DEPARTMENT OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY QUARTERLY REPORTS Third Quarter 2017 Included in This Document Comprehensive Statistical Report Comparative Overview of Caseload How Complaints Were Received Complaints and Allegations by Unit Findings in Allegations Closed Policy Recommendations Days to Close – All Cases Closed Days to Close – Sustained Cases Investigative Hearings and Mediations Status of DPA Cases – Year 2016 Status of DPA Cases – Year 2017 Caseloads by Investigator Case Closures by Investigator Weighted Closures by Investigator Presented by: Paul Henderson, Interim Executive Director Prepared by: Erick Baltazar, Deputy Director Contributors: Erick Baltazar, Eric Ho, Sara Maunder, John Alden, Manny Fortes, Samara Marion, Linda Taylor, Saci Wineinger, and Pamela Thompson
73
Embed
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY - sfgov.org · deploying new computer workstations with the new Windows 10 operating system to the entire ... the DPA online complaint system was
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
QUARTERLY REPORTS
Third Quarter 2017
Included in This Document Comprehensive Statistical Report
Comparative Overview of Caseload How Complaints Were Received
Complaints and Allegations by Unit Findings in Allegations Closed
Policy Recommendations Days to Close – All Cases Closed Days to Close – Sustained Cases
Investigative Hearings and Mediations Status of DPA Cases – Year 2016 Status of DPA Cases – Year 2017
Caseloads by Investigator Case Closures by Investigator
Weighted Closures by Investigator Presented by: Paul Henderson, Interim Executive Director
Prepared by: Erick Baltazar, Deputy Director Contributors: Erick Baltazar, Eric Ho,
Sara Maunder, John Alden, Manny Fortes, Samara Marion, Linda Taylor, Saci Wineinger, and Pamela Thompson
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY CfTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
December 6, 2017
To: The Honorable Edwin Lee, Mayor
Paul Henderson Interim Executive Director
The Honorable London Breed, President, San Francisco Board of Supervisors Members, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors President L. Julius Turman and Members, the San Francisco Police Commission San Francisco Police Chief William Scott
Re: San Francisco Department of Police Accountability 2017 Third Quarter Statistical Report
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Statistics
Attached is the Department of Police Accountability's 1 (DPA) statistical report for the third quaiter of 2017. The DPA received an adjusted total of 110 complaints of police misconduct or failure to take action and closed 204 complaints. The DPA sustained allegations in 17 complaints against San Francisco police officers, which is an 8% sustained rate. The DPA mediated 8 cases during the third quarter.
II. ORGANIZATIONAL AND BUDGET MATTERS
A. Budget
The Department of Police Accountability' s approved budget for FY 2017-18 is $7,200,138 and $7,508,817 for FY 2018-19.
B. Staffing
The DPA's approved budget for fiscal year 2017-18 is $7,200,138 with 44.78 budgeted positions. Of the budgeted positions, the following positions remained vacant at the end of the third quarter: one (1) 1052 IS Business Analyst, one (1) 1406 Clerk Typist, one (1) 1632 Senior
1 The Office of Citizen Complaints was renamed the Department of Police Accountability pursuant to a 2016 amendment to the City and County of San Francisco Charter.
25 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 700, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 241-7711 • FAX (415) 241-7733 • TTY (415) 241-7770 WEBSITE: http://www.sfgov.org/dpa
Account Clerk, one (1) 1822 Administrative Analyst, one (1) 1823 Senior Administrative Analyst, nine (9) 8124 Investigator positions, and one (1) Senior Investigator.
C. Technology
The DPA implemented the first phase an Interdepartmental Services Agreement with the Department of Technology (DT) to upgrade and modernize DPA servers, software, and desktop computer hardware. Information Systems (IS) Analyst Assistant Eric Ho worked closely with a team of experts from DT to achieve project goals in the absence of DP A's longtime IS Analyst, who resigned just before the project began. During the third quarter, the team successfully migrated from Novell to the City's Active Directory and migrated DPA's on-site file server to the City's virtual machine server, bringing reliability and increased security to DP A data management and operations. Backup and restoration of data files and documents were initiated in DT's virtualization environment. The team also prepared for the second phase of the project, deploying new computer workstations with the new Windows 10 operating system to the entire staff. Deployment preparation required extraordinary efforts to ensure database and software compatibility with Windows 10, including consultations with a database specialist. The DPA also adopted System Center Configuration Manager for managing future software updates and installations more efficiently. DT will also train Mr. Ho on maintaining and using the new system. Unrelated to the Interdepartmental Services Agreement projects, the DPA online complaint system was nonfunctional for the entire quarter. At quarter-end, the system was under evaluation for repair or replacement.
D. Training
During the third quaiter, Axon representative Dawn Summers, along with SFPD Lieutenant Wilfred Williams and Officer Alberto Duarte, provided DPA staff training on Axon Body Worn Cameras. DPA Attorney John Alden provided investigators and senior investigators training on new DPA forms, including the new DPA complaint form. Lastly, two DPA investigators attended the Advanced Officer/Continuing Professional Training at the San Francisco Police Academy.
III. INVESTIGATION OF CASES
A. Case Inventory
The DPA opened 111 new cases, with an adjusted total of 110 new cases.2 The DPA closed 204 cases, leaving 270 cases pending at quarter end, 148 less than were pending at the close of the third quaiter of 2016. Of the 270 pending cases, 228 were opened in 2017, 37 were opened in 2016, and 5 were opened in 2015.
2 The adjusted total reflects cases that were withdrawn, merged, or voided based on clerical or other errors.
2
B. Caseloads and Dispositions of Cases
The average caseload per investigator was 23 cases compared with 29 cases during the third quarter of 2016.3 Of 204 total closed cases, DPA investigators closed 95 cases (46% of cases) within 270 days. The DPA's goal is to conclude investigations within 270 days. The DPA took more than a year to close 42 cases (21 % of cases).
One or more allegations of misconduct were sustained in 17 of the 204 closed cases, resulting in a 8% sustained rate. Of the 707 allegations investigated, 221 allegations resulted in "Proper Conduct" findings; 35 allegations resulted in "Sustained" findings; 126 allegations resulted in "Unfounded" findings; 105 allegations resulted in "No Finding/Withdrawn" dispositions; and 220 allegations resulted in "Not Sustained" findings.
C. Chief of Police's Adjudication of DPA Sustained Cases
When a sustained case warrants a suspension of ten days or more, the DPA can recommend that the Chief of Police file charges with the Police Commission. If the Chief of Police declines to file charges with the Police Commission after meeting and conferring with the DPA, the DPA can file charges on its own with the Police Commission. Alternately, the DPA can determine that a case warrants a suspension of ten days or fewer.
When the DP A determines that sustained misconduct warrants no more than ten days of suspension, the Chief of Police determines whether or not to sustain the DP A's findings and what level of discipline to impose. Although the DPA recommends specific levels of discipline for each case, the Chief of Police determines if, in his opinion, the sustained allegations are merited and what level of discipline or corrective action to impose. The Chief of Police also adjudicates challenges. While police officers may appeal the Chief's discipline to the Police Commission, neither Charter section 4.136 nor the Administrative Code provide for the DPA Director to appeal the Chief's decision. During the third quarter, the Chief of Police imposed discipline in 13 DPA sustained cases as follows:
In July 2017, Chief William Scott proposed discipline in four (4) cases determined by the DPA to have sustainable allegations. The DPA' s findings and recommended discipline and the Chief's proposed discipline are as follows:
1. Conduct Reflecting Discredit - An officer behaved inappropriately and made inappropriate comments in violation of SFPD General Order 2.01, General Rules of Conduct.
The DPA Director recommended a written reprimand.
The Chief of Police imposed an admonishment and retraining.
3 In its January 27, 2007, audit report on the DPA, the Controller's CSA division fou nd that 16 cases per investigator was a best practice caseload for civilian oversight investigators.
3
According to the Police Commission Disciplinary Penalty and Referral Guidelines, the penalty for violation of paragraph 5 under Class "D" misconduct is a written reprimand for a first offense.
2. Neglect of Duty - Two officers failed to take required action in violation of Department Bulletin No. 13-233, Traffic Collision/Incidents Involving Bicycles.
The DPA Director recommended written reprimands.
In concurrence with the DPA Director, the Chief of Police imposed written reprimands on both officers.
According to the Police Commission Disciplinary Penalty and Referral Guidelines, the penalty for violation of paragraph 27 under Class "D" misconduct is a written reprimand for a first offense.
3. Neglect of Duty- An officer wrote an inaccurate traffic collision report in violation of Department Bulletin 14-205 and Report Writing Manual.
The DPA Director did not recommend any discipline because the case was forwarded to the Chief past the Government Code section 3304 date.
The Chief of Police imposed an admonishment and retraining.
4. Conduct Reflecting Discredit - An officer behaved inappropriately and made inappropriate comments in violation of SFPD General Order 2.01, General Rules of Conduct.
Neglect of Duty - The officer failed to take required action in violation of SFPD General Order 5.04, Arrest by Private Persons.
The DPA Director recommended a written reprimand for each of the violations.
In concurrence with the DPA Director, the Chief of Police imposed a written reprimand for each of the violations.
According to the Police Commission Disciplinary Penalty and Referral Guidelines, the penalty for violation of paragraphs 5 and 27 under Class "D" misconduct is a written reprimand for a first offense.
In August 2017, Chief William Scott proposed discipline in five (5) cases determined by the DPA to have a sustainable allegation. The DPA's finding and recommended discipline and the Chiefs proposed discipline are as follows:
4
5. Neglect of Duty - Officer One failed to provide translation services in violation of Department General Order 5.20, Language Access Services for Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons.
Neglect of Duty - Officer One failed to properly investigate in violation of Depru.tment General Orders 1.03, Duties of Patrol Officers, and 2.01, General Rules of Conduct.
The DPA Director recommended a written reprimand.
The Chief of Police imposed a one-day suspension.
According to the Police Commission Disciplinary Penalty and Referral Guidelines, the penalty for violation of paragraph 27 under Class "D" misconduct is a written reprimand for a first offense.
Neglect of Duty - Officer Two failed to provide translation services in violation of Department General Order 5.20, Language Access Services for Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons.
Neglect of Duty - Officer Two fai led to properly investigate in violation of Depru.tment General Orders 1.03, Duties of Patrol Officers, and 2.01 , General Rules of Conduct.
Conduct Reflecting Discredit - Officer Two used inappropriate language with two witnesses in violation of Depru.tment General Order 2.01, General Rules of Conduct.
The DPA Director recommended a written reprimand.
In concurrence with the DPA director, the Chief of Police imposed a written reprimand.
According to the Police Commission Disciplinary Penalty and Ref err al Guidelines, the penalty for violation of paragraph 27 under Class ''D" misconduct is a written reprimand for a first offense.
6. Neglect of Duty - An officer failed to take a DPA complaint in violation of Department General Order 2.04, Citizen Complaints Against Officers.
The DPA Director recommended a one-day suspension.
The Chief of Police imposed a written reprimand and retraining.
5
According to the Police Commission Disciplinary Penalty and Referral Guidelines, the penalty for violation of paragraph 8 under Class "D" misconduct is a one-day suspension for a first offense.
7. Neglect of Duty - Officer One failed to prepare a complete and accurate incident report in violation of Department General Order 2.01, General Rules of Conduct.
The DPA Director recommended a written reprimand.
The Chief of Police found the allegation to be a training failure.
According to the Police Commission Disciplinary Penalty and Referral Guidelines, the penalty for violation of paragraph 27 under Class "D" misconduct is a written reprimand for a first offense.
Neglect of Duty - Officer Two failed to properly supervise in violation of Department General Order 1.04, Duties of Sergeants.
The DPA Director recommended a written reprimand.
The Chief of Police imposed an admonishment and retraining.
According to the Police Commission Disciplinary Penalty and Referral Guidelines, the penalty for violation of paragraph 27 under Class "D" misconduct is a written reprimand for a first offense.
8. Neglect of Duty - An officer failed to take required action in violation of Department General Orders 6.15, Property Processing, and 2.01, General Rules of Conduct.
The DPA Director recommended a written reprimand.
In concurrence with the DPA Director, the Chief of Police imposed a written reprimand.
According to the Police Commission Disciplinary Penalty and Referral Guidelines, the penalty for violation of paragraph 27 under Class "D" misconduct is a written reprimand for a first offense.
9. Neglect of Duty - An officer failed to take required action in violation of Department General Orders 6.02, Physical Evidence and Crime Scenes, and 6.15, Property Processing.
The DPA Director recommended a written reprimand.
6
In concurrence with the DPA Director, the Chief of Police imposed a written reprimand.
According to the Police Commission Disciplinary Penalty and Referral
Guidelines, the penalty for violation of paragraph 19 under Class "D" misconduct is a written reprimand for a first offense.
In September 2017, Chief William Scott proposed discipline in four ( 4) cases determined by the DPA to have sustainable allegations. The DPA's findings and recommended discipline and the Chief's proposed discipline are as follows:
10. Neglect of Duty - An officer failed to write an accurate Traffic Collision Report.
The DPA Director recommended a written reprimand.
The Chief of Police imposed an admonishment and retraining.
According to the Police Commission Disciplinary Penalty and Referral Guidelines, the penalty for violation of paragraph 27 under Class "D" misconduct is a written reprimand for a first offense.
11. Neglect of Duty - An officer failed to take required action in violation of SFPD Department Bulletin No. 16-208, eStop- Contact Data Collection Program.
The DPA Director recommended a written reprimand.
The Chief of Police imposed an admonishment and retraining.
According to the Police Commission Disciplinary Penalty and Referral Guidelines, the penalty for violation of paragraph 27 under Class "D" misconduct is a written reprimand for a first offense.
12. Neglect of Duty - Officer One failed to prepare an accurate and complete Traffic Collision Report.
The DPA Director recommended a written reprimand.
The Chief of Police imposed an admonishment and retraining.
According to the Police Commission Disciplinary Penalty and Referral Guidelines, the penalty for violation of paragraph 27 under Class "D" misconduct is a written reprimand for a first offense.
Neglect of Duty - Officer Two failed to properly supervise.
The DPA Director recommended a written reprimand.
7
The Chief of Police imposed an admonishment and retraining.
According to the Police Commission Disciplinary Penalty and Referral Guidelines, the penalty for violation of paragraph 27 under Class "D" misconduct is a written reprimand for a first offense.
13. Neglect of Duty - An officer fai led to take required action in violation of Department General Order 5.04, Arrests by Private Person.
The DPA Director recommended a written reprimand.
The Chief of Police imposed a one-day suspension and retraining.
According to the Police Commission Disciplinary Penalty and Referral Guidelines, the penalty for violation of paragraph 14 under Class "D" misconduct is a written reprimand for a first offense.
IV. TIDRD QUARTER COMPLAINTS OF NOTE
A. Skateboard Incident
In the third quarter, the DPA received a complaint regarding a skateboarder who collided with an SFPD sergeant and a patrol car.
B. Officer-Involved Shootings
In the third quarter, the DPA in itiated an investigation into the shooting of Damian Murray. Eight (8) officer-involved shooting complaints remained open at the end of the third quarter 2017.
C. Single Room Occupancy Hotels
At the end of the third quarter, the DPA concluded its investigation of a complaint filed in 201 1 involving multiple officers regarding unlawful entries and searches of single room occupancy (SRO) hotel rooms. Other allegations in these complaints included unlawful searches of persons, unlawful detentions and arrests, failure to properly process property including laptops and cameras, failure to investigate, failure to supervise and inappropriate behavior.
8
D. San Francisco Woman Shot and Killed by Her Ex-Boyfriend
At the end of the third quarter, the DPA concluded its investigation of a complaint regarding a San Francisco woman who was shot and killed by her ex-boyfriend before he fatally turned the gun on himself. The woman was shot in her home where there were a series of calls for help involving the same address.
E. Racist and Homophobic Text Messages By Members of the San Francisco Police Department
At the end of the third quarter, the DPA continued to investigate a complaint regarding racist and homophobic text messages by members of the San Francisco Police Department.
V. STATUS OF CURRENT DPA CASES -THE 'KEANE' REPORT
At the end of the third quarter, the investigative staff had completed intake on all of its 2016 cases and had closed 94% of them, leaving 37 or 6% of the 2016 cases pending.
VI. LEGAL UNIT
Five attorneys staff the DPA's Legal Unit under the supervision of the Executive Director. Attorneys John Alden, Ines Vargas Fraenkel and R. Manuel Fortes are trial attorneys. They also conduct sustainability reviews, review reports of sustained misconduct for legality, prepare legal opinions, and manage records requests, including subpoenas, Pitchess motions, Sunshine Ordinance requests, and Public Records Act requests. Additionally, Attorney John Alden trains investigators and provides policy analysis. Attorney Samara Ma1ion conducts the bulk of DP A's policy work, conducts sustainability reviews, reviews sustained reports' legality, prepares legal opinions, and conducts investigator trainings. The DPA's policy work is outlined in section VII. Attorney Donna Salazar coordinated DPA's mediation and outreach programs until her retirement in August 2017 and her work is outlined in sections VIII and IX of this report.
The Legal Unit reviewed, revised, and submitted nine (9) sustained reports for approval by the DP A Executive Director, each of which involved one or more sustained allegations against one or more officers. Additionally, Deputy Director Erick Baltazar reviewed, revised and submitted eight (8) sustained reports for approval by the DPA Executive Director.
The trial attorneys defend DP A's misconduct findings in matters investigated and determined by the DPA to prove misconduct or failure to perform a required action. They present cases to the Chief of Police when officers object to proposed discipline of up to ten days' suspension. They present cases before the Police Commission when the proposed discipline is
9
greater than 10 days' suspension up through termination. DPA attorneys defended four (4) cases at Chief's Hearings and attended one (1) Police Commission hearing during this quarter.
VII. POLICY ANALYSIS
Policy work is an essential element of the Department of Police Accountability's mission. The San Francisco City Charter requires the DPA to present quarterly recommendations concerning SFPD's policies or practices that enhance police-community relations while ensuring effective police services. Attorneys Samara Marion and John Alden lead the DPA's policy work. During the third quarter, the DPA's policy work focused primarily on the Department of Justice' s Collaborative Reform Initiative, involving 272 recommendations and 94 findings to "improve trust between the SFPD and the community it serves."4 The DPA participated in SFPD's Executive Sponsor Working Groups that addressed the DOJ's recommendations concerning use of force, biased policing, complaint and disciplinary processes, and community policing.
In response to DOJ's recommendation 25.1 that the Police Department immediately update Department General Order 5 .17 (Policy Prohibiting Biased Policing) to reflect best practices, the DPA presented at several meetings its recommended revisions to DGO 5.17. Consistent with Penal Code §13519.4, the DPA suggested that DGO 5.17 expand the definition of biased policing to include profiling based on racial, identity or cultural stereotypes or mental or physical disabilities. Additionally, the DPA suggested enhancing current detention procedures in DGO 5.17 by having officers provide their business cards to the individuals they have stopped, which would include the identity and contact information of the officer and how to file a commendation or a complaint. These recommendations are included among the President's Task Force on 2!51 Century Policing.5 The DPA's recommendations to strengthen policecommunity relations by including more information during detentions are included in the DP A's 2015 Report on "Recommendations to Enhance Police-Community Relations in Response to the President's Task Force on 2!51 Century Policing."6
On July 12, 2017, during a DOJ Accountability sub-committee working group, the DPA provided SFPD its suggested revisions to Department General Order 2.04 (Citizen Complaints Against Officers) and SFPD-DPA's Document Protocol. DPA's written revisions followed DPA's second quarter recommendations that invited the Department to revise DGO 2.04 and SFPD-DPA's document protocol. These documents are fundamental to the complaint, investigation and disciplinary processes, establish key aspects of the roles and responsibilities of both agencies, and have not been updated for decades.
~ See COPS Office. 2016. An Assessment of the San Francisco Police Department Collaborative Reform Initiative. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, page ix, hnp://san franc iscopol ice.org/us-departme nl-j ustice-collaborati ve-re form-i n i tiati ve
5 Final Report of the President' s Task Force on 21 st Century Policing. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Recommendation 2. I I and Action Item 2.11.1. http://www.cops.usdo j.go v/pdf/taskl'orccrraskForce Fina!Re pon.pdf
6DPA' s 2015 Report is available al http://s faov.org/occ/s ites/de fault/fil es/OCC 3015.pdf
10
DGO 2.04 sets forth the duties of officers for receiving, investigating and processing citizen complaints against officers and describes the Department of Police Accountability's investigative procedures and findings. DGO 2.04 has not been updated since 1994 and does not accurately reflect DPA's investigative authority and SFPD's responsibilities that were added by Proposition G on November 6, 2016.
The SFPD-DPA Document Protocol as required by San Francisco Administrative Code§ 96.3 similarly needs to be updated to reflect DP A's City Charter mandate to conduct performance audits of SFPD every two years. Additionally, to conduct complaint investigation, recommend discipline and perform audits, DP A needs direct and immediate electronic access to SFPD documents and databases, which has become increasingly more problematic.
Revising DGO 2.04 and the Document Protocol will enhance the complaint and disciplinary process, improve the working relationship between IAD and DPA, and address DOJ Finding 647, and DOJ Recommendations 64.18, 64.3,9 64.4, 10 64.5 11 and 56.6 12.
Throughout the third quarter, the DPA requested, without success, that the SFPD discuss DPA's suggested revisions to DGO 2.04. Nor has the Department provided any written response to the DPA's suggested revisions.
During the third quarter, the DPA also participated in the Police Commission's working group to review and amend DGO 5.15 (Enforcement of Immigration Laws). The DPA suggested
7 DOJ Finding 64: The SFPD does not routinely collaborate with the Office of Citizen Complaints. The transparency of the complaint and disciplinary process is negatively affected by the working relationship between SFPD IAD and OCC. The lack of engagement undermines the effectiveness of both in fulfilling their respective roles aod responsibilities. Issues with respect to information sharing between the two entities, timeliness of complaint investigations, and bases for recommending progressive discipline potentially impede the investigative and adjudication processes, potentially eroding the overall integrity of the publjc complaint resource.
8 DOJ Recommendation 64.1: The SFPD should convene a joint review process within 90 days of the issuance of this report, co-chaired by OCC and SFPD senior staff, to evaluate existing complaint and disciplinary processes, policies, and liaison relationships to enhance trust and legitimacy around these issues.
9 DOJ Recommendation 64.3: The SFPD should seek to improve interagency communications and identify ways of improving collaboration on investigative practices to ensure timely conclusion of investigations, shared information on prior complaints and finding of misconduct, and appropriate entry of discipline, designed to improve the overall discipline system that holds officers to accounl.
10 DOJ Recommendation 64.4: The SFPD should work with OCC to develop standards within 120 days of the issuance of this report regarding timeliness of complaint investigations, and consistency of investigative findings and practices to ensure progressive discipline is appropriately recommended.
11 DOJ Recommendation 64.5: The SFPD should engage with OCC to ensure that the c lassification for complaints and their findings are reported consistently between the two agencies to ensure better transparency.
12 DOJ Recommendation 56.6: The SFPD should encourage the OCC and IAD to identify obstacles that interfere with optimal complaints investigations and accountability, with a goal of implementing changes to better support their intended missions.
11
changes to the DGO which would ban officers from threatening members of the public with deportation or other immigration consequences; limit, and require reports regarding, joint criminal investigations with federal immigration authorities; and require training for officers on immigration issues. The DPA also concurred with many of the recommendations suggested by other working group members including implementation of the California law, Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds, commonly known as the TRUTH Act13. The Truth Act enhances due process procedures for immigrants held in jails and provides more public information concerning Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions.
During the third quarter, the Department of Police Accountability also participated in the Police Commission's working group on electronic control weapons, commonly called tasers. In partnership with numerous community stakeholder organizations, the DPA provided suggested revisions to the Police Department' s proposed taser policy. 14 These recommendations included:
• Deploying a taser only when an individual is causing or threatening to cause bodily injury;
• Limiting taser activations to three cycles or 15 seconds against a subject during a single incident;
• Requiring DPA investigations of taser incidents involving serious injury or death or other special circumstances;
• Providing a quarterly taser review board that includes representatives of the Police Department, the Police Commission, the DPA and the community to review all taser activations;
• Appointing a taser coordinator to oversee the program including training, weapon testing, incident review, data collection, analysis, reporting and subject matter expertise for the taser review board;
• Limiting the use of drive stun mode for the purpose of completing the circuit to enable incapacitation;
• Requiring data collection to enable comprehensive analysis of the weapon's use, effectiveness and trends and to foster policy and training recommendations;
• Calling tasers "weapons" instead of devices to accurately describe their role and risks consistent with several organizations such as the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the manufacturer Taser International.
VIII. MEDIATION
During the third quarter of 2017, the Department of Police Accountability mediated eight (8) cases. Additionally during this quarter, only one (1) of 27 officers offered mediation declined to participate.
14 See "combined stakeholder comments on SFPD CED draft policy 050517" submitted by DPA on July 7, 2017; http://sanfranc iscopolicc.org/conductecl-energv-clevices
12
The DPA's Mediation Program continued to strive for participation in mediation and worked on plans to expand the program using restorative justice principles throughout the complaint process. The DP A's longtime Mediation Program Coordinator Attorney Donna Salazar Attorney Salazar, who retired in August 2017, received the "Achievement in Oversight" award from NACOLE for her work with DPA's mediation program.
During the third quarter, Attorney Salazar spoke with the City of Cleveland's Office of Professional Standards administrator, Damon Scott, providing insight and materials on creating both an Outreach and Mediation Program for the City of Cleveland. Additionally, Attorney Salazar provided an orientation to prospective mediators interested in participating on the DPA's Mediation Panels.
IX. OUTREACH
The DPA engaged in the following outreach activities:
The DPA Director, along with two (2) staff attorneys, two (2) senior investigators and one (1) investigator, attended the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) 23rd Annual Conference in Spokane, WA. The DPA Director moderated a panel discussion on the City and County of San Francisco's experience with the COPS Collaborative Reform process. Assistant Chief Tony Chaplin, Commissioner Joe Marshall, and DPA Attorney John Alden spoke on the panel. Attorney Alden also presented on a separate panel regarding the impact of ballot propositions on police oversight agencies. The DPA's Mediation Program Coordinator Attorney Donna Salazar received the "Achievement in Oversight" award from NACOLE.
The DPA Director attended Police Commission Community Meetings and gave regular updates regarding the work of the DPA. Additionally, the DPA Director participated in a Community Conversation Event regarding Civil Rights Movements in San Francisco hosted by the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the DP A Attorney Samara Marion met with Professor Lydia Chavez and her graduate students in a Journalism class at U.C. Berkeley, leading a discussion regarding the DPA, civilian oversight, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) reforms.
DPA investigators and senior investigators staffed informational tables at the following events: National Night Out -Northern, Park, and Central Stations, Mo'Magic Backpack Event, BMAGIC Back to School Celebration, and the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) 4th
Annual Chinatown Night Out.
13
X. CONCLUSION
The DPA remained committed to its mission to investigate civilian complaints of police misconduct or faiJure to perform duties promptly, fairly, and impartially. The DPA continued to focus its community outreach eff01ts and policy work on addressing the concerns of the public for greater transparency.
#1 Neglect of Duty The DPA received a complaint requesting that the DPA investigate the murder of a woman by her ex-boyfriend in light of a history of domestic violence and the numerous times the victim called the police and the police responded on the night of the murder. In granting a summary judgement motion in a civil lawsuit filed by the parents of the murder victim against the defendants City & County of San Francisco and responding police officers, a federal district court issued a written decision that relied upon the following evidence. On the night of the murder, the victim called the police six different times about her ex-boyfriend and the police responded to her apartment three times. Two years and eight months before her murder, the ex-boyfriend had been arrested for domestic violence against the victim, but the case was not prosecuted. Two months before the murder, the victim had asked her ex-boyfriend to move out. The ex-boyfriend moved back in with the victim a few weeks before the murder.
On the night of the murder, the victim’s roommate came home and found that the victim’s ex-boyfriend was acting strangely. He heard the victim and the ex-boyfriend arguing and later the ex-boyfriend was outside the apartment’s closed front door, pounding on the door and ringing the buzzer. The victim showed her roommate a pot of spaghetti sauce and said she thought her ex-boyfriend had tried to poison her because she saw a green substance in the sauce thatlooked abnormal. The victim scooped some of the sauce into a burrito wrapper. They googled rat poison and found that it had a similar lime green appearance.
Around 8:37 p.m., the victim called 911, said she and her boyfriend were fighting and that shehad asked him to leave but he would not. She then told 911 that he was leaving and no police response was necessary. Around 9:14 p.m., she called 911, said she had called earlier about an escalating domestic violence issue, that they had gotten into a fight the prior night, her boyfriend had been drinking all day, and he would not stop ringing the doorbell. The victim provided additional identifying information and agreed to speak to the officers when they arrived. The call was recorded as a 417 DV, with “DV” indicating a domestic violence incident.
Five minutes later, the victim’s roommate called 911 and stated that the victim’s boyfriend was trying to break in and his behavior was scaring the roommate. Dispatch upgraded the call to a 418 DV. At 9:33 p.m., the victim called 911, stated that she and her roommate had called
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS – 3rd QUARTER 2017
earlier and that she was getting more scared because of it being an escalating domestic situation. Dispatch informed her that the officers were on scene.
One of the named officers understood the call for service involved a boyfriend and girlfriend arguing and the boyfriend was outside, ringing the doorbell. The officers found the ex-boyfriend sitting on the front steps of the apartment, between the locked metal gate and the front door. The officers pat-searched the ex-boyfriend for weapons and found none. One of the named officers recalled that the ex-boyfriend appeared somewhat under the influence. The victim spoke with one of the named officers, said that she and her ex-boyfriend had argued earlier in the evening and she had asked him to move out. According to one of the named officers, she denied that her ex-boyfriend was trying to break in and the officer found no sign of damage on the door. The victim said the ex-boyfriend was ringing the doorbell incessantly. She stated they had dated for about two years before breaking up and that he had called recently to say he was homeless and she felt sorry for him and allowed him to stay with her.
The victim’s roommate came outside and informed one of the named officers that the ex-boyfriend had tried to put rat poison in the victim’s spaghetti. According to the named officer, the victim denied that the ex-boyfriend would do such a thing to hurt her, said she had eaten the spaghetti and felt fine and showed the named officer the spaghetti sauce which appeared to have a green substance that looked like a garnish. Based on the victim’s assertions, the named officer concluded the spaghetti had not been poisoned. He did not inform any other officer about the spaghetti poisoning until after the murder.
According to the victim’s roommate, he showed one of the named officers the burrito wrapper with sauce because the victim was downplaying the incident. The roommate stated that the named officer shrugged at his request to have the sauce tested for poison. The roommate went back upstairs with the burrito wrapper.
The named officers determined that no domestic violence crime had occurred and that the incident involved only a verbal argument. This conclusion was based on the victim’s denial that her ex-boyfriend had tried to hurt her in any way or that she felt threatened. Additionally, her demeanor was very calm. According to one of the named officers, the victim agreed that the solution was for the ex-boyfriend to leave and stay with a relative who lived in the East Bay. The ex-boyfriend agreed and the officers watched the ex-boyfriend leave while the victim returned to her apartment.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS – 3rd QUARTER 2017
Right after the victim went back inside, the ex-boyfriend returned and began pounding on the door and ringing the doorbell again. The ex-boyfriend demanded his property and another roommate brought down a trash bag full of items for the ex-boyfriend. The ex-boyfriend kept asking to speak with the victim and tried to force the door open on the roommate.
At 10:01 p.m., the victim called dispatch (“418DV.”) At 10:10 p.m., the 911 dispatch comments stated, “Male now trying to break in front door” and the call was upgraded to a “602 DV.” Responding at about 10:20 p.m., the same named officers who had previously responded to the residence that night found the ex-boyfriend sitting on the steps. They conducted a pat-search with negative results. The ex-boyfriend’s speech was slurred and he had trouble standing. The victim informed one of the named officers that her ex-boyfriend was still ringing the bell and that she wanted him to leave; she denied that he was trying to break in. According to the named officers, the victim’s demeanor was a little more agitated. Theofficers determined it was not a domestic violence situation and arrested the ex-boyfriend for public intoxication. The named sergeant also responded. He was unaware of the previous calls to the victim’s residence. One of the named officers told the named sergeant that all they had was a public intoxication. One of the named officers conducted a records check and saw that the ex-boyfriend had a prior arrest for domestic violence in February 2012. The named officers took the ex-boyfriend to the San Francisco County Jail where he was held in the “drunk tank.” His belongings were searched and no gun was found. The ex-boyfriend was released four hours later.
At 4:00 a.m., the ex-boyfriend returned to the victim’s apartment. The victim called dispatch twice; the calls were coded “”602” without any DV designation. Different officers from the previous call arrived at 4:15 a.m. They knew the suspect’s name, history and recent arrest for being drunk in public. One of the named officers from the public intoxication arrest texted one of the responding officers to say they had been there before. The named officers found the ex-boyfriend on the steps within the exterior gate. He had a black bag with him. Officers ordered him onto the sidewalk and pat searched him. The ex-boyfriend stated that he lived at the apartment and wanted clothing for work. One of the named officers asked dispatch to request the victim to come outside. The victim stated that her ex-boyfriend had been banging on the door. One of the named officers explained that the ex-boyfriend wanted to gather his belongings and the victim agreed. One of the named officers remained with the victim in the hallway of the apartment while the ex-boyfriend went into the victim’s bedroom and retrieved
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS – 3rd QUARTER 2017
clothing and shoes. The named sergeant arrived, entered the apartment and observed the civil standby. Outside the apartment, the officers and sergeant talked further with the ex-boyfriend and then watched him leave.
Forty minutes later, armed with a gun, the ex-boyfriend broke through the gate and the front door of the victim’s apartment and shot the victim in her head and then shot himself. The victim died four days later.
The Department of Police Accountability recommends that this case be reviewed by a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders including representatives from the Police Department’s Special Victim’s Unit, the Department on the Status of Women, the Domestic Violence Consortium, the Department of Emergency Management, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Department of Police Accountability to determine whether current systems can be improved to protect individuals from domestic violence. Areas to analyze include 1) communication between 911 dispatch and officers in domestic violence calls, including previous domestic violence calls for service involving the same suspect and location and the suspect’s prior criminal history; 2) police policies and training, including a supervisor’s role, when there are multiple domestic violence calls for service involving the same suspect at the same address; 3) civil stand-by procedures, including consideration of circumstances when victims can decline or postpone a civil stand by and/or should be told they can refuse to consent to civil stand by; 4) the circumstances and the manner in which reportees should be told of their right to make a citizen’s arrest for misdemeanor conduct observed in their presence; 5) appropriate services and assistance when circumstance may not rise to a felony domestic violence or stalking incident though the victim is ending the relationship (the most dangerous time for a domestic violence victim) and has requested police assistance; 6) police procedures concerning third party allegations of a suspect’s criminal conduct in light of a victim’s denial; and 7) police policies and training on evaluating victim’s demeanor, suspect threat risks, and the role of previous non-prosecuted domestic violence incidents.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS – 3rd QUARTER 2017
Case No.
Type of Allegation Policy Recommendation
#2 Neglect of Duty The DPA investigated a complaint involving an individual with Alzheimer’s dementia who was living in a residential care facility and whom police detained pursuant to Welfare and Institution Code §5150.
Department General Order 6.14 sets forth the procedures for dealing with psychologically distressed adults. It has not been updated since 1994. DGO 6.14 does not address adults with dementia living in a residential care facility. Although it states that an officer may detain an individual for psychiatric evaluation pursuant to §5150 only when the officer believes that, as a result of mental illness, an individual is a “danger to others,” it does not define a mental illness and does not define “a danger to others.” The current Department General Order 6.14 provides the officers two options—jail or psychiatric emergency services pursuant to a §5150 hold. DGO 6.14 did not instruct officers to obtain the assistance or information from residential staff, Adult Protective Services or Mobile Crisis Support or other Department of Public Health evaluators to assist in determining whether an individual poses a danger to others that requires immediate removal from the facility or can be addressed by additional services or in an alternative manner. It does not provide for alternative restraint procedures and transportation methods that may be more appropriate for individuals with dementia or other disabilities.
The Department of Police Accountability recommends that the Chief of Police appoint a member of Command Staff to work with the DPA, stakeholders and subject matter experts to revise the Department’s §5150 policies and procedures to address individuals with Alzheimer’s dementia.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS – 3rd QUARTER 2017
Case No.
Type of Allegation Policy Recommendation
#3 Neglect of Duty The DPA investigated a complaint in which officers double-parked in a bike lane and acrosswalk without any hazard or red flashing lights activated while responding to an A-priority call. The complainant stated the pedestrians and cyclists had to swerve to avoid the vehicles and use the main lane of traffic to get around them.
California Vehicle Code § 21055 exempts emergency vehicles from many rules of the road, including parking restrictions, when “the vehicle is being driven in response to an emergency call … or is being used in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law … If the driver of the vehicle sounds a siren as may be reasonably necessary and the vehicle displays a lighted red lamp visible from the front as a warning to other drivers and pedestrians.”
To avoid negative perceptions of the Department and for the safety of others using the roadway, Department regulations should provide guidelines, including whether hazard or red flashing lights are required, when police vehicles are double-parked, parked in a cross walk or bike lane or other normally restricted area.
0022-16 01/15/2016 02/05/2016 21 03/15/2017 404 03/19/2017 4 429 - CLOSED OFFICERS DID NOT ARREST COMPLAINANT'S ATTACKER/ DID NOT GIVE POLICE REPORT NUMBER.
0019-16 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 0 01/15/2016 0 01/19/2016 4 4 - INFO ONLY POLICE SPRAYING CHEMICALS AT MNC SHELTER
0024-16 01/16/2016 02/11/2016 26 05/25/2017 469 06/20/2017 26 521 - CLOSED FAILURE TO TAKE REQUIRED ACTION
0025-16 01/18/2016 01/28/2016 10 01/28/2016 0 02/01/2016 4 14 - INFO ONLY INFORMATION ONLY
0590-16 12/27/2016 12/30/2016 3 08/21/2017 234 08/29/2017 8 245 - SUSTAINED CITE WITHOUT CAUSE/PARK IN BUS ZONE/SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT/FAILURE TO ANSWER
0596-16 12/28/2016 01/11/2017 14 02/03/2017 23 02/23/2017 20 57 - INFO ONLY RUDE/DISCOURTEOUS BEHAVIOR
0595-16 12/28/2016 01/17/2017 20 276 - PENDING ARREST, SEXUAL SLUR, USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE
0592-16 12/28/2016 12/30/2016 2 12/30/2016 0 01/12/2017 13 15 - INFO ONLY IMPROPER DRIVING
0593-16 12/28/2016 12/30/2016 2 12/30/2016 0 01/12/2017 13 15 - INFO ONLY BEHAVIOR
0594-16 12/29/2016 12/29/2016 0 12/29/2016 0 01/12/2017 14 14 - INFO ONLY IO-1
0597-16 12/29/2016 12/29/2016 0 12/29/2016 0 01/10/2017 12 12 - INFO ONLY CARS DO NOT STOP AT AN INTERSECTION
0598-16 12/30/2016 01/10/2017 11 01/31/2017 21 01/31/2017 0 32 - INFO ONLY IO-1
0599-16 12/30/2016 01/11/2017 12 07/18/2017 188 07/18/2017 0 200 - MEDIATED INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS AND TREATMENT DURING ARREST
0600-16 12/31/2016 01/17/2017 17 08/25/2017 220 08/25/2017 0 237 - CLOSED FAILURE TO TAKE REQUIRED ACTION
Case Closed 60060094%
Intake Done,Case Pending 37
376%
Status of DPA Cases - Year 2016as of 09/30/2017
Case Closed 600
Intake Done,Case Pending 37
STATUS OF CASES - YEAR 2017as of 09/30/2017
Case # Received Intake Done Days Elapsed Review Done Days Elapsed Closed Days Elapsed Total Days/Status Synopsis of Case Sent to MCD