggests that MPD is not targeting either gender. The results for traffic stops made by MPD at the 20 locations benchmarked are, by any measure, indicative of what both police and the community would hope for—no evidence of profiling. In the work that Lamberth Consulting has done around the country, there is only one other Police Department that has had an odds ratio of 1, and that was only for Hispanic motorists. There were insufficient stops of Black motorists by that other agency to analyze the data. MPD's stops of both Black and Hispanic motorists showed an odds ratio of 1. Lamberth Consulting was asked by one of the Community-Police Task Force members why odds ratios of 1 to 1.5 were seen as benign. The statistical answer to that question has to do with the standard error of the odds ratio, which is sufficiently large that with the sample sizes normally seen in racial profiling studies, the differences below an odds ratio of 1.5 do not reach statistical significance for smaller differences in odds ratios. There are, however, practical reasons why minority motorists may be stopped somewhat more frequently than nonminority motorists. Some of these may have to do with police activity. That is, there may be specific activities of the police that either end with more or fewer minorities being stopped. To name but two reasons why minority motorists may be more likely to be stopped, poor motorists generally find it more challenging to keep their vehicles in good repair than do more affluent motorists and can be stopped at higher rates for equipment malfunctions. Because minorities are often Fall 2006 56 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department overrepresented in the lower socioeconomic strata of the country, their equipment violations may account for higher than expected stops of minorities. Additionally, studies have shown that Black motorists, particularly young Black and Hispanic motorists, wear seat belts less frequently than do other groups31. Therefore, variations in the percentages of Black motorists stopped can be expected at specific locations. However, none of the variations of odds ratios shown in the distribution in Table 5, which provides the comparisons of benchmarks at the 20 traffic locations and stops at those locations, reach statistical significance. The MPD is to be congratulated for their evenhandedness in enforcing the traffic laws at the 20 locations benchmarked within the District of Columbia. The situation with regards to pedestrians is not so favorable. In areas where there are a majority of Black pedestrians, there is no evidence of targeting of any racial/ethnic group. In the three locations where Black pedestrians made up between 99 and 100 percent of the pedestrians, there could not be an over-stopping of Black pedestrians, nor were there enough stops of any other race/ethnicity to analyze. However in the 17th St NW & Euclid St NW location, where Black and Hispanic pedestrians make up about half of the pedestrian population, the odds ratio with respect to Black pedestrians is 1.8, a level at which we recommend that MPD may wish to scrutinize the situation. The odds ratio for Hispanic pedestrians is 2.0, which indicates that the Police Department should scrutinize the situation. 31 Denger, R.L., et al. “1990 Observational Study of Seat Belt Usage in Florida” Bureau of Public Safety Management. Available at : http://agmarketing.ifas.ufl.edu/pubs/1990s/Seatbelt.pdf “2005 Summary of Massachusetts Statewide Seat Belt Use”. Massachusetts Traffic Safety Research Program. Available at http://www.ecs.umass.edu/umasssafe/PDFS%20for%20Site/Occupant%20Protection/2005STATEWIDESAFETY BELTSTUDY.pdf. Fall 2006 57 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department The greatest disparity for pedestrian stops occurs at Wisconsin St NW & M St NW, where the pedestrian population is made up of over 70% Whites. The odds ratio for the stops of Black pedestrians is 5.8. An odds ratio of this magnitude is difficult to explain absent targeting of African American pedestrians. Lamberth Consulting consulted with MPD when it became evident that there were odds ratios that indicated targeting or close to targeting of Black pedestrians at two locations and targeting of Hispanic pedestrians at one location. After extensive reviews of the data, every PD 76 card for both 17th St NW & Euclid St NW and Wisconsin Ave NW & M St NW was pulled and scrutinized. There were a small number of duplicate entries, as well as a small number of entries that were miscoded during the data entry of the PD 76s. These were eliminated, and the data presented are as accurate as possible. Other possibilities than the targeting of minorities were considered and eliminated as reasons for the stops. These included: 1. Temporal patterns considered as possible explanations for the racial/ethnic disparities: a. Did the stops occur at any particular time of year? b. Did the stops occur on any particular day of the week? c. Did the stops occur on weekends or weekdays? d. Did the stops occur at any particular time during the late afternoon/evening? 2. Consideration of stops at Wisconsin Ave NW & M St NW by regular versus reserve officers 3. Review of the number of stops that resulted in arrests (only a handful in the final analysis). Fall 2006 58 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 4. Review of the number of stops that came as a result of a directive of the Department or City Ordinance 5. Consideration of reasons for the stops filled in by the officers on the PD 76s that might explain racial/ethnic disparities After this extensive review of the data, there did not seem to be any temporal patterns or any other conclusions that lent themselves to an easy explanation of the disparate stopping at either of these locations. The conclusion that Black pedestrians are being targeted at Wisconsin and M seems to be the most plausible explanation. At 17th & Euclid, it seems possible that Hispanic pedestrians are being targeted and that MPD may also want to evaluate the situation with Black pedestrians. Fall 2006 59 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department RECOMMENDATIONS The data indicate that while traffic stops show no evidence of targeting of Blacks, there is evidence that Blacks are targeted as pedestrians in areas where they do not make up the majority of those pedestrians. This suggests that while the majority of MPD officers do not base enforcement or contact decisions on their subjective view of an individual’s appearance or other characteristics, it is entirely possible that a limited, yet significant number of staff do subscribe to and exercise their discretion in a manner consistent with the definition of racial profiling. In an effort to reduce and eventually eliminate all racial profiling practices, we suggest that MPD conduct the following assessments; 1. MPD should not only collect the stop data from the PD 76 form but should analyze pedestrian data at 17th St NW & Euclid St NW, Wisconsin Ave NW & M St NW and other locations around the city with large numbers of pedestrian stops. The analysis should emphasize locations that have a majority of White pedestrians and/or a minority of Black pedestrians. 2. MPD should monitor stop practices at pedestrian locations that indicate targeting of minorities for an appropriate period of time to measure the effect of changes in practice or policy relative to pedestrian stop practices. 3. MPD should conduct an analysis of searches that are conducted by officers, both of motorists and pedestrians. This analysis should emphasize discretionary searches by officers. Fall 2006 60 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 4. MPD should review operational practices relating to pedestrian contacts to determine alignment with the agencies’ policy regarding non-biased policing. Elements of operational practices to consider include: a. written procedures for initiating pedestrian stops; b. comprehension and compliance for completing PD 76 forms for officers assigned to shifts in which pedestrian stops are made; c. oversight and review practices for PD 76 Form completion; d. communications provided to frontline supervisors and officers regarding the Biased Policing Project, its rationale and goals, and activities and efforts that comprise the project; e. receipt of communications by frontline supervisors and officers. Areas to review include comprehension of the biased policing issue and project, beliefs or attitudes about the project, and how the project influences officer stop practices; f. rewards or recognition programs relating directly to the biased policing project, and rewards or recognition programs peripherally related to behavior impacting the Biased Policing Project. 5. MPD should provide training for officers with consideration given to the following guidelines: a. Basic Training- The agency should conduct an examination of both the formal lesson plans used to instruct recruits and the role that instructors play in the relaying of informal teachings and lessons conveyed during the telling of “war stories”. Fall 2006 61 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department b. FTO Training- Traditionally, new police officers learn “what “task they are expected to perform and receive generic instruction on “how” to perform each task during their time spent in the police academy. They learn the specifics of “how” their particular agency wants them to perform tasks and what constitutes acceptable use of officer discretion during their training period from their assigned Field Training Officer. For this reason we feel it is extremely important that the Metropolitan Police Department evaluate the formal and informal lessons taught to new officers by FTOs. c. In-Service Training- Is the Metropolitan Police Department meeting the knowledge and skills needs of their staff as it relates to performing their duties without employing racial profiling practices? An important issue is the selection of training curriculum that specifically targets the areas of need. For example, we have found that basic “sensitivity or diversity” classes or instruction on conducting professional traffic stops falls short of what is required to teach police officers effective methods of exercising discretion during traffic stops or pedestrian contacts without racially profiling. We suggest that when evaluating proposed prevention of racial profiling training curricula, the agency should assure that the following subject matter is included: (1) probably most importantly, an in-depth discussion about the definition of racial profiling and what it means to different groups; (2) an historical perspective of racial profiling and its impact on the service provided by law enforcement; (3) an analysis of racial profiling from the perspective of various stakeholders (community, national law enforcement, courts); (4) strategies for effective enforcement Fall 2006 62 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department practices without employing racial profiling practices; and (5) effective supervisor strategies designed to prevent racial profiling practices. 6. Continue to work with the Community-Police Task Force to provide updates and dialogue on agency activities that accompany the Biased Policing Project. Include members of the Task Force in educational and training opportunities and solicit sponsorship from Task Force members for future community outreach programs. 7. Involve members of the MPD in reviewing the results of this report and actively solicit opinions from these individuals about reactions to the report. Engage in dialogue with these individuals about mechanisms for discussing the report findings and soliciting feedback about the report from agency personnel. Fall 2006 63 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department APPENDIX Maps of Surveyed Intersections Traffic Intersections 1. 4th St SE & Chesapeake SE Fall 2006 64 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 2. 1st St NW & M Street NW Fall 2006 65 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 3. Alabama Ave SE & Ainger Pl SE Fall 2006 66 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 4. 17th St NW & Euclid St NW Fall 2006 67 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 5. 5300 Blk Clay Ter NE Fall 2006 68 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 6. Georgia Ave NW & Longfellow St NW Fall 2006 69 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 7. Georgia Ave NW and Shepherd St NW Fall 2006 70 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 8. Alabama Ave SE & F St SE Fall 2006 71 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 9. 3200 Blk 23rd St SE Fall 2006 72 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 10. 1st St NW & Channing St NW Fall 2006 73 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 11. 2700 Blk 13th St NW Fall 2006 74 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 12. 200 Blk Division Ave NE Fall 2006 75 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 13. 400 17th St NE Fall 2006 76 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 14. 14th St NE & Saratoga Ave NE Fall 2006 77 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 15. 2600 Blk Stanton Rd SE Fall 2006 78 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 16. Montello St NE & Neal St NE Fall 2006 79 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 17. 11th St NW & Park Rd NW Fall 2006 80 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 18. 1st St NW & R St NW Fall 2006 81 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 19. Wisconsin Ave NW & M St NW Fall 2006 82 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 20. 21st St NE & Maryland Ave NE Fall 2006 83 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Pedestrian Intersections 1. 4th St SE & Chesapeake SE Fall 2006 84 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 2. 17th St NW & Euclid St NW Fall 2006 85 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 3. 2100 Alabama Ave SE Fall 2006 86 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 4. Wisconsin and M Street NW Fall 2006 87 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 5. 21st St NE & Maryland Ave NE Fall 2006 88 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Photo Radar Locations 1. 100 Blk Michigan Ave NE Fall 2006 89 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 2. 3rd St NW & Massachusetts Ave NW Fall 2006 90 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 3. 4700 Blk MacArthur Blvd NW Fall 2006 91 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 4. 5400 Blk 16th St NW Fall 2006 92 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 5. 600 New York Ave NE W/B Fall 2006 93 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department Red Light Camera Locations 1. New York Ave NW W/B & 4th St NW Fall 2006 94 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 2. Rhode Island Ave NE W/B & Reed St NE Fall 2006 95 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 3. M St NW W/B & Whitehurst Frwy NW Fall 2006 96 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 4. New York Ave NE W/B & Montana Ave NE Fall 2006 97 MPD Final Report 2006 Data Collection and Benchmarking Project Lamberth Consulting Final Report Metropolitan Police Department 5. South Capital St Ramp S/B before I St Fall 2006 98 MPD Final Report 2006 Special Training on Building Trust1 Trust can be built during law enforcement training if it is integrated into the training curriculum rather than added on as a special focus class. The building of trust during training is possible because police officers, deputies and other law enforcement officers enter the profession with a great deal of idealism. However, this idealism is often destroyed by struggles on the job which include the enormous pressure of the work itself, the toll such pressures take on an officer’s personal life and the exposure to behavior that reflects the worse side of all of us. This exposure creates a cynicism and understandable distrust in many law enforcement officers. As a result, officers can lose their way and become disillusioned with the community in which they work. However, experience and outcome research with a specialized crisis intervention program for law enforcement (CIT) has led to the conclusion that trust can be re-built through training and policy changes2. Recommendations: 1. Establish meaningful common tasks with the community that take place prior to training. 2. Make training strategic and not traumatic. 3. Redesign and rename cultural competency and empathy training. 4. Address negative attitudes toward police officers as part of the training. 5. Expand the use of force continuum training so that verbal interventions and de-escalation techniques are more than just one or two items on a short list of options. In order to foster trust with the community, it is important to establish meaningful common tasks that take place prior to training. Community involvement can be complex and messy for departments that conduct training on a highly efficient schedule. However, community involvement is important and well worth the additional effort necessary for success. 1 Law enforcement agencies should be required to work on common tasks with community members.3 These tasks should be related to training and corresponding policy changes. The work on common tasks creates the relationships and experiences that form the basis of trust. Trust is ultimately built on personal relationships and knowledge of another person. This trust has to start on a one-to-one basis. Shared tasks and shared accomplishments are needed to make the trust meaningful and lasting. The strategy of shared tasks works best when conducted as part of a systematic attempt to make the community a partner in addressing citizen concerns. Common tasks can start with the establishment of initial timetables, establishing a training agenda, and the selection of trainers who understand how to relate to officers. Eventually the tasks can become more substantive such as having input into policy changes and working with law enforcement to expand community support for police initiatives. Feedback from successful crisis intervention programs has a common theme. The programs consistently report that success is all about the networking. Law enforcement builds greater trust when training is made strategic and not traumatic as a learning experience for the officer. Police training has changed over the past 25 years. Officers are better educated and look for more sophisticated and complex training. The change to a more strategic approach to policing is positive because too often training in the past has been focused on showing the officers graphic images of terrible outcomes to police/citizen interactions. In these training films, the officers are often hurt or killed. While law enforcement is a dangerous job, the concern is that focusing on graphic images or stories of harm to the officer is less effective than teaching new skills and strategies. Additionally, these scenarios may impact officer judgment4 and such techniques need to be re-assessed5. Law enforcement training is becoming more sophisticated with an emphasis on realistic scenario-based training. Trainers 2 understand the importance of relying on the skills of the officer and the ability of the officer to comprehend the unique circumstances encountered in a citizen event. Teaching officers cultural competency and empathy training is a well-meaning pursuit that could use redesign and renaming. Cultural competency and empathy training should be integrated into the curriculum so that it would be redundant to have separate courses. These courses rarely give the officers a chance to learn from personal relationships about individuals different from themselves. While some lecture material may be necessary, the change in behavior is more likely to come from the officer learning on their own. In CIT training, officers participate in a free form discussion with Veterans and individuals with mental illness in a noncrisis environment. Afterwards, officers in Memphis reported “they are just like us.” The site visits led correctional and law enforcement officers in Orange County, Florida to help paint and refurbish a drop-in center that was struggling financially6. These responses were substantiated more broadly by research that found officers indicated greater interpersonal comfort with those with mental illness when compared with officers who had not received training.7 A corollary to changing officer attitudes towards the community is to address the negative image and stereotypes some community members have towards the officers. As discussed earlier, working on common tasks can produce trust with the community. However, more intensive experiences can produce attitude change as well. Many of the Crisis Intervention Team programs require community members who participate in the training to ride with the officers. Both the original receiving facility and the VA Medical Center for the Memphis Model CIT program had psychiatric staff and trainees ride with the officers. Riding with an officer and viewing the challenges faced on the street created enormous respect and changed attitudes towards the police. 3 Previous research has indicated that citizen use of force complaints run between 6 and 12 complaints per 100 officers.8 While a small percentage of the complaints were substantiated (8% of complaints), nonetheless, issues around the use of force continue to challenge law enforcement agencies. Community trust in police departments might be well served if the use of force continuum was expanded during law enforcement training. Currently verbal interventions can be limited to commands such as “stop” and corresponding more complex de-escalation techniques are not always a clear part of use of force continuums.9 De-escalation techniques are rated by Crisis Intervention Team officers as one of the best set of courses in their 40 hour training. Work with senior CIT officers suggests that interventions consist of a wide range of different interventions at multiple points in an escalating crisis event. The reliance on extensive training in verbal interventions and corresponding de-escalation techniques may well be responsible for the success of the program.10 The five recommendations to build trust (common tasks, strategic training, redesigned cultural competency, changing community attitudes, and expansion of use of force continuum training) are based on the assumption that communities and law enforcement agencies can find appropriate support in their attempts to make change. In addressing the population of those living with mental illness, a number of barriers need to be addressed, most notably the lack of emergency mental health services. The lack of services is often the reason cited by municipalities that do not implement a Crisis Intervention Team program. Additionally, innovative programs have had to be developed to assist smaller rural and suburban departments. However, the success of a grassroots program like the Crisis Intervention Team in developing over 2800 sites shows that meaningful trust can be established. 4 1 Appreciation is noted for CIT International Board Members Sam Cochran, MA, Thomas Kirchberg, PhD, and Michele Saunders, MSW who assisted with the recommendations for this presentation. 2 Dupont, RT & Cochran, CS (2000) Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies – Barriers to Change. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 28, 338-344 3 Hossain, L & Kuti, K (2010) Disaster response preparedness coordination through social networks. Disasters, 23 Mar 2010. Retrieved on-line on May 17, 2010 from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123328458/abstract 4 Fryfe, JJ (2000) Policing the Emotionally Disturbed. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 28:345-7 5 Martinelli, R (2014) Revisiting the “21-Foot Rule.” Police: The Law Enforcement Magazine, September 18. Retrieved from http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2014/09/revisiting-the-21-foot-rule.aspx 6 Saunders, M (2010) Personal Communication. 7 Compton , MT, Esterberg, ML, McGee, R, Kotwicki, RJ, & Oliva, JR. (2006) Brief reports: Crisis Intervention Team Training: Changes in knowledge, attitudes, and stigma related to schizophrenia. Psychiatric Services, 57, 1199-1202 8 Hickman, MJ (2006) Citizens complaints about police use of force. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, 10-7, June 9 National Institute of Justice (2009). The Use-Of-Force Continuum. Law Enforcement Officer Performance and Safety. August 4. Retrieved from http://www.nij.gov/topics/law­ enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/pages/continuum.aspx 10 Dupont, RT (2008) The Crisis Intervention Team Model: An Intersection Point for the Criminal Justice System and the Psychiatric Emergency Service. In A. Fishkind (Ed), Emergency Psychiatry: Principles and Practice. Baltimore, MD, Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Publishers Comptom, MT, Bahora, M, Watson, AC and Oliva, JR (2008). A comprehensive review of extant research on Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) programs. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36, 47-55 Canada, KE, Angell, B and Watson, AC (2010). Crisis Intervention Team in Chicago: Successes on the ground. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 10, 86-100 5 AURORA COMMUNITY/POLICE DEPARTMENT WORKSHOP SERIES FINAL REPORT Report for the Aurora Police Department Written by: Jerry L. Clayton August, 2007 prepared by: LAMBERTH CONSULTING Table of Contents Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 6 NEEDS ASSESSMENT. .............................................................................................................................. 7 WORKSHOP DESIGN ................................................................................................................................ 7 WORKSHOP GOAL ...................................................................................................................................... 7 WORKSHOP STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................. 8 RESULTS .....................................................................................................................................................10 WHAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AURORA POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE CITIZENS OF AURORA? .........................................................................................10 WHAT KIND OF LAW ENFORCEMENT/CITIZEN RELATIONSHIP DO YOU WANT BETWEEN THE AURORA PD AND THE CITIZEN’S OF AURORA? ...............................................................................................................12 WHAT WOULD A SUCCESSFUL LAW/ENFORCEMENT/CITIZEN PARTNERSHIP LOOK LIKE IN AURORA? .........13 WHAT ABOUT THE CURRENT RELATIONSHIP NEEDS TO CHANGE IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP? ...........................................................................................................................................13 HOW DO WE INITIATE/SUSTAIN THE CHANGE NEEDED FOR A “SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP”? INCLUDES STRATEGIES FOR “LONG TERM SOLUTIONS” .............................................................................................14 STRATEGIES “30 DAY JUMP START”..........................................................................................................15 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................17 1. CREATE A COMMUNITY/POLICE DEPARTMENT RELATIONSHIP ENHANCEMENT TASK FORCE .............17 2. CONTINUE COMMUNITY/ POLICE DEPARTMENT OUTREACH EFFORTS ................................................18 3. INCREASE EDUCATION AND TRAINING EFFORTS FOR THE COMMUNITY AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ............................................................................................................................................................20 APPENDIX A - WORKSHOP AGENDA .................................................................................................22 APPENDIX B - PARTICIPANT COMMENTS .......................................................................................24 Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 2 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Acknowledgements Acknowledgements We would like to thank the City of Aurora and the Aurora Police Department for their support and cooperation during the course of this project. During this entire project, the Department had their resources readily available. During our fact-finding trip to gather the information necessary for our Needs Assessment, the Department identified and scheduled the individuals and groups to be interviewed, arranged appropriate meeting space and provided transportation. We worked closely with members of the agency to understand the issues and challenges facing the police department and the community as it relates to their relationship. We thank them for their willingness to share their knowledge and ideas with us. It is impossible to thank everyone who assisted in this project, but we would particularly like to thank Chief Dan Oates for his support and Assistant City Manager Frank Reagan, both were instrumental in the successful completion of the project. We would like to thank Captain Jack Daluz and Commander Roy Minter for their guidance, providing the resources necessary and coordinating the various efforts required to complete this challenging project. We would also like to thank the members of the KCRT, Pastor Thomas Mayes, Reverend Larry Brown, the APD union officials, the APD training cadre, and the other interviewed groups and individuals for sharing their ideas and forwarding meaningful input towards our approach to this project. We would also like to extend a special thanks to Pastor Lewis Brown, Mrs. Frances Woolery-Jones, and Commander Roy Minter for providing their great facilitation skills during the workshop sessions. Finally, we would like to thank the staff of the Aurora Police Department and the citizens of the City of Aurora for participating in the workshop sessions and providing meaningful input. Without your efforts, we could not have successfully completed the project. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 3 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Executive Summary Executive Summary The City of Aurora and the Aurora Police Department retained Lamberth Consulting in April of 2007 to design and facilitate a series of dialogue sessions in the form of 4-5 hour workshops intended to explore the nature of the relationship between the police department and the citizens of Aurora and recommend strategies for strengthening areas of the relationship that were identified as “at risk”. A representative of Lamberth Consulting conducted a Needs Assessment by interviewing several groups of key members of the police department and the community and used the information to develop several workshop goals and design the Community/Police Department Workshop. Several project goals were established including: (1) Developing a collection of objectives and strategies that city official’s and community stakeholders can use to help create long-term solutions to law enforcement/community relationship issues, (2) Securing commitments from city officials and community stakeholders to work collaboratively on agreed upon solutions and (3) Forwarding recommendations based on ideas and suggestions generated during the workshops. During May 8th thru May 10th four Community/Police Department Workshops were conducted with the following participation of citizen’s and law enforcement personnel:  Session 1 Evening Session Adult Focused 103 participants  Session 2 Morning Session Adult Focused 83 participants  Session 3 Morning Session Adult Focused 77 participants  Session 4 Morning Session Youth Focused 85 participants  4 total 348 total The participants explored the current nature of the relationship between the community and the police department in Aurora. They identified what kind of a relationship that they want to exist between the community and the police department, what needs to change in terms of current behaviors and attitudes to move the relationship from its current state to Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 4 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Executive Summary the desired state and what strategies must be enacted to initiate and sustain the changes needed to reach and maintain the desired relationship. Finally, three primary and several supporting recommendations were developed and are forwarded in this report: (1) Create a Community/Police Department Relationship Enhancement Task Force, (2) Continue Community/Police Department Outreach Efforts, (3) Increase Education and Training Efforts for the Community and the Police Department. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 5 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Introduction Introduction History has shown that the level of understanding, openness, and trust between the police department and various segments of the city frequently varies, and can be impacted by a variety of issues, including: personal and institutional stereotypes and biases, previous history, various interpretations of factual events and other circumstances that over time (sometimes decades) either enhances or undermine the nature of the relationships. Successfully addressing relationships of this nature rarely, if ever, occurs as a result of a single effort or event. Maintaining previously successful relationships, establishing those relationships that have been nonexistent and enhancing relationships that have been significantly strained in the past requires the sustained efforts of all critical stakeholders. Recognizing the importance of establishing and maintaining positive relationships with all of its citizens, the City of Aurora and its police department engaged a variety of key stakeholders (citizens, law enforcement staff, city officials) in four dialogue sessions targeting several important objectives aimed at enhancing their relationship with the community they serve: (1) education, (2) perspectives sharing, and (3) establishing a commitment to work collaboratively on agreed upon solutions to identified challenges. It is hoped that the information collected during these workshops and presented in this report provides the basis for the future efforts and activities required to fulfill the implementation of the city's plan to enhance the relationship between the police department and all citizens of the City of Aurora. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 6 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Needs Assessment Needs Assessment. During April 2-3, 2007, Mr. Jerry Clayton conducted a Needs Assessment for the proposed workshops. He met with several groups and a series of individuals representing the police department, city government, communities of faith, community groups and school representatives seeking input regarding the key issues and challenges affecting the relationship between the police department and the community they serve. Workshop Design Mr. Clayton designed the Aurora Community/Police Department Workshop utilizing the information collected during the Needs Assessment. The workshop design process included the following tasks: • Compiling feedback and results from interviews with stakeholder groups • Reviewing feedback and identified themes among different stakeholder groups. • Developing goals for workshops that corresponded with the identified themes. • Structuring workshop activities so the workshop goals could be achieved. • Developing workshop materials based on identified objectives and goals. The primary goal communicated to Lamberth Consulting by the Aurora Police Department and the interviewed stakeholders was establishing/maintaining an enhanced law enforcement/community relationship based upon the establishment of common understanding, mutual respect and trust. Based on that goal, Lamberth Consulting developed several workshop objectives intended to provide the foundation for achieving the primary goal. Workshop Goal The City of Aurora Community and Police Department Workshop will provide each participant with an opportunity to share information and perspectives, begin discussing solutions to their relationship challenges, and commit to continuing their collaborative efforts beyond these workshops. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 7 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Needs Assessment The workshop goal was supported with the following workshop objectives; • During a large group discussion, the participants will describe their personal perception(s) of the current status of the relationship between the Aurora Police Department and its citizens. • After viewing a video and engaging in a small group discussion and report out, the participants will share their reaction(s) to the questions and statements detailed in the film. • During small group discussions and report-outs, participants will describe their community & police department relationship expectations. • During a large group discussion, the participants will create their definition of a “Successful Partnership” between the Aurora Police Department and its citizens. • During small group discussions and report-outs, the participants will create a list of the behaviors and beliefs that must change if the citizens of Aurora and the police department are going to create and sustain a “Successful Partnership”. • During small group discussions and report-outs, the participants will create a suggestion list of strategic options that they believe should be included in the “30 Day Jump Start Plan” and/or “Strategies for Long Term Solutions” focused on creating and sustaining a “Successful Partnership”. Workshop Structure The workshop was structured to be conducted over 4-5 hours, followed a participantcentered design and was facilitated in two phases. During phase one, the law enforcement and community participants were located in separate rooms and guided through a series of discussion topics by two facilitator teams (Commander Roy Minter and Mrs. Frances Woolery-Jones) and (Mr. Jerry Clayton and Pastor Lewis Brown). Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 8 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Needs Assessment The participants from both groups were combined during phase two and led through a review of the issues discussed during phase one and introduced to new topics for small group discussions in combined law enforcement and community groups. See Workshop agenda- Appendix A for workshop details. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 9 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Results Results Achievement of the workshop goals and objectives was based on the response to six primary questions. The following are a list of the six primary questions and a compilation of the most frequent responses from both the law enforcement and community participants. What is your assessment of the nature of the relationship between the Aurora Police Department and the citizens of Aurora? During phase one (law enforcement and citizen participants separate), the community participants and law enforcement personnel were asked to provide their perspectives of the nature of the relationship between the police department and the citizens and their thoughts regarding the origin or genesis of their responses. The two groups’ assessment of the nature of the relationship differed in some areas, but also had many similarities. The following is a compilation of some of the consistently used words, phrases and major themes used by both groups as they responded to the question: • Negative, positive, intimidating, helpful, non-trusting, hypocritical, dangerous, good, necessary, better, non-existent. • The citizen participants stated a perceived double standard where police officers can get away with actions that common citizens cannot. Some of the law enforcement participants stated that law enforcement professionals are held accountable for their behavior, but citizens are not held accountable in terms of being rude and unfair to the police. • Both groups agreed that in some instances the relationship is good and at times it’s bad. And a persons’ (law enforcement/citizen) perspective about the relationship is greatly influenced by one or more of the following; Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 10 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Results • Where you live in the community, who you are or who you are perceived to be and what level you are in the hierarchy of both groups (Ex: are you a regular citizen, or a street officer? Are you a community/business leader, or department administrator?). • There is an overall lack of understanding and misconceptions about each other that leads to an overall lack of trust. • Neither group seems to be fully committed and/or motivated to learn about the other. Additionally, each group was asked what they based their assessment on, in other words, what influenced them the most about their perception of the nature of the relationship? The consistent responses included: • Both groups stated that they believe that many perspectives are based primarily on stereotypes. • Both groups expressed a belief that law enforcement and citizens thoughts and actions are influenced by past experiences and interactions with each other. The interactions could be either direct or indirect (stories from others). • Negative portrayal by the media • Lack of knowledge feeds negative stereotypes about each other. • Young citizens stated that they have received very little education about law enforcement and have experienced few positive interactions. Much of their knowledge comes from what they have been told by friends and family and by directly witnessing negative interactions between law enforcement and family members. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 11 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Results What kind of law enforcement/citizen relationship do you want between the Aurora PD and the citizen’s of Aurora? During phase one (law enforcement and citizen participants separate), the community and law enforcement groups were asked to express their specific expectations regarding the behavior and commitments required of participants engaged in a community/police department relationship that met their expectations. The groups provided different responses with common themes. • Both groups stated that they want a relationship based on the law enforcement agency being held to high standards, and the community being held accountable for their personal behavior during interactions. • Each group requested better cooperation from the other. • Both groups stated that the relationship should be based on mutual commitment to gaining and maintaining respect for each other, holding each other responsible for their actions, and dealing with each other honestly and openly. Each group stated a belief that if both groups commit as described, then eventually mutual trust can be achieved. • A relationship based on a commitment to educate and share information with each other. • A relationship where both sides acknowledge when good or bad is done by the other party and self accountability is encouraged. • A relationship based upon having a community that supports their police department and understands the need to be non-judgmental and recognizes that the police do have certain limitations. • Both groups recognize the occasional need for assertiveness without aggression. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 12 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Results What would a successful law/enforcement/citizen partnership look like in Aurora? During phase two (law enforcement and citizen participants together), the community and law enforcement participants in combined groups were asked to describe what kinds of behavior, responses, and statements they would see if the police department and the community had a successful partnership. • Citizens and law enforcement personnel working as partners with the intent of addressing challenges by working collaboratively to reach mutually acceptable solutions and agreements. • Developing protocols that allow for consistent open lines of two-way communication between citizens and representatives of the police department at all levels (officers, managers, and police administrators) • Customer service based on a law enforcement understanding of what the citizens want and expect from the Aurora Police Department. • The police department will request and the citizen’s will provide assistance when needed. What about the current relationship needs to change in an attempt to create a successful partnership? During phase two (law enforcement and citizen participants together), the community and law enforcement participants in combined groups were asked to describe what behaviors, responses, and statements must change if the community and police department is going to develop a successful partnership. • Both groups believe that citizens should take greater ownership and responsibility for the safety of their community. • Both groups state that the officers should be better trained regarding the community they serve. • Both groups asked for more positive community/law enforcement interaction (especially with the youth) Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 13 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Results • Citizens and law enforcement personnel should assume more of a nonjudgmental position when evaluating each others’ words and actions. • The police department should provide opportunities for greater input from the community and advertise those opportunities so more people know what their options are How do we initiate/sustain the change needed for a “successful partnership”? Includes strategies for “Long Term Solutions” During phase two (law enforcement and citizen participants together), the community and law enforcement participants in combined groups were asked to brainstorm ideas, strategies and concepts that they believe will lead to a sustained successful partnership. • Develop a Task Force • The Aurora Police Department should continue to actively recruit officers of color and expand their efforts by partnering with the community to improve their processes for identifying potential candidates. • Both groups should strive to create opportunities for increased positive interaction. Example: The police department could host events similar to the “Pancake Breakfast” hosted by the Aurora Fire Department. • Both groups identified a need to conduct “issues-based forums” or “focus group” type activities to identify and resolve smaller issues before they become larger problems in the community. • Continue the community forums started with this project and include young people, communities that already support law enforcement and communities that presently do not support the Aurora Police Department. • Expand the Citizens Police Academy to be more inclusive of those citizens that do not already support law enforcement • Develop a strategy for working with the media to promote positive stories and get the word out about initiatives started here and in the future. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 14 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Results • Community leaders need to take the steps necessary to lead positive changes in the community. • Develop an educational and training strategy that is designed to increase officer and citizen knowledge about each other. Example: educational seminars and literature for citizens informing them about what is expected of them when contacted by law enforcement and also explaining citizen rights. Officers should receive specialized training and education regarding community expectations. Strategies “30 Day Jump Start” During phase two (law enforcement and citizen participants together), the community and law enforcement participants in combined groups were asked to evaluate the ideas, strategies and concepts developed in their previous exercise (Initiating/sustaining successful partnership) and identify those activities that should form the basis for the first 30 days after receiving the workshop report. • Create a task force or committee charged with the responsibility of beginning the process of creating change in both the Department and community. The task force should be diverse in terms of age, race, gender, economic status, and position within the Department and the community. The task force should be charged with the following: Identify the greatest opportunities for success, the greatest areas of future difficulties, develop a process for recruiting citizens and officers to become involved in this on-going effort, identify training and educational opportunities for both law enforcement and the community, assure that groups and individuals that should be included in this process are not left out, and create an action plan that includes long term objectives. • Develop a list of key leaders and/or potential liaisons for different community contacts and identify citizens, law enforcement representatives and others at all levels who should be involved. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 15 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Results • Develop a strategy for engaging the media and generating positive press regarding future activities. • Every participant should make contact with others that didn't attend these sessions and share their experiences from the sessions. • Expand the KCRT group to be more inclusive of previously overlooked groups. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 16 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Recommendations Recommendations The recommendations contained in this report are based on a combination of major themes presented by the participants in the four workshop sessions and best practices for establishing and maintaining law enforcement and community relations throughout the country. There are three primary recommendations and several supporting recommendations: (1) Create a Community/Police Department Relationship Enhancement Task Force, (2) Continue Community/Police Department Outreach Efforts and, (3) Increase Education and Training Efforts for the Community and the Police Department. 1. Create a Community/Police Department Relationship Enhancement Task Force A task force should be created with the specific intent of continuing the efforts initiated during the Community /Police Department workshops. The task force’s core functions should be developing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating (community/police department/city) efforts at enhancing the relationship between The City of Aurora citizens and police department. There are some key issues regarding task force development that should be considered: a. The size and makeup of the task force is extremely important. Developers of the task force must balance the need for inclusiveness with the manageability of a large number of task force members. The membership must represent as many of the constituents in the city as possible without being so large that nothing can be accomplished. b. The task force must be charged with a specific role and there must be a determination regarding the power that the task force has/or does not have to influence Departmental/city decisions. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 17 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Recommendations c. Decisions must be made regarding the structure of the task force and the distribution of effort and responsibility. A significant question that must be addressed is “Will the task force be a single group or will there be a primary task force group with secondary workgroups addressing specific initiatives and issues?” d. The task force’s primary role should be that of catalyst, serving to move most of the citizen/police department/city efforts towards implementing the selected recommendations and new initiatives that develop over time. i. Create the guiding document needed to capture goals, objectives and strategic plans. ii. Coordinate a majority of the collaborative efforts used to support the achievement of the stated goals and objectives. iii. Serve as the primary vehicle for capturing and disseminating relevant information to interested parties. 2. Continue Community/ Police Department Outreach Efforts The belief that there was a lack of quality communication between the police department and the community and the importance and need for ongoing two-way communication was a repeated theme throughout the four workshop sessions. To that end, we recommend that a “communication strategy” be developed and implemented as a major component of all outreach efforts. Elements of a communication strategy are included in the following recommendations. • Media engagement-an effort should be made to approach and include the local print and news media as a primary stakeholder in all efforts to improve community/police department relations. Explore the possibility of using the city Public Access Channel “Aurora 8” to make announcements regarding new initiatives, meeting information, and when presenting educational information. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 18 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Recommendations • Evaluate current agency efforts to solicit information from the community regarding officer performance and other information (complaint process, good job acknowledgment, crime witness reporting). Does the existing process allow for agency transparency with the community or is there a perception that the process is confusing, cumbersome and difficult to follow/understand? Are all agency efforts towards transparency successfully communicated to the public? • Conduct “town hall” type meetings throughout the city, rotating the locations, times and days of the week in an effort to be as inclusive as possible. Also vary the intent of the meetings, some should be intended as informational with limited dialogue, others may be structured to solicit general or specific feedback from the community. • Reserve time on the agenda of existing non-law-enforcement meetings, (neighborhood, civic organization, youth based) to discuss issues relating to community/police department relations. • The Aurora Police Department should experiment with methods of communicating information regarding their activities to the community. (Example: making the Department's crime strategy meetings, known as CQT, open to the public.) Also employ the use of technology when available and appropriate. • Explore opportunities to create partnerships between the police department and other entities throughout the City of Aurora (school districts, civic organizations, faith-based organizations, community groups) with the intent of increasing non-enforcement contacts (pancake breakfasts or other meals, participate or attend a sporting event with youth) between police officers and youths/students, “at risk” community members (Hispanic, Korean, African American) and others. (Example: A new PAL (Police Athletic League) boxing program was announced by one of the officers during session four (youth focused session). Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 19 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Recommendations • Develop a long term strategy for successful officer recruitment of candidates representing all areas of the City of Aurora. The police department should partner with other entities (faith based organizations, civic groups, neighborhood associations) throughout the city to assist them in identifying and recruiting potential candidates for employment with the city police department. 3. Increase Education and Training Efforts for the Community and the Police Department Another major theme discussed throughout the four sessions was the lack of knowledge and accurate information the community has about their police department and that police department personnel has about some of the citizens of the City of Aurora. The general consensus was that to some degree, this lack of information allowed stereotypes to influence the perception that each group has about the other. Many of the workshop participants suggested strategies for reducing the influence of stereotypes and myths by increasing the overall knowledge that each group has about the other and their role in keeping the Aurora Community safe. There should be an on-going effort to enhance the community/ police department relationship by increasing the knowledge and understanding individual stakeholders have about each other, thus reducing misunderstanding and confusion. • Develop a public education strategy designed to produce and disseminate meaningful information regarding police officer and citizen contacts or any other information that is important to the community/police department relationship. (Examples: (1) 411 on the Five-O pamphlet, (2) Public Service Announcements) • Continue the Citizens Police Academy with increased efforts towards recruiting citizens from areas of the city that do not normally participate. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 20 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Recommendations • Develop a process that allows citizen to review and provide input regarding Aurora Police Department officer training and education. (Recruit training, FTO training, In-service training) Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 21 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Appendix A – Workshop Agenda Appendix A - Workshop Agenda 00:00- 00:15 Welcome • Name tags, seating, coffee, water, etc. 00:15- 00:30 Introductions • Facilitators, agenda review, logistics, ground rules, expectations 30:00- 45:00 Large Group Discussion • What is your assessment of the nature of the relationship between the Aurora Police Department and the citizens of Aurora? 45:00- 55:00 Break 55:00- 01:10 Video • Concerns of Young African American Drivers (Aurora Police Department) 01:10- 01:40 Video Debrief/ Large Group Discussion • Participant reaction to the video • Participant response to the statements made by the police officers and citizens in the video. 01:40- 02:00 Small Group Activities • What kind of law enforcement/citizen relationship do you want between the Aurora PD and the citizen’s of Aurora? 02:00- 02:30 Working Lunch/ Session One Review • Nature of relationship • Response to video presentation • Desired relationship 02:30- 02:50 Large Group Discussion • Define “Successful Partnership” - What would a successful law enforcement/citizen partnership look like in Aurora? 02:50- 03:10 Small Group Activities Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 22 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Appendix A – Workshop Agenda Appendix A - Workshop Agenda (continued) • What about the current relationship needs to change in an attempt to create a successful partnership? 03:10- 03:30 Small Group Activities • How do we (initiate/sustain) the change needed for a “successful partnership”? • Strategies (“30 Day Jump Start”, “Strategies for Long Term Solutions”) 03:30- 03:40 Small Group Activities • Who should be involved in the change (individuals, groups, organizations)? • Who will make personal and/or organizational commitments? 03:40- 4:00 Workshop Close out • Re-cap • What’s next Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 23 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Appendix B – Participant Comments Appendix B - Participant Comments The listed comments were taken from the evaluations completed by attendees at the May 7, 8 and 9 community forums. Evaluation sheets were not done at the Youth session on May 10th. Overall, each category was rated between a 4 and 5 by the participants. There were very few low scores given. Many people felt the video was too staged and the responses scripted. Not all comments about the video are listed. About 350 people attended the four sessions; not all completed evaluations. • Controlled to such a large extent that useful dialogue was obstructed. • Need more time; we just barely scratched the surface • Until Bill Johnson arrived, my fear is nothing would be done beyond these workshops. Need more citizen academies to educate citizens. • Although I did not have any responses below a 4, I think this forum was productive and I would like to see the forum progress in some form. Definitely need facilitators who will keep things moving! • Good information; I would like to be involved. • A great start. Showed need for further dialogue and concrete solutions and strategies that are directed at the youth. • Let’s keep going! • This seemed like African American vs. the police. Aurora is a large diverse community but was not included tonight. Broaden demographics. • Good workshop. Great beginning to bring people together of all cultures. • Too many people were centered on their own unbending agenda and not willing to listen to others. I thought the video was slanted toward a negative police contact and not all contacts are negative. • I believe this was a useful, powerful ignited beginning. I look forward to the ongoing results and collaboration. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 24 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Appendix B – Participant Comments • I am excited to be a part of this program. Thanks to Chief Oates and the others who presented the forum. • I think you need more people representing the citizens of Aurora, not only Blacks. • Any citizen/officer contact at this level is beneficial. If this workshop did nothing beyond introducing the people in this room, it was worth it. • The video took a while to watch. The points should be made more quickly to allow time for discussion. • Very good, I hope this works…we shall see. • Good workshop. • The efforts of the Aurora Police Department in this proactive approach to community/police interaction are a positive step toward better understanding between citizens and police. Thanks so much. • The video does not provide any new or useful information for the officers. • The forum has the possibilities for a paradigm shift in community and police relations. As a police officer and resident, I am encouraged by the investment we are making through these discussions. • Conceding to letting the media in was wrong. If the media was unbiased it would not be a problem. But since they aren’t, I think it caused people to be cautious about what was said. The video doesn’t really explain why each side feels what they feel. The forum is a good idea, but you have to have people with an open mind to be willing to change and not everyone in the room is willing to do so. • As expected, the community members have the same goals we do…cooperation in providing community support and enforcement of laws. • Until the community collectively comes together to explain what they want, the police department will not adapt to their needs. The community needs to be made aware of the programs presently in place. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 25 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Appendix B – Participant Comments • No substantive information about the basis for the assessment (I think assumptions were valid). No meaningful development of subject. No specific activities identified with opportunity to “sign up”. • Didn’t care for meeting facility. How about some place else? I did like the forums, thought it was educational and a step towards progress. • The video was okay…provided a point to start, but I don’t think traffic stops is the main issue. • Good, open honest dialogue. I think people are open to commitment to change. • I think more time in the smaller groups discussing issues would be good. • Awesome program and it needs to be implemented in other cities or on a county level. • Generally, not enough time to cover all the issues. • No opinions changed. Activists still hate whites and police; he wanted to use the forum for his own agenda. Mostly, police were very defensive towards negative comments made about the police. • Everyone seemed to want to discuss their points of view and not listen to others. • The use of the video seemed to perpetuate myths about young black males and the way officers view them. • Why was this workshop geared towards officers vs. African Americans? Where was the Hispanic community? • A very good start; thanks for the opportunity. • The same people that dominate the news took over this meeting. I read their views in the paper every day and did not need to hear them say the same things over and over. They have no solutions, just the same complaints. • I don’t think the police officers have a sincere desire to really have a meaningful partnership with the community. It was stated by one of the officers on more than one occasion. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 26 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Appendix B – Participant Comments • This was very useful for the officers/community to see and talk to each other as people and not in an official capacity. • There are certain members of the community that will not be satisfied with any solutions that are useful and feasible. • There should be a personal commitment of activists and citizen leaders and police leaders to developing trust over the years. • Need more members of various backgrounds from the community. • The media taking notes was a distraction and likely kept some from speaking. • Overall, this was helpful. Something like this could be done on a smaller scale more often. I am absolutely opposed to the media being present; especially biased media…does not foster openness. • I think you need more sessions of the Aurora Citizens Academy. Maybe have a Youth Citizens Academy. • Wonderful idea. Highly educational. Well done! • It’s a positive step in bridging the gap between community and the police. • The video seemed staged and reinforced stereotypes. • I learned a lot about the APD that I did not know. • Would like to have had deeper discussion on these issues. • It seems to be all good, but once the meeting is over it will be forgotten. I will myself pass this information forward. • Good information to take back to the community. • Citizen group seemed too much connected to City…pro-police. Our biggest critics were conspicuously absent. • The concept of forum meetings is very good. There should be more time allotted to smaller groups. There was at times not enough time for concerns to be heard. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 27 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Appendix B – Participant Comments • The problem that I saw with this type of meeting was that there was so many ideas/opinions that at times there was no consolidation or compromise for future actions. • The goal for the overall purpose of this dialogue was not yet narrowed down to “specific and measurable”. It will be interesting to see what the follow-up groups will identify as being the most important. • Great initial dialogue, thorough and very worthwhile. Thank you. • 30-day jumpstart is unreasonable. • Aurora has many excellent programs in place. The group got off track. • I believe most people are aware of what the relationship is. The important part is what they do with the information. • Would like to see more time to brainstorm real practical ideas to reach out to the community. Would also like to engage more young people in the process. • The video seemed too constructed. I would like to hear live personal experiences. • This was a very well spent day. I got a lot from the forum. • I enjoyed the whole meeting. The food was great and the company wonderful. • The people that really needed to be here were not here. We have to get young people to want to be here. We need to find the “true leaders” of the minority community. • The forums need to continue and recommendations put into action throughout the year. • I had difficulty understanding what the forums were intended to do. • We did not discuss video/race issues or why the department’s racial composition is what it is. It is not representative of the community. How can we fix it? • The forum was excellent. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 28 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Appendix B – Participant Comments • The video message, in every one of the youth interviewed, is lack of accepting responsibility for their actions. • I think getting a smaller group to follow-up with us on setting up groups is important to implementing the plan. • Let’s move forward with more meetings and activities to promote police and community interaction. • Facilitator should not chew gum! • Solve world peace, hunger and the sinful heart issues we are born with and you could resolve this issue. • Hearing a few officers voice their assessment and what’s in their heart is more meaningful. • Communication, respect and education is needed both ways. • No diversity in the video. • I did not like the video. It perpetuates a problem that is only “perceived”. • Many people involved have their own personal opinions that they gained through their own upbringing. Some people will be accepting to changing their opinions and some will dwell on past issues. • Some came to this meeting with an opinion and no solutions. They wanted to argue, not work together. • Thank you to the Department for being brave and upfront with their community. I will do all I have to do to make my City better. • We each choose whether to be the problem or the solution. • Good structure and good facilitation. Opening activity resulted in too much “story telling”. It might be useful to have some data to balance the stories. • Perhaps an additional ground rule: Time limits would provide opportunity for greater participation. A few individuals dominated. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 29 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING Appendix B – Participant Comments • We need civic classes with projects in the school and community. • Good session and good dialogue. • Overall good. However, there was not enough time for the discussions. • The discussion was very insightful, but I am uncertain what opportunity I was given to become more active. • I am tired of hearing how badly the Blacks are being treated. Change begins in your own heart. • Mixed feeling about the video. To make this endeavor successful, i.e. workshop must result with a “dynamic force of example”. • More time for the large group discussion is needed. Everyone wants to get their 2 cents worth. • It would have been more productive if everyone came with an open mind and willing to communicate rather than promoting their personal agendas. • Getting the community involved in crime prevention by making it safe to talk with the police instead of being involved after the crime. The group processes need more structure. Some people were allowed to control and promote their personal views. Community/Police Department Workshop- Final Report 30 prepared by LAMBERTH CONSULTING LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT 2010 USE OF FORCE ANNUAL REPORT PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT The purpose of this report is to provide a statistical analysis of the lethal, less-lethal and non-lethal force used by LAPD officers; provide an overview of the adjudication processes involved in use of force incidents; and enhance transparency between the Department and its stakeholders within the City of Los Angeles. MISSION STATEMENT It is the mission of the Los Angeles Police Department to safeguard the lives and property of the people we serve, to reduce the incidence and fear of crime, and to enhance public safety while working with the diverse communities to improve their quality of life. Our mandate is to do so with honor and integrity, while at all times conducting ourselves with the highest ethical standards to maintain public confidence. CORE VALUE The six Core Values of the Los Angeles Police Department are intended to guide and inspire us. Making sure that our values become part of our day-to-day work life is our mandate, and they help to ensure that our personal and professional behavior can be a model for all to follow. ▪ Service to Our Communities ▪ Reverence for the Law ▪ Commitment to Leadership ▪ Integrity in All We Say and Do ▪ Respect for People ▪ Quality Through Continuous Improvement Table of Content Acronyms……………………..……….……………………………………………………... 1 Use of Force Policy….………………………………………………………………………. 2 Categorical Use of Force Adjudication Procedure……………………….….. 5 Categorical Use of Force Review Board Process……………………………... 6 Categorical Use of Force Adjudication Policy………………………………….. 6 Non-Categorical Use of Force Adjudication Procedure…………………... 8 Non-Categorical Use of Force Reporting Levels……………………………….. 9 2010 Use of Force Incident Statistics………………………………………………. 10 Tactics & Use of Force Findings……………………………………………………….. 11 Categorical Use of Force Incident 2010 Statistics…….……………….…….. 12 CUOF Incident Comparison………………..……………..………………. 13 CUOF Average Time Frame……………………………………………….. 14 CUOF Adjudication Findings………………………………………………. 15 Hit/No Hit Officer Involved Shooting Incidents…………………. 16 Hit/No Hit OIS Bureau/Division of Occurrence…………………. 17 Hit/No Hit OIS Classification Type……………………………………… 19 Hit/No Hit OIS—Officer Information………………….……………… 20 Hit/No Hit OIS—Suspect Information………………………………. 21 Animal Shooting Incidents…..……………………………………………. 22 Unintentional Discharge Incidents……………………………………. 23 Carotid Restraint Control Hold Incidents…………………………. 24 Head Strike Incidents……………………………………………………….. 24 In-Custody Death Incidents………………………………………………. 24 K9 Contact with Hospitalization Incidents………………………... 24 Law Enforcement Related Injury Incidents…..……………………. 25 Non-Categorical Use of Force Incidents…………………………………………... 26 NCUOF Incident Summary…………………………………………………. 27 NCUOF Incident Occurrences…..……………………………………….. 32 Force Options Used During NCUOF ………………………………….. 33 Injuries to Officers/Subjects During NCUOF…………………….. 34 Adjudication of NCUOF Incidents…………………..…………..…….. 35 Definitions………………………………………………………………………………………. 36 Use of Force Review Division Information………………………………………. 39 ACRONYMS AD Administrative Disapproval BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics BOPC Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners COP Chief of Police COS Chief of Staff CRCH Carotid Restraint Control Hold CUOF Categorical Use of Force Incident D/E Drawing or Exhibiting FID Force Investigation Division GED Gang Enforcement Detail GIT Gang Impact Team GTU General Training Update HS Head Strike ICD In-Custody Death ITD Information Technology Division LAPD Los Angeles Police Department LERI Law Enforcement Related Injury MEU Mental Evaluation Unit NCUOF Non-Categorical Use of Force Incident OCB Operations Central Bureau OIS Officer Involved Shooting OAS Office of Administrative Services OSB Operations South Bureau OVB Operations Valley Bureau OWB Operations West Bureau PO Police Officer SOB Special Operations Bureau TEAMS II Training Evaluation and Management System II UD Unintentional Discharge UOF Use of Force UOFRB Use of Force Review Board UOFRD Use of Force Review Division USE OF FORCE POLICY (2010 LAPD Manual 1/556) PREAMBLE TO USE OF FORCE. The use of force by members of law enforcement is a matter of critical concern both to the public and the law enforcement community. It is recognized that some individuals will not comply with the law or submit to control unless compelled to do so by the use of force; therefore, law enforcement officers are sometimes called upon to use force in the performance of their duties. It is also recognized that members of law enforcement derive their authority from the public and, therefore, must be ever mindful that they are not only the guardians, but also the servants of the public. The Department's guiding value when using force shall be reverence for human life. When warranted, Department personnel may objectively use reasonable force to carry out their duties. Officers who use unreasonable force degrade the confidence of the community we serve, expose the Department and fellow officers to legal and physical hazards, and violate the rights of individuals upon whom unreasonable force is used. Conversely, officers who fail to use force when warranted may endanger themselves, the community and fellow officers. Objectively Reasonable. The legal standard used to determine the lawfulness of a use of force is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Graham states in part, "The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application.” The force must be reasonable under the circumstances known to the officer at the time the force was used. Therefore, the Department examines all uses of force from an objective standard rather than a subjective standard. Factors Used to Determine Reasonableness. The Department examines reasonableness using Graham and from the articulated facts from the perspective of a Los Angeles Police Officer with similar training and experience placed in generally the same set of circumstances. In determining the appropriate level of force, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of facts and circumstances of each particular case. Those factors may include but are not limited to: The seriousness of the crime or suspected offense; the level of threat or resistance presented by the subject; whether the subject was posing an immediate threat to officers or a danger to the community; the potential for injury to citizens, officers or subjects; the risk or apparent attempt by the subject to escape; the conduct of the subject being confronted (as reasonably perceived by the officer at the time); the time available to an officer to make a decision; the availability of other resources; the training and experience of the officer; the proximity or access of weapons to the subject; officer versus subject factors such as age, size, relative 2 strength, skill level, injury/exhaustion and number officers versus subjects; and, the environmental factors and/or other exigent circumstances. Serious Bodily Injury. California Penal Code Section 243(f)(4) defines Serious Bodily Injury as including but not limited to: Loss of consciousness; concussion; bone fracture; protracted loss or impairment of function of any bodily member or organ; a wound requiring extensive suturing; and serious disfigurement. Warning Shots. The intentional discharge of a firearm off target, not intended to hit a person, to warn others that deadly force is imminent. Use of Force – General. It is the policy of this Department that personnel may use only that force which is “objectively reasonable” to: Defend themselves; defend others; effect an arrest or detention; prevent escape; or overcome resistance. Deadly Force. Law enforcement officers are authorized to use deadly force to: Protect themselves or others from what is reasonably believed to be in imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury; or, Prevent a crime where the suspect’s actions place person(s) in imminent jeopardy of death or serious bodily injury; or, Prevent the escape of a violent fleeing felon when there is probable cause to believe the escape will pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others if apprehension is delayed. In this circumstance, officers shall, to the extent practical, avoid using deadly force that might subject innocent bystanders or hostages to possible death or injury. Warning Shots. Warning shots shall only be used in exceptional circumstances where it might reasonably be expected to avoid the need to use deadly force. Generally, warning shots shall be directed in a manner that minimizes the risk of injury to innocent persons, ricochet dangers, and property damage. Shooting At or From Moving Vehicles. Firearms shall not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless a person in the vehicle is immediately threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle. The moving vehicle itself shall not presumptively constitute a threat that justifies an officer’s use of deadly force. An officer threatened by an oncoming vehicle shall move out of its path instead of discharging a firearm at it or any of its occupants. Firearms shall not be discharged from a moving vehicle, except in exigent circumstances and in the immediate defense of life. Note: It is understood that the policy in regards to discharging a firearm at or from a moving vehicle may not cover every situation that may arise. In all situations, Department members are expected to act with intelligence and exercise sound judgment, attending to the spirit of this policy. Any deviations from the provisions of this policy shall be examined rigorously on a case-by-case basis. The involved officer must be able to articulate clearly the reasons for the use of deadly force. Factors that may be considered include whether the officer’s life or the lives of others were in immediate peril and there was no reasonable or apparent means of escape. 3 DRAWING OR EXHIBITING FIREARMS. Unnecessarily or prematurely drawing or exhibiting a firearm limits an officer's alternatives in controlling a situation, creates unnecessary anxiety on the part of citizens, and may result in an unwarranted or accidental discharge of the firearm. Officers shall not draw or exhibit a firearm unless the circumstances surrounding the incident create a reasonable belief that it may be necessary to use the firearm in conformance with this policy on the use of firearms. Note: During a special meeting on September 29, 1977, the Board of Police Commissioners adopted the following as a valid interpretation of this Section: "Unnecessarily or prematurely drawing or exhibiting a firearm limits an officer's alternatives in controlling a situation, creates unnecessary anxiety on the part of citizens, and may result in an unwarranted or accidental discharge of the firearm. An officer's decision to draw or exhibit a firearm should be based on the tactical situation and the officer's reasonable belief there is a substantial risk that the situation may escalate to the point where deadly force may be justified. When an officer has determined that the use of deadly force is not necessary, the officer shall, as soon as practicable, secure or holster the firearm." (2010 LAPD Manual 1/556) 4 CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS Robert M. Saltzman Debra Wong Yang Commissioner Commissioner Richard E. Drooyan Commissioner President John W. Mack Commissioner Vice President Alan J. Skobin Commissioner The Board of Police Commissioners will receive the COP’s recommendations and evaluate the CUOF incident. The BOPC will then adjudicate the incident and a Tactical Debrief is completed within 90 days. The Chief of Police receives the UOFRB findings and evaluates the CUOF incident. The COP reports his recommendations to the Board of Police Commissioners. CHIEF OF POLICE Charlie Beck A SS I S T A N T C H I E F Sa n d y J o M a c Ar t h u r The Use of Force Review Board is convened. Chaired by the Director of the Office of Administrative Services Use of Force Review Division receives completed FID investigative case and conducts an analysis of the CUOF incident and schedules a Use of Force Review Board. General Training Update completed within 90 days of the CUOF incident for all substantially involved personnel (identified by the Area Commanding Officer). Chief of Police 72-Hour Briefing (all OIS and other significant CUOF incidents). Force Investigation Division personnel begins the CUOF incident investigation. Categorical Use of Force incident occurs. 5 CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE REVIEW BOARD PROCESS After UOFRD reviews the CUOF incident, the Use of Force Review Board is convened. The UOFRB consists of a representative from the following: Office of Administrative Services (Chair), Office of Operations, Personnel and Training Bureau, Geographic Bureau, and a Peer (similar rank of the substantially involved personnel). The Office of the Inspector General is present at the Board in an oversight capacity. The UOFRB process:    Force Investigation Division provides a detailed presentation of the CUOF incident The Commanding Officer of the substantially involved personnel provides his/her assessment of the CUOF incident and submits recommended findings to the UOFRB The UOFRB evaluates the CUOF incident and forwards their recommendations to the Chief of Police CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE ADJUDICATION POLICY Tactics, drawing and exhibiting a firearm, and use of force shall be evaluated during the CUOF adjudication process. The Use of Force Review Board (UOFRB) shall convene and evaluate the CUOF incident. The Use of Force Review Board shall make recommendations to the COP. The Chief of Police shall evaluate the CUOF incident and report his/her recommendations to the Board of Police Commissioners (BOPC). The Board of Police Commissioners will evaluate the CUOF incident and make findings consistent with the following: Area Findings Outcome Tactical Debrief Tactical Debrief Administrative Disapproval Tactical Debrief plus (one or more): •Extensive Retraining •Notice to Correct •Personnel Complaint In Policy – No Further Action Tactical Debrief Administrative Disapproval Out of Policy Tactical Debrief plus (one or more): •Extensive Retraining •Notice to Correct •Personnel Complaint In Policy – No Further Action Tactical Debrief Administrative Disapproval Out of Policy Tactical Debrief plus (one or more): •Extensive Retraining •Notice to Correct •Personnel Complaint Tactics D/E UOF 6 During the adjudication process, the UOFRB, COP, and BOPC may identify areas of conduct that should be included during the Tactical Debrief. After the adjudication, Use of Force Review Division (UOFRD) shall compile the list of issues to be debriefed and provide it to the CUOF Debrief Facilitator. The CUOF Debrief Facilitator shall conduct the Tactical Debrief with the personnel involved in the CUOF incident. The CUOF Debrief Facilitator shall be responsible for presenting the fact pattern of the case and leading a facilitated discussion on the training, tactics, force, and leadership issues applicable to the incident. The CUOF Debrief Facilitator will present those tactical practices identified by the adjudication process as “strengths” and “lessons learned” so that future practices, policies, or procedures can be enhanced. The Tactical Debrief shall provide training in the areas of drawing and exhibiting a firearm and use of force. Note: The Commanding Officer, UOFRD, shall coordinate the Tactical Debrief Facilitation process. The Tactical Debrief analysis will be summarized on an Intradepartmental Correspondence, Form 15.02.00, and forwarded within 21 days to UOFRD, Training Division, and Force Investigation Division to collect and analyze the results to further enhance adjudication, training, and critical incident investigations. Note: The intent of the Tactical Debrief analysis is to review and analyze Department-wide training, practices, policies and procedures. The Tactical Debrief analysis shall not focus on or document findings, recommendations, or analysis of individual employees or the incident. (2010 LAPD Manual 3/792.10, 3/792.15) 7 NON-CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE INCIDENT ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE COMMANDING OFFICER'S RESPONSIBILITY. Upon receipt of a Non-Categorical use of force investigation, the commanding officer shall: Utilize the Area/Division Training Coordinator to evaluate the incident; contact subject matter experts (e.g., Training Division) to obtain additional information, as needed; review all reports and make a recommendation on the disposition; sign the Use of Force Internal Process Report, Form 01.67.04; and notify the employee of Use of Force Review Division’s final disposition as soon as practicable. Non-Categorical Use of Force investigations shall be reviewed by Area/division commanding officers or the acting commanding officer within 14 calendar days of the incident. Investigations not reviewed within the 14-day time frame require a written explanation on the Non-Categorical Use of Force Internal Process Report (IPR). Upon Area/Division commanding officer approval, the IPR shall be forwarded to the bureau immediately. BUREAU COMMANDING OFFICER'S RESPONSIBILITY. Upon receipt of a NonCategorical Use of Force investigation, the bureau commanding officer shall: Cross-staff with Internal Affairs Group (IAG) to determine if a related complaint investigation has been initiated regarding the use of force incident and, if so, take that information into consideration; review all reports and make a recommendation on the disposition; sign the IPR; forward the IPR, with all related reports attached, to the Commanding Officer, Use of Force Review Division, within seven calendar days of receipt; and upon receipt of the disposition from Use of Force Review Division, notify the employee's commanding officer of that disposition. COMMANDING OFFICER, USE OF FORCE REVIEW DIVISION, RESPONSIBILITY. The Office of Administrative Services, is the Department’s review authority for the administrative review of all use of force incidents. For Non-Categorical Uses of Force, that authority is generally exercised through the Commanding Officer, Use of Force Review Division, who shall: Review the Non-Categorical Use of Force investigation and all related reports to ensure compliance with Department policy and procedure; approve or disapprove the recommended disposition and provide a written rationale for any finding that differs from that of the bureau commanding officer; retain the original Non-Categorical Use of Force Internal Process Report and copies of all related reports; and forward a copy of the completed Internal Process Report to the bureau commanding officer. If the Commanding Officer, Use of Force Review Division, requires further information prior to adjudication, such a request shall be submitted to the employee's bureau commanding officer. (2010 LAPD Manual 3/793.05-3/793.15) 8 NON-CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE REPORTING LEVELS All Non-Categorical Use of Force incidents shall be initially classified by the investigating supervisor as either a Level I or Level II incident. Level I Incident. A NCUOF shall be reported as a Level I incident under the following circumstances: An allegation of unauthorized force is made regarding the force used by a Department employee(s); or the force used results in a serious injury, such as a broken bone, dislocation, an injury requiring sutures, etc., that does not rise to the level of a CUOF incident; Note: If the investigating supervisor is unable to verify the seriousness of an injury or complained of injury, it shall be reported as a Level I incident. If the injury requires admission to a hospital, the incident becomes a CUOF and will be investigated by Force Investigation Division. or, the injuries to the person upon whom force was used are inconsistent with the amount or type of force reported by involved Department employee(s); or accounts of the incident provided by witnesses and/or the subject of the use of force substantially conflict with the involved employee(s) account. Level II Incident. All other reportable NCUOF that do not meet Level I criteria shall be reported as Level II incidents. This will include the use of an impact device or less-lethal munitions with hits (Refer to Manual Section 4/245.13 for Level II reporting guidelines). Note: If the use of an impact device or less-lethal munitions causes a serious injury such as a broken bone, dislocation, or an injury requiring sutures, etc., and does not rise to the level of a CUOF, it shall be reported as a Level I incident. Department employees are reminded that any person struck with a baton shall be transported to a Department approved medical facility for medical treatment prior to booking. (2010 LAPD Manual 3/245.11) 9 2010 USE OF FORCE INCIDENT STATISTICS In 2010, there were a total of 1661 reportable use of force incidents which reflects a six percent decrease from 2009. UOF 2010 2009 2008 2007 Categorical 86 86 104 106 NCUOF 1575 1676 1557 1699 TOTAL 1661 1762 1661 1805 The percentage of a use of force incident increased (0.04 percent) slightly from 0.97 percent per 100 arrests to 1.01 percent in 2010, but the use of force per contact decreased by 0.02 percent. Percent of UOF per Arrest and Contact UOF/Arrest 1.01% 0.97% UOF/Contact 0.90% 0.20% 0.18% 2010 0.19% 2009 2008 0.98% 0.21% 2007 Reportable uses of force are adjudicated within one year of occurrence, unless tolled. In 2010, one CUOF incident was tolled and on average, CUOF incidents were adjudicated in 315 days. NCUOF incidents were adjudicated on average in 72 days. UOF Adjudication Timeframe 400 Days 300 200 100 0 2010 2009 2008 CUOF 315 326 339 NCUOF 72 88 74 10 TACTICS FINDING In 2010, there were 4502 (4467 TD/NA, 35 AD) substantially involved personnel who received a tactics finding. Over 99 percent of all officers were found to be consistent with Department training. TD/NA 4640 4467 35 AD 4506 32 2010 31 2009 TACTICS 2008 TD/NA AD 2010 4467 99.22% 35 0.78% 2009 4640 99.32% 32 0.68% 2008 4506 99.32% 31 0.68% USE OF FORCE FINDING In 2010, there were a total of 4403 (4384 IP, 19 OP) substantially involved personnel who received a UOF finding. Over 99 percent of all officers were found to be within policy. IP 4521 4384 4248 21 19 2010 10 2009 UOF OP 2008 IP OP 2010 4384 99.57% 19 0.43% 2009 4521 99.54% 21 0.46% 2008 4248 99.77% 10 0.23% 11 CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS 2010 STATISTICS 12 CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS COMPARISON Categorical Use of Force 2010 07-09 Avg Hits 26 30 No Hits 14 13 Animal Shootings 18 18 Unintentional Discharges (UD) 7 9 Total Officer Involved Shootings 65 70 Law Enforcement Related Injuries (LERI) 9 9 In-Custody Deaths (ICD) 7 6 Carotid Restraint Control Holds (CRCH) 1 2 Head Strikes (HS) 3 7 K9 Contacts 1 4 Total Others 21 28 TOTAL CUOF INCIDENTS 86 98 Annual CUOF Comparison 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 UD CRCH HS ICD K9 2010 Hit 26 No Hit Animal 14 18 7 1 3 7 1 9 2009 27 9 17 9 0 5 1 6 11 2008 31 11 17 13 2 8 9 4 9 2007 33 18 21 6 2 9 8 1 8 TOTALS 2010 2009 2008 2007 CUOF 86 85 104 106 13 LERII CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE AVERAGE TIMEFRAME After a CUOF incident, the substantially involved personnel receive a mandated GTU. The GTUs must be completed within 90 days of the incident.  In 2010, there was a compliance rate of 100 percent (excluding short term and long term leave of absences) Upon the completion of the adjudication process, a TD is convened with the substantially involved personnel. The TD shall be provided within 90 days of the adjudication of the CUOF incident.  In 2010, 100 percent of the SIP attended the TD (excluding short term and long term leave of absences) Days Average Timeframe 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 FID Board Adjudicated 2010 189 62 315 2009 210 67 326 2008 209 73 339 GTU and Tac Debrief Completion Average 60 50 Days 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2009 2008 GTU 33 32 42 TD 44 50 55 14 CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE ADJUDICATION FINDINGS Tactics TD AD 2010 237 92.58% 19 7.42% 2009 234 91.05% 23 8.95% 2008 396 93.62% 27 6.38% D/E IP OP 2010 162 99.39% 1 0.61% 2009 171 98.84% 2 1.16% 2008 280 99.64% 1 0.36% NonLethal IP OP 2010 72 100.00% 0 0.00% 2009 75 98.68% 1 1.32% 2008 76 100.00% 0 0.00% LessLethal IP OP 2010 13 100.00% 0 0.00% 2009 19 100.00% 0 0.00% 2008 14 100.00% 0 0.00% Lethal IP OP 2010 95 95.00% 5 5.00% 2009 81 94.19% 5 5.81% 2008 112 97.39% 3 2.61% Legend AD Administrative Disapproval IP In Policy OP Out of Policy D/E Drawing/Exhibiting TD Tactical Debrief 15 HIT AND NO HIT OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING INCIDENTS Hit and No Hit Officer Involved Shootings represent a majority of the CUOF incidents. In 2010, there were 40 incidents (26 Hit/14 No Hit), involving 75 Officers discharging their firearm at a suspect(s). Hit/No Hit INCIDENT Hit No Hit Ratio 2010 26 14 65% 2009 27 9 75% 2008 31 11 74% Source of Activity Gang Investigation 5 Observation Off Duty 13 3 Radio Call 13 Task Force/Special Detail 6  Observation activities and Radio Calls represent approximately 65 percent of Hit/No Hit incidents  Traffic/pedestrian stops accounted for 54 percent of observation activities  Disturbance calls represented 38 percent of radio calls  Assault with a deadly weapon represented 31 percent of radio calls 16 HIT AND NO HIT OIS INCIDENT BUREAU/DIVISION OF OCCURRENCE Bureau of Occurrence 16 14 Hit/No Hit 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Central South Valley West Out of City 2010 9 15 9 4 3 2009 11 10 4 8 3 2008 15 13 5 4 5 Division of Occurrence 6 4 3 3 2 1 4 2 1 2 2 1 17 3 2 2 1 1 HIT AND NO HIT OIS INCIDENT MONTH/DAY/HOUR OF OCCURRENCE Month 6 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 2 1 18 3 2 HIT AND NO HIT OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING CLASSIFICATION TYPE LAPD Officers were engaged in an OIS with a suspect(s) armed with a firearm or other weapon in 83 percent (I,II,V) of the Hit/No Hit incidents. In the Class IV type, perception shootings where no firearm was found, the officers perceived a firearm but pending further investigation, the suspect was in possession of an item perceived to be a firearm (i.e. cell phone, bottle). Hit/No Hit incidents are classified as follows: Type Description I Suspect verified with firearm – fired at officer or 3rd party II Suspect verified with firearm – firearm in hand or position to fire, but did not fire III Perception shooting – firearm present but not drawn IV Perception shooting – no firearm found V Shooting of person armed with weapon other than firearm VI Shooting of person with no weapon - SBI to self/others VII Tactical Discharge Classification Type 25 20 15 10 5 0 I II III IV V VI VII 2010 6 20 0 5 7 1 1 2009 8 18 0 3 5 2 1 2008 13 12 1 6 9 2 0 19 HIT/NO HIT OIS—OFFICER INFORMATION  75 Officers discharged their firearm, in 40 Hit/ No Hit incidents. In one incident the discharge was a warning shot (not included in the following graphs)  The rank, assignment, years of employment , firearm, distance and rounds fired were consistent with prior years 28 4 6 20 2 Officer Firearm 19 8 3 4 HIT/NO HIT INCIDENT—SUSPECT INFORMATION  Out of the 40 Hit/No Hit OIS incidents, 16 suspects were killed and 13 suspects were injured  14 Hit/No Hit incidents involved documented gang members  Seven incidents involved suspects under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol  Two incidents involved a suspect with a mental disorder  One incident involved a female suspect In the four of the five incidents involving Officer’s perception of a firearm, the suspects were in possession of a bat, cell phone, bottle, and an unknown dark object. The suspects made similar movements as raising a firearm and pointing it towards the officers. In the fifth incident, the officer heard gunfire and discharged his/her firearm. 21 ANIMAL SHOOTING INCIDENTS   15 of the 18 Animal OISs, involved a dog shooting The other three were off duty, involving a bear, opossum, and a bobcat 22 UNINTENTIONAL DISCHARGE INCIDENTS There have been seven Unintentional Discharge incidents in 2010.  Three incidents occurred while conducting police activity, and accidently pressed the trigger  Four incidents occurred during an inspection of the firearm and accidently pressed the trigger Firearm 1 1 Glock .40 cal Glock .45 cal 3 Remmington Shotgun 1 HK 416D Unk Semi Pistol Length Employment Length ofofEmployment Officer Rank PO3 29% 1 PO1 14% 12-13 29% PO2 57% 7-10 28% 23 1-2 Years 43% CAROTID RESTRAINT CONTROL HOLD INCIDENT There was one CRCH incident in 2010. In the incident, the officer was attempting to handcuff a violent suspect armed with a firearm. HEAD STRIKE INCIDENTS There were three Head Strike incidents in 2010. One of the three incidents, was an intentional use of deadly force to strike the suspect’s head with a baton. The other two incidents were inadvertent strikes to the suspect’s head with a bean bag round and a baton. IN-CUSTODY DEATH INCIDENTS There were seven ICD incidents in 2010, which was an increase over 2009 (1), but consistent with the average of the previous three years (6).  One of the ICD incidents has been tolled and awaiting adjudication  Five of the subjects were under the influence of drugs, but three subjects died due to an accidental death caused by drugs (based on Coroner’s autopsy) K-9 CONTACTS WITH HOSPITALIZATION INCIDENT In 2010, there was one K-9 Contact with Hospitalization incident. The average of the previous three years has been four per year.  The K-9 Contact occurred while searching for a gang member armed with a firearm 24 LAW ENFORCEMENT RELATED INJURY INCIDENTS There were nine LERIs in 2010 which are consistent with the prior years.  Five of nine incidents were generated by a radio call, three observation investigations, and one task force/special detail  All incidents involved suspects that were fighting and resisting arrest  Four suspects were documented gang members  Three suspects were under the influence of drugs/alcohol  Suspect Race: one Black, three Hispanic, three White, two Other  Eight of nine suspects were males Bureau 5 2 2 Valley West 0 Central South 25 Non-Categorical Use of Force Incidents 26 NON-CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE INCIDENT SUMMARY Overall, NCUOF incidents decreased six percent Department-wide between 2010 and 2009, with Level I incidents remaining consistent. YEAR NCUOF INCIDENTS LEVEL I / LEVEL II 2010 1575 113/1462 2009 1676 113/1563 2008 1557 148/1409 2007 1699 180/1519 27 28 114 104 134 124 2010 2009 2008 2007 Central 65 94 76 51 Hollenbeck 105 85 100 85 Newton Central Bureau 65 56 61 67 Northeast 110 122 70 69 Rampart 29 58 48 45 67 2010 2009 2008 2007 Harbor 153 167 205 151 77th Street South Bureau 148 128 147 130 Southeast 134 121 130 139 Southwest 30 44 36 22 29 2010 2009 2008 2007 Devonshire 74 55 65 80 Foothill 73 79 109 79 Mission 59 34 45 48 North Hollywood Valley Bureau 85 88 62 67 66 50 42 37 0 0 58 33 Van Nuys West Valley Topanga 31 120 93 100 115 2010 2009 2008 2007 Hollywood 58 45 48 57 Pacific 38 27 28 24 West LA West Bureau 97 73 51 39 Wilshire 0 0 66 52 Olympic NON-CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE INCIDENT OCCURRENCES  63 percent of NCUOF occurred on Thursday through Sunday  48 percent occurred between the hours of 6:00 PM and Midnight  48 percent of NCUOF occurred investigating a Radio Call, followed by 37 percent while conducting self-initiated, observational activities Source of Activity 746 581 127 18 Station Call Radio Call Other 32 96 Obs Activity Citizen Call FORCE OPTIONS USED DURING NON-CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS  In 2010, some type of physical force accounted for 88 percent of all force options used during NCUOF incidents, compared to 87 percent in 2009 and 88 percent in 2008  The most commonly used control device, a TASER, accounted for six percent of all Force Type options used during NCUOF incidents in 2010, followed by OC Spray with three percent  The TASER was used 54 percent of the time (2009, 51 percent), OC Spray was deployed 27 percent (2009, 34 percent), Baton used 14 percent (2009, 11.2 percent) and the Bean Bag Shotgun was deployed 5 percent (2009, 3.8 percent) During a NCUOF, one or more force option was used. In a single NCUOF incident, the involved officers may have used a chemical agent, a baton strike, and finally a takedown and physical force to control a subject. Each force option or tool used was counted separately and included in the chart. 33 INJURIES TO OFFICERS AND SUBJECTS DURING NCUOF INCIDENTS Visible injuries suffered by officers during NCUOF incidents were similar in type as those suffered by subjects (i.e. contusions and abrasions) but not in frequency. The Officer and Subject tables detail the four categories used to capture injuries during NCUOF incidents. Visible injuries include contusions and bruises, lacerations, punctures, scratches and abrasions. Officers and subjects may have more than one visible injury (i.e. a contusion and an abrasion) which would be counted separately. The most common visible injuries were abrasions/scratches. OFFICER INJURY 2010 OFFICER INJURY 2009 2008 NUMBER % NUMBER % NUMBER % Visible Injury 518 24 786 27 575 17 No Injury 1518 71 1882 66 2606 79 Complained of Pain 87 4 167 6 116 3 Fractures/Dislocation 17 0.8 9 0.3 20 0.6 TOTALS 2140 2857 3317 SUSPECT INJURY 2010 SUBJECT INJURY 2009 2008 NUMBER % NUMBER % NUMBER % Visible Injury 1473 59 1567 62 1559 60 No Injury 489 20 552 22 562 22 Complained of Pain 500 20 370 15 420 16 Fractures/Dislocation 25 1 22 1 40 2 TOTALS 2496 2489 34 2581 RACE OF SUBJECTS INVOLVED IN A NCUOF INCIDENTS SUBJECTS RACE 2010 2009 2008 NUMBER % NUMBER % NUMBER % Asian 17 1 17 1 29 2 Black 576 38 624 39 580 38 Hispanic 680 45 735 46 715 46 White 240 16 231 14 220 14 ADJUDICATION OF NON-CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS All NCUOF incidents are reviewed by the officer’s chain-of-command to ensure compliance with Department policy, and adherence to tactical standards and training. All NCUOF incidents are reviewed by commanding officers where a finding for force and tactics employed by the officer are evaluated. Each officer who uses force during a NCUOF incident is given separate findings for the force and tactics. These findings are bifurcated to better evaluate the actions of the officer leading up to and during the incident (tactics) and the actual control tools (force) used by that officer. The officer’s Area commanding officer (where appropriate) and Bureau commanding officer, also review the investigation and provide their own findings. The Office of Administrative Services is the final authority in adjudicating NCUOF incidents and delegates to the commanding officer, Use of Force Review Division, the responsibility of the final review and adjudication of NCUOF incidents on behalf of the Chief of Police. In 2010, over 99 percent of all officers involved in a NCUOF were found to be consistent with Department training and/or policy. NON-CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS 2010 2009 2008 2007 Total Officers Involved 4246 4415 4154 4432 In Policy/No Action 3586 3704 3540 3899 In Policy/Non-Disciplinary Action 644 702 610 523 Out of Policy (AD) 16 9 4 10 Total Officers Involved 4218 4361 4053 4338 In Policy/No Action 4046 4123 3878 4189 In Policy/Non-Disciplinary Action 158 223 168 133 Out of Policy (AD) 14 15 7 16 Tactics Force Used 35 DEFINITIONS Carotid Restraint Control Holds: All uses of an upper body control hold by a Department employee, including the use of a modified carotid, full carotid or locked carotid hold. (2010 LAPD Manual 3/794.10) Categorical Use of Force Incident: An incident involving the use of deadly force (e.g., discharge of a firearm) by a Department employee; all uses of an upper body control hold by a Department employee, including the use of a modified carotid, full carotid or locked carotid hold; all deaths while the arrestee or detainee is in the custodial care of the Department (also known as an In-Custody Death or ICD); A use of force incident resulting in death; a use of force incident resulting in an injury requiring hospitalization, commonly referred to as a Law Enforcement Related Injury or LERI; all intentional head strikes with an impact weapon or device (e.g., baton, flashlight, etc.) and all unintentional (inadvertent or accidental) head strikes that results in serious bodily injury, hospitalization or death; officer involved animal shootings and non-tactical unintentional discharges. (2010 LAPD Manual 3/792.05) Deadly (Lethal) Force: Refer to the Use of Force Policy (pg. #3) Drawing and Exhibiting and/or Use of Force - Administrative Disapproval - Out of Policy: A finding, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the actions of the employee relative to drawing and exhibiting a firearm or use of force were not within the Department’s policies. (2010 LAPD Manual 3/792.05) Drawing and Exhibiting and Use of Force - In Policy – No Further Action: A finding, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the actions of the employee relative to drawing and exhibiting a firearm or use of force were within the Department’s policies. (2010 LAPD Manual 3/792.05) Force Option: All Department-approved physical force techniques (i.e., firm grip, punch, takedown, etc.) or devices (i.e., OC spray, baton, TASER, etc.) available to an officer. Force Options fall into the following three categories: Lethal (Deadly Force), Less-Lethal (TASER, bean bag, other projectile devices), Non-Lethal (firm grip, takedown, etc.). General Training Update: Standardized training provided by the employee’s command or Training Division personnel, to personnel involved in a CUOF incident. The Training Update is not an inquiry into the specific details of the CUOF. The intent of the update is to provide involved personnel with standardized training material in the tactical issues and actions readily identified in the CUOF incident as well as an update on the Use of Force policy. Training should be provided as soon as practicable. (2010 LAPD Manual 3/792.05) Head Strikes: All intentional head strikes with an impact weapon or device (e.g., baton, flashlight, etc.) and all unintentional (inadvertent or accidental) head strikes that results in serious bodily injury, hospitalization or death. (2010 LAPD Manual 3/794.10) 36 Imminent: Black’s Law Dictionary defines imminent as, “Near at hand; impending; on the point of happening.” (2010 LAPD Manual 1/556.10) In-Custody Deaths: All deaths while the arrestee or detainee is in the custodial care of the Department. (2010 LAPD Manual 3/794.10) Less-Lethal Force: Force which describe weapons and ordnance that are not fundamentally designed to kill or cause serious injury and is associated with projectile munitions such as the Department’s bean bag shotgun, Sage Launcher or TASER. Non-Categorical Use of Force: Incident in which any on-duty Department employee, or off-duty employee whose occupation as a Department employee is a factor, uses a less-lethal control device or physical force to: Compel a person to comply with the employee's direction; or, Overcome resistance of a person during an arrest or a detention; or, Defend any individual from an aggressive action by another person. The following incidents are not reportable as a Non-Categorical Use of Force: The use of a C-grip, firm grip, or joint lock to compel a person to comply with an employee’s direction which does not result in an injury or complained of injury; The use of force reasonable to overcome passive resistance due to physical disability, mental illness, intoxication, or muscle rigidity of a person (e.g., use of a C-grip or firm grip, joint lock, joint lock walk down or body weight) which does not result in an injury or complained of injury; to being handcuffed. Since there are no injuries or complained of injuries, this incident is not a reportable use of force. Under any circumstances, the discharge of a less-lethal projectile weapon (e.g., bean bag shotgun, TASER, 37mm or 40mm projectile launcher, any chemical control dispenser or Compressed Air Projectile System) that does not contact a person; Note: Such incidents shall be reported on an Employee's Report, Form 15.07.00, and submitted to the commanding officer for review and appropriate action. Force used by an organized squad in a crowd control situation, or a riotous situation when the crowd exhibits hostile behavior and does not respond to verbal directions from Department employees. Such incidents are documented via an after-action report or Sergeant’s Daily Report, Form 15.48.00; and isolated incidents resulting from a crowd control situation may require a use of force investigation as determined by a supervisor at the scene. (2010 LAPD Manual 4/245.05) Non-Lethal Force: Amount of force not likely to cause significant or serious injury. Substantially Involved Personnel: The term “substantially involved” includes the employee(s) applying force or who had a significant tactical or decision-making role in the incident. (2010 LAPD Manual 3/792.05) Tactics - Administrative Disapproval: A finding, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the tactics employed during a CUOF incident unjustifiably and substantially deviated from approved Department tactical training. (2010 LAPD Manual 3/792.05) 37 Tactics—Standard (Tactical) Debrief: A finding that no action beyond the Tactical Debrief and Training Update is needed. (2010 LAPD Manual 3/792.05) Tactical Debrief: The collective review of an incident to identify those areas where actions and decisions were effective and those areas where actions and decisions could have been improved. The intent of a Tactical Debrief is to enhance future performance. The Tactical Debrief is conducted by the Categorical Use of Force Debrief Facilitator. (2010 LAPD Manual 3/792.05) Unintentional Discharge: The unintentional discharge of a firearm regardless of cause. Unintentional discharges are evaluated then determined to be “Accidental Discharges” or “Negligent Discharges.” (2010 LAPD Manual 3/792.05) Use of Force—Tactics Directive: A written directive from the Chief of Police, which contains procedure and/or insight into use of force issues. Use of Force policy will continue to be placed into the Department Manual and may be reiterated in a Use of Force—Tactics Directive. 38 ABOUT THE DIVISION Use of Force Review Division is comprised of the following sections: Administration Section, Categorical Review Section, NonCategorical Review Section and Tactics Review Section. Use of Force Review Division reports directly to the Office of Administrative Services and facilitates the CONTACT INFORMATION Office of Administrative Services Sandy Jo MacArthur, Assistant Chief 100 West First Street, Suite 1030 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-486-6790 Use of Force Review Division Captain Scott Sargent 100 West First Street, Suite 268, Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-486-5950  Administrative Section Sergeant Susana Padilla 213-486-5950  Categorical Review Section Lieutenant Jeff Wenninger 213-486-5960  Non-Categorical Review Section Lieutenant Brian Gilman 213-486-5970  Tactics Review Section Sergeant Derek O’Donnell 213-486-5980 review and adjudication of all Categorical and Non-Categorical Use of Force incidents on behalf of the COP. Use of Force Review Division coordinates and schedules the Use of Force Review Boards for Categorical Use of Force incidents and provides staff support to the Board members. Use of Force Review Division maintains and updates Categorical and Non-Categorical Use of Force databases and prepares statistical information pertaining to use of force incidents. Additionally, the Tactics Review Section provides Department-wide use of force training, oversees the Department’s General Training Update and Tactical Debrief process, as well as, publishes the quarterly Tac Ops newsletter and maintains the UOFRD website (LAN). 39 Appendix Budget City of Cleveland Police Department Monitor - Professional Services Agreement Annual Budget of Fees and Costs City of Cleveland Police Department Monitor - Professional Services Agreement Annual Budget of Fees and Costs Total Hours and Weighted Effective Rate Year 1 Lawyers Paralegal Academic Experts Law Enforcement Consultants Community Liasion Data Analysts TOTALS Total Fees and Costs by Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Hours Avg. Rate 2250 280 1060 3400 120 1200 2040 280 1070 3600 120 1200 2140 280 960 2900 120 1200 2000 260 920 2600 120 1200 1940 280 820 2420 120 1200 10370 1380 4830 14920 600 6000 8310 8310 7600 7100 6780 38100 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Totals Community Engagement Report Writing Coordination and Review Total Hours Year 1 Year 2 Fees Costs TOTAL FEES AND COSTS Total Hours per Year by Classification Policy Review Training Assessment Incident Review, Data Collection and Analysis Year 1 Lawyers Paralegal Academic Experts Law Enforcement Consultants Community Liasion Data Analysts 200 0 100 800 0 0 130 0 160 1200 0 0 760 200 700 1200 0 1200 240 0 0 80 120 0 300 80 100 120 0 0 620 0 0 0 0 0 2250 280 1060 3400 120 1200 Year 2 Lawyers Paralegal Academic Experts Law Enforcement Consultants Community Liasion Data Analysts 80 0 50 400 0 0 80 0 160 1400 0 0 800 220 760 1600 0 1200 240 0 0 80 120 0 220 60 100 120 0 0 620 0 0 0 0 0 2040 280 1070 3600 120 1200 Year 3 Lawyers Paralegal Academic Experts Law Enforcement Consultants Community Liasion Data Analysts 60 0 20 240 0 0 60 0 100 800 0 0 880 200 740 1600 0 1200 240 0 0 80 120 0 320 80 100 180 0 0 580 0 0 0 0 0 2140 280 960 2900 120 1200 City of Cleveland Police Department Monitor - Professional Services Agreement Annual Budget of Fees and Costs Total Hours per Year by Classification Policy Review Training Assessment Incident Review, Data Collection and Analysis Community Engagement Report Writing Coordination and Review Total Hours Year 4 Lawyers Paralegal Academic Experts Law Enforcement Consultants Community Liasion Data Analysts 60 0 20 200 0 0 60 0 60 600 0 0 820 200 740 1600 0 1200 240 0 0 80 120 0 240 60 100 120 0 0 580 0 0 0 0 0 2000 260 920 2600 120 1200 Year 5 Lawyers Paralegal Academic Experts Law Enforcement Consultants Community Liasion Data Analysts 40 0 20 160 0 0 40 0 20 400 0 0 760 200 680 1600 0 1200 240 0 0 80 120 0 320 80 100 180 0 0 540 0 0 0 0 0 1940 280 820 2420 120 1200 2450 5270 22260 2200 2980 2940 38100 TOTAL HOURS