Professional Standards Unit 2011 Annual Report Peoria Police Department MEMORANDUM DATE: January 31, 2012 TO: Roy W. Minter, Jr., Chief of Police FROM: Professional Standards Unit SUBJECT: 52.1.5) Professional Standards Unit 2011 Calendar Year Summary Report (CALEA This report is the 2011 calendar year activity summary for the City of Peoria Police Department Professional Standards Unit. The Professional Standards Unit is responsible for the records regarding all administrative investigations and specific administrative matters. The unit is responsible for the coordination and records storage of the following; • Discipline Review Panel • the Use of Force Committee • the Vehicle Operations and Safety Committee • the Early Intervention Program • the Department grievance and appeal processes • Department Controlled Substance Screening Program • Department Inspections and Audits In addition to assisting the City Attorney’s Office and the Human Resources Department with matters pertaining to Police Department personnel matters. The unit is also responsible for the training of Department personnel in matters relating to the functions of the Professional Standards Unit. The Professionals Standards Unit has three personnel assigned—Lieutenant Michael Ashley, Sergeant Jason Christofferson and Sergeant Greg Larson. Professional Standards Year End Report 2011 Use of Force (CALEA 1.3.13) The following is a report of the force used by Peoria Police Officers from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. This report was conducted by utilizing the information entered into Blue Team and retained in IA Pro. The following areas are covered in Use of Force reports entered into Blue Team for Use of Force: • Injury/Death o Officer’s use of force resulted in an injury/alleged injury to himself/herself o Officer’s use of force resulted in an injury/alleged injury to another o Officer’s use of force resulted in a death of another • Less-Lethal Options o Officer used Oleoresin Capsicum (O.C.) spray and discharged it at another person o Officer used hard empty hand control technique o Officer used item (i.e. expandable baton, flashlight, etc.) as a hard impact weapon o Officer used the Stun Bag Shotgun and discharged it at another person o Police Service Dog was utilized o Taser  Laser point utilized  Arc for compliance  Discharge of Probes  Drive stun • Firearms o Officer intentionally discharged a firearm o Officer unintentionally discharged a firearm o Accidental discharge of a firearm • Special Assignment Unit (SAU) and Mobile Field Force (MFF) o Use of Chemicals (O.C. spray, C.S. gas, C.N gas or Pepper Ball System) o Stun bag shotgun deployed o Deployed other less-lethal kinetic batons o Deployed smoke or diversionary devices o Pepper Ball System deployed in unlawful assembly situation [2] 2011 Professional Standards Year End Report Incident Review (CALEA 1.3.6) Use of Force Chart Figure 1 Description Use of Force Incidents Calls for Service Arrests Sworn Full Time Employees Use of Force Resulted in Injury Use of Force Resulted in Death Description O.C. Spray Hard Empty Hand Control Technique Hard Impact Weapon Soft Empty Hand Less Lethal Stun bag Shotgun Police Dog Taser Discharge of Firearm (Intentional) Discharge of Firearm (Unintentional) Discharge of Firearm (Accidental) SAU/MFF Use of Force Pepper Ball System Less Lethal Stun bag Shotgun Less Lethal Kinetic Baton Smoke or Diversionary Device SAU (SWAT) Deployments 2009 37 103,55 7 4414 190 8 0 2010 29 102,412 4438 187 22 1 2009 1 2010 1 18 1 14 0 4 12 1 0 0 15 3 16 1 4 17 4 1 0 2009 0 0 0 1 11 2010 0 0 0 17 13 % Difference Change 2011 2010/2011 2010/2011 33 4 14% 109,570 3743 187 26 0 7158 -695 0 4 -1 7% -16% 0% 18% -100% % Difference Change 2011 2010/2011 2010/2011 1 0 0% 11 2 14 2 4 24 1 1 0 -4 -1 -2 1 0 7 -3 0 0 -27% -33% -13% 100% 0% 41% -75% 0% 0% % Difference Change 2011 2010/2011 2010/2011 0 0 NC 0 0 NC 0 0 NC 24 7 41% 30 17 131% Times 2009 2010 2011 2010 % 2011 % Day (0600-1600) 8 5 13 17% 39% Evening (1600-2200) 12 11 5 38% 15% Night (2200-0200) 10 7 10 24% 30% Late Night (0200-0600) 7 6 5 21% 15% (Note: Calls for Service and Arrests were extracted from the Peoria Police Department UCR database based on information available at the time of this report. When the final numbers become available this report will be updated.) [3] 2011 Professional Standards Year End Report  In 2011, there were 33 incidents in which Peoria Police Officers documented at minimum, one level of force utilized. In comparison, there were 30 incidents in 2010, an increase of three incidents or 10%. The increase could be attributed to the increase in calls for service in 2011.  In 2011 there were 109,507 Calls for Service. In 2010, there were 102,412. This is an increase of 7095 calls for service or a 7% increase.  In 2011, there were 3,743 arrests. In 2010, there were 4,438 reported arrests. This is a decrease of 695 arrests or a 16% decrease. Of the 33 incidents of force in 2011, 28 of the incidents or 85% were the result of officers affecting an arrest.  When comparing Use of Force to the number of arrests in 2011, Peoria officers used force less than 1% of the time when affecting an arrest. The remaining 5 incidents or 15% were related to mentally ill subjects that were a danger to themselves or others and force was used to control the subject and seek mental health care. Figure 2 is a three year comparison of arrests vs. Use of Force incidents. Figure 2 Three Year Comparison of Arrests vs Use of Force 4600 4400 29 37 4200 4000 UOF 3800 3600 Arrest 33 3400 3200 2011 2010 2009 Injury/Death (CALEA 1.3.6)  Of the 33 total Use of Force incidents in 2011, 28 incidents or 85% of the incidents resulted in an injury/alleged injury to the suspect. In 2010, 24 incidents or 80% of the incidents resulted in an injury/alleged injury to the suspect. This was an overall 5% increase of injuries/alleged injury to suspects in 2011.  Of the 33 total Use of Force incidents in 2011, four incidents or 12% resulted in an injury to the officer. This is a decrease of three incidents or a 43% decrease compared to 2010.  There were no uses of force in 2011 that resulted in the death of a human. This is a 100% decrease compared to 2010.  Figure 3 is a three year comparison of injuries connected to uses of force. Significant [4] 2011 Professional Standards Year End Report injury was determined if the officer or suspect were transported to the hospital. Injuries to suspects raised 17% or by four reported injuries in 2011 but significant injuries to suspects only raised 14%. The raise in injuries can be attributed to the slight increase in Use of Force incidents and increase in Taser applications. Figure 3 Three Year comparison of Injuries from Use of Force Incidents 2011 2010 2009 33 28 36 30 24 19 4 8 7 3 Officer Injured 0 2 7 7 0 Officers Received Significant Injury Suspect Injured Suspects Received Significant Injury Total UOF Less-Lethal Force Options (CALEA 1.3.6) Less-Lethal force response options are defined and explained in Peoria Police policy 1.03 and 1.03A. Less-Lethal force is defined as a tactic that minimizes the risk of causing death or serious injury and is designed to stop aggression or aid in establishing control of a situation. Several different force options may be used during one incident by various officers to stop aggression and gain control. Blue Team use of force reporting documents all levels of force used during one incident by all the officers involved. In 2011 the Peoria Police Department had 33 reportable use of force incidents involving 52 officers using 59 various levels of force, not including deadly force. Compared to 2010, the Peoria Police Department had 29 reportable use of force incidents involving 53 officers using 57 various levels of force, not including deadly force.  O.C. spray was used 1 time or less than 1% of all less-lethal force used in 2011 and it was determined not effective by the officer. There was no increase or decrease in the use of O.C. spray compared to 2010.  The Pepper Ball System was not utilized in 2011. There was no increase or decrease in the usage of the Pepper Ball System when compared to 2010. In 2009 the Pepper Ball system was removed as a force option for patrol due lack of use and cost of maintaining the system. The Pepper Ball System is still an option for SWAT and MMF.  Hard empty hand control techniques were used 11 times or 16% of all less-lethal force [5] Professional Standards Year End Report 2011 used in 2011. This is a decrease of six usages compared to 2010.  Soft empty hand control techniques were used 14 times or 20% of all less-lethal force used in 2011. This was a decrease of two usages compared to 2010.  There were no reported uses of the expandable baton. There was no increase or decrease when compared to 2010.  A flashlight was used in 2 incidents or 3% of all less-lethal force used in 2011, to gain control of a situation but was not used as an impact weapon. This is an increase of two usages compared to 2010.  The less-lethal stun bag shotgun was used two times or 3% of all less-lethal force used in 2011. This is an increase of two usages compared to 2010  A police service dog or K-9 was used in five incidents or 7% of all less-lethal force used in 2011. This is an increase of one incident when compared to 2010.  All available options for the Taser were used 24 times or 33% of all less-lethal force used in 2011. This is an increase of 10 usages compared to 2010. Figure 4 is a three comparison of less-lethal force used by the Peoria Police Department. Figure 4 Three Year Comparison of Less-Lethal Force 30 25 20 15 10 2011 5 2010 0 2009 Significant Increases/Decreases Review of the 2011 use of force statistics shows a rise in the use of the Taser device to control violent or potentially violent subjects while the use of hands-on techniques decreased. Using effective Taser deployments while dealing with violent or potentially violent subjects instead of using hands-on techniques could have contributed to lower reported incidents of injuries to officers during Use of Force incidents. Other Contributing Factors Use of Force incidents in 2011 involving either drugs or alcohol equaled 48% or 16 incidents. Compared to 2010 where 34% involved either drugs or alcohol, this is an increase of 14%. This [6] Professional Standards Year End Report 2011 percentage could be higher than what has been reported because the information is reliant on officers making note of drug or alcohol use in the Blue Team incident report. Firearms (CALEA 1.3.2/1.3.3/1.3.6) Deadly Force Review Board: A Deadly Force Review Board (DFRB) was convened on July 22, 2011 regarding a case that occurred on April 10, 2011 regarding AI11-004. The board determined the officer’s use of force was within policy. The board did recommend some training options and areas in policy that should be clarified or changed.  Officer used a firearm in threat of life (AI11-007). A suspect was waving a shotgun in the middle of a residential street and pointed the weapon in the direction of officers. Fearing for his safety and the safety for other officers on scene, the officer discharged his weapon four times striking the suspect once in the leg. The officer was placed on administrative leave in conjunction with normal days off and returned to work on April 16, 2011. This was a reduction by 1 incident in comparison with 2010. (CALEA 1.3.2/1.3.7)  There was one unintentional or accidental discharge of a firearm in 2011. This number stayed the same from year 2010. A SWAT officer carrying a ballistic shield while making entry into a home during a search warrant stumbled and discharged one round from a Glock 22 pistol. No injuries resulted from this incident. The incident was investigated and determined to be an Involuntary Unintentional Discharge. The SAU member was suspended from SWAT for one year. (CALEA 1.3.6.) (Note: An Unintentional Discharge and Accidental Discharge of a firearm is defined in AZ POST Firearms manual section 2 "SAFETY." An Unintentional Discharge can be voluntary or involuntary. A Voluntary Unintentional Discharge is defined as consciously pressing the trigger but not really intending to fire. An Involuntary Unintentional Discharge is defined as outside the realm of conscious intention. Some causes of Involuntary Unintentional Discharge of a firearm are sympathetic response, startle reaction and balance disruption. An accidental discharge is a mechanical malfunction of the weapon allowing it to fire or outside forces cause the discharge, such as a holster strap getting inside the trigger guard while holstering.) Warning shots are prohibited by Peoria Police Department Policy 1.03B.II.B—there were no violations of this policy in 2011. (CALEA 1.3.3) SAU and MMF Use of Force (CALEA 1.3.6)  There were no incidents in which the Pepper Ball System (less-lethal) was deployed in 2011. There was no increase or decrease when compared to 2010.  There were no incidents in which the Stun bag Shotgun (less-lethal) was deployed in 2011.  There were no uses of less-lethal kinetic batons in 2011.  There were 24 incidents where SAU deployed a diversionary device in 2011. This was an increase of 7 uses or a 41% increase from 2010. The increase could be attributed to [7] 2011 Professional Standards Year End Report the dramatic increase in SAU deployments in 2011 compared to 2010. Figure 5 is a three year comparison of SAU deployments and the use of diversionary devices. Figure 5 Three Year Comparison of SWAT Deployments Diversionary Device 30 24 17 13 11 1 2011 2010 2009 Training (CALEA 1.3.13) In 2011, Peoria Police Officers received mandatory in-service training on Taser deployment and completed a written test focused on Use of Force. In addition, all officers received Firearms Training related to injured officer conditions and completed a “discretionary shoot” using Multiple Interactive Learning Objectives (MILO). Analysis (CALEA 1.3.13) Overall, the department saw a slight increase in Use of Force incidents when compared to 2010. However, each Use of Force incident can have multiple officers using several different levels of force. When comparing the total levels of force used during the 33 incidents in 2011, there was only a 3% increase in the Use of Force when compared to 2010. O.C Spray and baton uses are being used minimally by officers in the field. It is reasonable to believe that a decrease in the use of O.C Spray, empty hand techniques, hard hand techniques, and baton would increase the use of the Taser. This could be attributed to the effectiveness of the Taser and the officer’s confidence in the device to quickly control potential violent situations safely. The department may benefit by looking into other types of hard impact weapons and defensive tactic options to broaden officer’s less-lethal response options, preventing officers from becoming overly reliant on the Taser. Taser continues to be the most effective less-lethal force option available to Peoria officers in the field. The Taser possibly contributed to the reduction of injuries to officers during potential violent encounters in 2011. Peoria officers are using the minimal amount of force necessary to control and/or take subjects into custody when confronted with resistance. [8] 2011 Professional Standards Year End Report Professional Standards Unit Figure 6 Description Total Contacts Administrative Investigations Service Complaints Citizen Commendations Commendations Early Intervention Program Employee Grievance Vehicle Accidents Vehicle Pursuits Photo Radar 2009 254 11 71 61 0 0 0 29 4 24 2010 456 17 155 137 61 1 2 16 0 22 Service Complaint Findings Exonerated Unfounded Not Sustained Sustained 2009 13 25 25 14 2010 38 53 9 54 Service Complaint Discipline Suspension from off/extra duty Letter of Reprimand Written Counseling Verbal Counseling Training Administrative Investigation Findings Exonerated Unfounded Not Sustained Sustained Administrative Investigation Discipline Termination Resigned in Lieu of Termination Suspension Letter of Reprimand Written Counseling Verbal Counseling Retired No Action Taken 2009 0 2 1 11 2 2010 0 11 6 45 0 2009 4 1 1 5 2010 4 3 0 10 2009 1 1 2 0 1 3 0 0 2010 2 0 2 4 1 1 2 0 Vehicle Accident Findings Preventable Non-Preventable Preventable/Justified 2009 19 9 1 2010 10 6 0 [9] Difference 2011 2010/2011 715 259 14 -3 129 -26 102 -35 191 130 2 1 0 0 24 8 3 3 19 -3 Difference 2011 2010/2011 40 2 40 -13 4 -5 43 -11 Difference 2011 2010/2011 1 1 10 -1 7 1 23 -22 2 2 Difference 2011 2010/2011 2 -2 2 -1 3 3 6 -4 Difference 2011 2010/2011 1 -1 0 0 2 0 2 -2 0 -1 0 -1 0 -2 1 1 Difference 2011 2010/2011 16 6 8 2 0 0 % Change 2010/2011 57% -18% -17% -26% 213% 100% -200% 50% 300% -14% % Change 2010/2011 5% -25% -56% -20% % Change 2010/2011 100% -9% 17% -49% 200% % Change 2010/2011 -50% -33% 300% -40% % Change 2010/2011 -50% 0% 0% -50% -100% -100% -100% 100% % Change 2010/2011 60% 33% 0% 2011 Professional Standards Year End Report Vehicle Accident Discipline Suspension Letter of Reprimand Written Counseling Verbal Counseling Training 2009 0 5 0 14 0 2010 0 1 3 6 0 Vehicle Pursuits Findings Out of Policy Within Policy Determined Not a Pursuit 2009 2 2 0 2010 0 0 0 Vehicle Pursuit Discipline Suspension Letter of Reprimand Written Counseling Verbal Counseling Training 2009 0 0 0 2 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 Difference 2011 2010/2011 0 2 1 12 1 Difference 2011 2010/2011 1 2 2 Difference 2011 2010/2011 0 0 0 2 2 % Change 2010/2011 0 1 -2 6 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0% 100% 67% 100% 100% % Change 2010/2011 100% 200% 200% % Change 2010/2011 0% 0% 0% 200% 200% Commendations/Complaints (CALEA 52.1.1) In January of 2009 the Professional Standards Units implemented a new tracking software system named IA Pro. The new system allows for accurate records of complaints and commendations received by the Peoria Police Department. Better accuracy resulted in an increase in the number of complaints and commendations for 2010 and 2011. This increase is a direct result of full implementation of the Blue Team software department-wide. This system allows and in some situations requires certain incidents traditionally tracked in an employee’s individual performance record (IPR) or in CAD to be entered into Blue Team. The Blue Team software was implemented along with the IAPro software system. The IAPro data base system has improved the accuracy in which complaints, commendations, and other performance issues are processed, tracked, and monitored for consistence. IAPro also tracks all levels of reportable use of force incidents, vehicle accidents, drug screening, inspections, and audits which will be discussed later in this report When a complaint is received it is classified into one of two categories based upon the potential discipline an employee would receive if the allegation is proven to be true. These two classifications are: • • Administrative Investigation: The allegation, if true, would result in more than a letter of reprimand. Service Complaint: The allegation, if true, would result in no more than a letter of reprimand. Due to the severity of allegations and the level of potential discipline, investigations classified as Administrative Investigations (AI) are investigated by the Professional Standards Unit (PSU). Service Complaints (SC) will normally be investigated by the involved employee’s supervisor. (CALEA 26.1.5; 52.2.1) [10] Professional Standards Year End Report 2011 2011 Incidents PSU received 715 contacts from citizens and department personnel. Compared to 2010, PSU received 259 more contacts or 57% increase. Of those 715 contacts, 291 resulted in commendations; 129 were complaints or concerns. The remaining contacts consisted of use of force, vehicle accidents, drug screens, K-9 kit audits, MDC audits, and other incidents tracked by IA Pro (which will be discussed later in this report). Of the 715 contacts received in PSU, 216 were from citizens. Of the 216 citizen contacts, 99 were received by telephone, 45 were received by the Professional Standards On-line complaint/commendation process, 10 were received by walk-in, 37 were received by written letters and 25 were received from the Citizens’ Pipeline. Investigations of Complaints The Professional Standards Unit utilizes a process, developed in 2003 and modified in 2011 to comply with new Arizona Revised Statue (ARS 38-1101) laws concerning officers’ bill of rights on how investigations are to be handled. The department has two forms of investigative formats; • Administrative Investigation – a non-criminal investigation, ordered by the Chief of Police, to determine the facts of what occurred in response to an alleged or suspected violation of an established rule, regulation, policy, or procedure. The investigation is reviewed by the involved employee’s chain of command to determine if a violation has occurred and recommend corrective action to the Chief of Police. • Service Complaint (CALEA 26.1.5) – The investigative process conducted by the initiating supervisor to determine if a violation of policy has occurred and to administer the appropriate level of corrective action or procedural changes. The possible findings for complaints investigated at any level are: a. Unfounded: The events or allegations reported by the complainant did not happen or were false. b. Exonerated: The allegation did occur but the employee’s actions were lawful, proper, and within department policy. c. Not Sustained: The allegation against the employee could not be proven or disproven during the investigation. d. Sustained: The allegation against the employee met the “standard of proof” and was determined to be true. Administrative Investigations: During 2011 a total of 14 Administrative Investigations (AI) were authorized by the Office of the Chief of Police. The investigations were reviewed by a Discipline Review Panel (DRP) that consisted of the employee’s chain of command. Of the 14 investigations in 2011, the DRP determined the following: two were “exonerated”, three were “not sustained”, six were [11] Professional Standards Year End Report 2011 “sustained”, two were “unfounded”, and one was closed by the Chief of Police. Of the six sustained allegations, discipline ranged from no action to termination. • • PSU was asked by the Human Resources Director for the City of El Mirage to conduct an Administrative investigation on a City of El Mirage Fire Captain regarding a possible integrity violation. The investigation was conducted and written in under 60 days. The El Mirage Human Resources Director was very pleased with how PSU conducted the investigation and the final report. PSU met all required time limit requirements for notification and completion of investigations as directed by policy. (CALEA 52.2.3) Dismissals/Terminations (CALEA 26.1.8) The Peoria Police Department dismissed one employee for falsifying city employee time cards (AI 11-014). Service Complaints (CALEA 26.1.5) During 2011 a total of 129 service complaints were processed by PSU. Of the 129 complaints, 40 were exonerated, 4 were not sustained, 43 were sustained, and 40 were unfounded. The 43 sustained complaints involved 47 employees. Discipline resulting from these investigations is shown in figure 7: Figure 7 2011 Range of Discipline for SC's Suspension from off/extra duty 1 Letter of Reprimand Training 10 2 Written Counseling 7 Verbal counseling 23 There were no investigations that required officers to have medical or laboratory examinations, photographs, be subjected to a line-up, disclose financial statements, or take a test that would depict deception. This criterion is outlined in Policy 5.01. (CALEA 52.2.6.) Figure 8 is a three year comparison of discipline in connection to sustained Administrative Investigations. (CALEA 26.1.8) [12] 2011 Professional Standards Year End Report Figure 8 Three Year Comparison of Discipline for AI's 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 2011 2010 2009 Figure 9 is a three year comparison of discipline in connection to sustained Service Complaints. (CALEA 26.1.5) Figure 9 Three Year Comparison of Discipline for SC's 50 45 40 35 30 2011 25 20 2010 15 2009 10 5 0 Verbal counseling Written Counseling Training Letter of Reprimand Suspension from off/extra duty Figure 10 is a three year comparison of Citizen Commendations, Commendations, Service Complaints, and Administrative Investigations received in PSU. (CALEA 52.2.1) [13] Professional Standards Year End Report 2011 Figure 10 Three Year Comparison of Commendations, SC's and AI's 350 300 250 200 2011 150 2010 2009 100 50 0 All Commendations Service Complaints Administrative Investigations Biased Based Profiling Investigations: (CALEA 1.2.9) The department received two complaints (AI11-005and SC 11-129) of Biased Based Profiling. The first complaint (AI11-005) came from a citizen who believed he was racially profiled by a Peoria police officer when he was stopped for a broken tail light. The officer issued a citation for the violation and asked the citizen questions regarding tattoos, piercings, and work place address. The questions were asked in order to completely fill out the citation. The citizen was offended by the questions. An investigation was initiated and all parties involved were interviewed. The investigation revealed that the citizen was aware his tail light was not in good working condition. The citizen was asked during his interview what the officer did to make him feel he had been racially profiled. The citizen stated, “I felt the combination of being stopped for the tail light, questioned about tattoos, piercings, asked about his work address, and the discussion about burglaries in the area made him feel uncomfortable. The allegation was determined to be UNFOUNDED. The second complaint (SC 11-129) was also related to a traffic stop. The citizen believed they were racially profiled when they were stopped by an officer for expired tags. The citizen admitted to knowing his tags had been expired for over four months. The citizen believed he was racially profiled because the officer waited for him to leave a retail store and exit the private drive before making the traffic stop. The investigation revealed the officer had been assigned to work intensive patrol in the area during the holidays. The officer observed the vehicle back into a parking space and believed the driver was attempting to conceal the vehicle’s tags. Based on the officer’s past training and experience, the officer believed the occupants of the vehicle were maybe planning to commit a crime and conceal the vehicle’s license plates. The officer wrote down the vehicle license plate and discovered it was expired. The occupants returned to their vehicle and the officer conducted a traffic stop and issued a citation. The investigation revealed the officer’s traffic stop was lawful, proper and within policy and was cleared EXONERATED. [14] 2011 Professional Standards Year End Report Vehicle Operations and Safety Committee (VOSC) During 2011 there were a total of 24 vehicle incidents. This is an increase of 8 incidents or a 33% increase as compared to 2010. Of the 24 vehicle incidents, 8 were determined “not preventable” and 16 were determined “preventable” by the Vehicle Operation Safety Committee or the chain of command. Figure 11 is a three year comparison of preventable and nonpreventable vehicle collisions. Figure 12 is a three year comparison of all the Primary Collision Factors. Figure 11 Three Year Comparison of Vehicle Accidents 35 30 25 20 2011 15 2010 2009 10 5 0 Total Accidents Preventable Not Preventable Figure 12 Three Year Comparison of Primary Collision Factors 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2011 2010 2009 Backing Speed Fail to Obey Inattention Traffic Control Device Turning Code 3 Driving Debris in Roadway Discipline was given to officers involved in the 16 accidents that were determined to be preventable by the VOSC in 2011. Discipline was determined by Peoria Police Policy 4.08 and [15] Professional Standards Year End Report 2011 ranged from verbal counseling to a letter of reprimand. Pursuit (CALEA 41.2.2) During 2011, the Peoria Police Department had five vehicle pursuits incidents entered into Blue Team/IA Pro. The VOSC reviewed four of the vehicle pursuits. The VOSC determined two of were within policy, one was not a pursuit, and one was outside of policy. The remaining incident was investigated by the North Precinct dayshift watch commander and determined not a pursuit. • The incident determined to be outside of policy by the VOSC occurred on December 23, 2011 and involved two officers and one female suspect. Officers responded to Walgreen’s regarding a female passed out behind the wheel of a vehicle. Officers made contact with the female and while speaking with the female suspect, she started the car and fled the scene. Officers chased the female until ordered to terminate the pursuit by the field supervisor. The officers involved received a documented verbal counseling and training on department pursuit policy (AI 11-005). • The indent investigated by the North Precinct dayshift watch commander involved a stolen vehicle located by Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department. According to the investigation, the officers did an outstanding job of coordinating resources to assist a neighboring agency in the apprehending of a stolen vehicle suspect without entering into a vehicle pursuit. (AI11-001) • No documented pursuits in 2011 resulted in an accidents or injuries. • Two of the three pursuits were aborted or terminated either by the supervisor or involved officers. • One pursuit was initiated due to a felony offense, one pursuit was initiated due to a misdemeanor offense, and one pursuit was initiated due to traffic offenses. • Figure 13 is a three year comparison of vehicle pursuits. The number of pursuits reviewed by the VOSC did not increase or decrease in 2011. Figure 13 Three Year Comparison of Vehicle Pursuits Reviewed by VOSC 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 2011 2010 2009 Within Policy Outside of Policy [16] Professional Standards Year End Report 2011 Grievances: (CALEA 25.1.3/25.1.3) During the year of 2011 the Police Department had no grievance filed. Maintenance and control of grievance records are maintained in IA Pro from 2009 until present day. The only people that have access to IA Pro are PSU personnel. Any grievance records prior to 2009 are maintained in locked files only accessible by PSU personnel. Disciplinary Action Appeals (CALEA 26.1.6) There were no appeals for 2011. Early Intervention Program (CALEA 35.1.9) During 2011, two officers were placed on the Early Intervention Program (EIP). One officer successfully completed the program as planned. The other officer had his program extended into 2012. The Professional Standards Unit is currently improving the Peoria Police Department’s Early Warning System (EWS) and to incorporate features built into IA Pro to assist supervisors in identifying employees in need of assistance. In this effort to improve our ability to comply with this CALEA standard, the EWS will also increase agency accountability and help proactively meet the department goal of operating with maximum efficiency. Audits/Inspections: (84.1.6) Controlled Substance Screening The Peoria Police Department is subject to quarterly Random Drug Screening. Banner Health supplies the City of Peoria’s Human Resources Department with a random selection for each quarter. The Human Resources Department then provides the Professional Standards Unit with the randomly selected employees for drug screening. The Professional Standards Unit then insures the randomly selected employees are notified and the random drug screen is performed in a timely manner. In the year 2011, there have been no positive returns from Banner Health. Document Purging (CALEA 26.1.8) During 2011 the Professional Standards Unit developed new protocols to be in compliance with Arizona law (A.R.S 41-1351) by updating Peoria Police policy 5.01. On July 12th, 2011, an audit and review for internal PSU files was conducted. Per Arizona State Law and Department Policy, 2004 and 2005 PI/SC and AI files were purged. Involved employee names were purged from IA Pro for the 2005 AI files. Also the VOSC, EIP, and Use of Force files for 2004-2007 were purged per policy and retention laws. On December 29th, 2011, an audit and review for internal PSU files was conducted. Per Arizona State Law and Department Policy, 2006 Administrative Investigations with discipline of Sustained, Not Sustained, Exonerated and Unfounded findings were purged. It should be noted that the 2006 Administrative Investigations with aggravating circumstances were not purged. Per Arizona State Law and Department Policy, 2007, 2008, and 2009 Administrative [17] Professional Standards Year End Report 2011 Investigations with a disposition of Not Sustained, Exonerated and Unfounded findings were purged. Per Arizona State Law and Department Policy, all 2006, 2007, and 2008 Preliminary Investigations, regardless of disposition have been purged. Also the 2007, 2008, and 2009 Vehicle Operations Safety Committee files were purged, per Arizona State Law and Department Policy. The Use of Force files for 2007, 2008, and 2009 were also purged Arizona State Law and Department Policy. Involved employee names were purged from IA Pro for all of the above listed files that were purged. With the completion of this last file purging process, the Peoria Police Department is up to date with file retention, per Arizona State Law and Department Policy and the files have been given to the City of Peoria’s Attorneys’ Office for final disposition. A complete list of all the records purged can be located under attachment one in this report. K-9 Drug Testing Kit Throughout 2011 monthly inspections were conducted by the K-9 supervisor and processed through Blue Team. All of the monthly inspections returned with no discrepancies. On 04/07/11 and 04/28/2011, the Professional Standards Unit conducted an announced internal compliance inspection on K-9 Narcotic Training Kits. Each of the four kits issued to all K-9 officers were visually inspected and weighed. Each kit was within compliance of Department policy. Both “old” Marijuana Training Kits were impounded into Property/Evidence for destruction. PSU opened the evidence bag containing the Marijuana “base sample” and removed Item #1 (individually packaged 45 grams of Marijuana) for use for new Marijuana Training Kits. PSU re-sealed the evidence bag containing the remaining items #2 - #8 which was impounded back into Property/Evidence. The K-9 supervisor individually weighed 20 grams of the 45 gram sample and issued new Marijuana Training Kits to both officers at 0940 hrs. The remaining 25 grams from this sample (Item #1) was then impounded back into Property/Evidence for destruction. There were no recommendations for this inspection at this time. On July 13th, 2011, the Professional Standards Unit conducted a second internal compliance inspection of the K-9 Officer’s drug training kits. This inspection was an un-announced inspection. All sixteen kits were visually inspected and weighed. Each kit was within compliance of Department policy and there were no discrepancies noted. There were no new test kits given to the K-9 Unit during this inspection. The compete inspection report can be located under attachment two in this report. Mobile Data Computer/Positron Messages Random audits were conducted quarterly on Mobile Data Computer and Position messaging in 2011. The messages are read by citizen volunteers and the Professional Standards Unit to ensure [18] 2011 Professional Standards Year End Report employees are following policy. department policy. The audits found messages to be in compliance with Weapons Audit This unannounced audit/inspection was developed in response to discrepancies surrounding officers carrying the correct amount of ammunition as directed by policy while on duty. During an investigation into an Officer Involved Shooting in 2010, an Officer was discovered to be carrying his magazines to capacity, which is a violation of policy (4.09.D.2.a). Policy requires that all magazines are to be down loaded by one round. The problem surfaced again in during an investigation into an Officer Involved Shooting in 2011. An Officer was not carrying the correct amount of ammunition as directed by policy (4.09.D.2.a). Figure 14 shows the results of the audit/inspection revealed discrepancies found throughout the department during the course of this Audit/Inspection. Figure 14 Were safety rules followed? Was there a round in the firearm chamber? Were the magazines loaded one (1) less than capacity? Did the individual have the correct amount of ammunition? Did the individual have the correct type of ammunition? Did the individual maintain/clean their firearm? 52 of the 54 individuals followed the safety rules. 54 of the 54 individuals selected had a round in the chamber. 51 of the 54 individuals had their magazines one less than capacity. 51 of the 54 individuals had the correct amount of ammunition in their possession. 54 of the 54 individuals had the correct type of ammunition in their possession. 50 of the 54 maintained/cleaned their firearm. 96% compliance 100% compliance 94% compliance 94% compliance 100% compliance 92% compliance **** Overall Percentage of Compliance= 96.3% within Policy**** The complete report can be viewed under attachment three in this report. Special Investigations Unit On April 6th, the Professional Standards Unit conducted an internal compliance inspection of all CI money/funds, receipt books, expenditure sheets, monthly/quarterly expenditure reports, and CI files/lists in conjunction with the City Finance Department. Results of the inspection revealed that all CI funds/money was accounted for and that the Special Investigations Unit expenditure sheets and reports tracking Confidential Informant buy activity was in order. Four different receipt books were also reviewed. The CI files and lists also appeared to be in order with no discrepancies noted. Two discrepancies were found in the area of expenditure receipts for the transaction of funds which are as follows: [19] Professional Standards Year End Report • • 2011 11/3/09 – no receipt located documenting the return of $300 from Violent Crimes Unit back to the Special Investigations Unit for a Criminal Investigations Section investigation. 12/28/09 – no receipt located for $160 for the purchase of Meth Lab training equipment. During the inspection, there was a discussion among the Professional Standards Unit and Special Investigations Unit as to what the Confidential Informant funds/money could be used for and if they should have been used for training purposes or equipment purchases. Since the Sergeant change in the Special Investigations Unit, a monthly inspection of randomly selected items from the purchasing of Confidential Informants has been conducted by the Special Investigation Unit Sergeant. There have been no discrepancies noted. To view the completed CI fund audit see attachment four in this report. Internet Usage Audit In late September 2011, the Peoria Police Department released Internet access to all Mobile Data Computers in the field. This Audit/Inspection is a result of this release. The Professional Standards Unit conducted monthly Audit/Inspections of the entire police department’s internet usage. During the three audits/inspections there was only one incident involving an inappropriate website visited and it was in conjunction with the use of a fictitious account, used in investigations. These audits/inspections also identified individuals who spent a large amount of time on the internet. The employees’ supervisor was notified of the amount of time spent on the internet and was reminded of the policy. It was also learned that the majority of the usage was work related. To view all three completed internet usage audits see attachment five in this report. Property Room Inspections and Destruction of Evidence (CALEA 84.1.6) The Professional Standards Unit conducted two internal compliance inspections of the Property/Evidence room in 2011. The first inspection was an announced inspection which was conducted on April 4th, 2011. The internal compliance inspection took place in the Property/Evidence storage room at the Public Safety Administration Building. The Professional Standards Unit “spot” inspected four items of evidence (drugs) which were randomly selected from the destruction “pool” to determine compliance. The following items were inspected for accurate content: • Inspected at 0828 hrs. – IR #06-003784 (Item #1) – drug field-tested positive for Methamphetamine – review of report and impound sheet is consistent with the evidence tested. [20] 2011 Professional Standards Year End Report • • • Inspected at 0835 hrs. – IR #06-008005 (Item #6) – visually inspected, but not fieldtested due to condition of evidence – review of report and impound sheet is consistent with evidence observed. Inspected at 0850 hrs. – IR #06-010808 (Item #5) – drug field-tested positive for Cocaine base (Crack Cocaine) – review of report and impound sheet is consistent with evidence tested. Inspected at 1245 hrs. – IR #00-009029 (Item #1) – 32 Hydrocodone pills – visually inspected and counted – review of report and impound sheet is consistent with the evidence observed. The following recommendations destruction/transportation process: • • • • • are suggested by PSU reference the property Identifying and utilizing a segregated section or separate room within the Department’s main property storage room to provide for added security and accountability. Once property/evidence items are checked and logged during the destruction inventory, the items should then be placed into a designated, secured area for final vehicle loading prior to transport. To ensure integrity and internal compliance, PSU would place a padlock on the outside of the secured section/room in question and access to that area would require personnel from both sections of the Department. PSU continues to conduct “spot” inspections of property/evidence items for weight, amount, and/or substance during the destruction inventory process for internal compliance. Once property/evidence items are loaded into the designated vehicle for transport to the destruction incinerator in Globe, both Property personnel and PSU personnel place a padlock (2 locks) on the vehicle, securing the vehicle’s contents (Property would be the only ones to maintain the key to one padlock while PSU would maintain the key to the other padlock). In addition, a standard evidence seal initialed by both personnel would be placed on the vehicle so that the seal would be broken when access is gained. Officers from the same specialized unit (SIU, PCU, etc.) should assist Property personnel during each destruction process (chain of custody) to maintain consistency and accountability during the process. This added area of responsibility could be added to Department policy or the specific unit’s SOP’s. The development of a “Property/Evidence Destruction Process” SOP identifying the recommendations noted above and including required protective clothing/equipment needed by Department personnel at the mine/incinerator in Globe. The second inspection was an unannounced inspection/audit which was initiated on August 16th, 2011. The Professional Standards Unit randomly inspected seventy- two (72) items of evidence (drugs) which were selected from the destruction “pool” to determine compliance. All but one of the items randomly selected contained the correct content, which is a 98.6 percent compliance rate. The one item, IR 07-004656, was labeled as a small amount of marijuana, but was a box of ammunition. Property/Evidence Technicians were quickly able to rectify the situation and learned that there was a double entry for the listed item number. [21] Professional Standards Year End Report 2011 During this unannounced audit/inspection there were no major issues identified, however there were some incidences where property bags were overfilled. There were also two incidences where flammable items were impounded incorrectly for destruction. The following recommendations are suggested by the Professional Standards Unit reference the property destruction/transportation process: • • • • • The Professional Standards Unit continues to conduct “spot” inspections of property/evidence items for weight, amount, and/or substance during the destruction inventory process for internal compliance. Officers from the same specialized unit (SIU, PCU, etc.) should assist Property personnel during each destruction process (chain of custody) to maintain consistency and accountability during the process. This added area of responsibility will be added to Department policy or the specific unit’s SOP’s. A Sergeant and Detective from Special Investigations Unit (SIU) should place a GPS on the transport vehicle the morning of the transport, for an added security measure and locating abilities. The SIU Detective and Sergeant placing the GPS shall be the only ones to know where it is placed. This added area of responsibility will be added to Department policy or the specific unit’s SOP’s. The development of a “Property/Evidence Destruction Process” SOP identifying the recommendations noted above and also including required protective clothing/equipment needed by Department personnel at the mine/incinerator in Globe, one month prior to the destruction date. The Youth and Support Services Section develop a Training Bulletin with instructions on proper heat sealing procedures. The destruction portion of this audit has not been completed. The destruction was originally scheduled for November 12th, 2011. The Globe mine/incinerator has cancelled three times to date for several different reasons. The current scheduled destruction is scheduled for early March, 2012. The Professional Standards Unit has adapted the initial destruction recommendations and has added a few recommendations of its own. Both the announced and unannounced property room inspections can be located under attachment six in this report. Additional Information In 2011, PSU add an additional sergeant position to the unit assigned to Audits and Inspections. This allowed PSU to be more proactive and conduct more internal inspections and audits. Figure 15 is a three year comparison of audits and inspections conducted by the Professional Standards Unit tracked in IA Pro. [22] 2011 Professional Standards Year End Report Figure 15 Three Year Comparison of Audits/Inspections conducted by PSU 2011 2010 2009 48 26 10 Total Audits/Inspections [23]