DATE: July 9, 2017 TO: Roy W. Minter, Jr., Chief of Police FROM: Professional Standards Unit SUBJECT: 52.1.5) Professional Standards Unit 2016 Calendar Year Summary Report (CALEA This report is the 2016 calendar year activity summary for the City of Peoria Police Department Professional Standards Unit (PSU). 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 Use of Force Committee Vehicle Operations and Safety Committee Early Intervention Program 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, the unit is also responsible for the training of Department personnel in matters relating to the functions of PSU. In 2016, PSU saw a turnover of its personnel. Sergeant Jason Tarrant was assigned to the Traffic Services Unit: Sergeant Christopher Webb was promoted to Lieutenant and assigned to a new position in Patrol Services. Sergeant Kevin Tarrant was permanently appointed to PSU. Use of Force (CALEA 1.3.13) The following is a report of the force used by Peoria Police Officers from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. 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 and 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 (OC) spray and discharged it at another person o Officer used hard empty hand control technique o Officer used as a hard impact weapon (i.e. expandable baton, flashlight, etc.). Page 1 Professional Standards Year End Report • • 2016 o Officer used a Stun Bag Shotgun discharging 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 (OC spray, CS gas, or CN gas) 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 The Peoria Police Department uses web based software called Blue Team to document all reportable use of force incidents. One use of force incident may have multiple officers that used different levels of force. In 2016, the Peoria Police Department had 52 reportable use of force incidents involving 79 officers using various levels of force, not including deadly force. As a comparison, in 2015, the Peoria Police Department had 54 reportable use of force incidents involving 99 officers using various levels of force, not including deadly force. Use of Force Reporting Process A sergeant is responsible for ensuring all qualifying incidents of use of force are entered into Blue Team as a Use of Force Incident. Use of force is tracked by incident, not type of force used or involved officers. One incident can include more than one officer and/or more than one type of force. Once the sergeant has completed the entry, it is forwarded to that sergeant’s lieutenant for review. Once approved by the lieutenant, the entry is forwarded to PSU for dissemination to the Use of Force Committee. The Professional Standards Unit gathers all related documents (i.e. case reports, photographs, Body Worn Camera, and audio recordings) and creates a file under the case report number which is placed on a restricted folder located on the secure internal server, accessible only to the Use of Force Committee. An email is generated, including a hyperlink to the file and a voting tab and directly sent to the Use of Force Committee. Each member of the Use of Force Committee then has the ability to immediately review the data via the email. Once the members of the Use of Force Committee have reviewed all pertinent data they can vote on their findings utilizing the voting tab. Their voting options are: “within policy;” “out of policy;” or “request to meet in person for discussion.” The votes are received and tallied by the committee chair (or designee). If the committee chair receives a request for additional discussion, the committee will meet in person to discuss the incident, and come to a consensus of findings. Page 2 2016 Professional Standards Year End Report If the Use of Force Committee determines the force used was out of policy, a Service Complaint or Administrative Investigation (as directed by the Chief of Police) will be conducted. Incident Review (CALEA 1.3.6) Figure 1:Use of Force Chart Difference % Change 2015/2016 2015/2016 Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Use of Force Incidents 38 46 41 54 52 -2 -3% Total number of officer involved Calls for Service 75 81 71 99 79 -20 -20% 116,161 105,187 100,487 88,613 85,917 -2,696 -3% Arrests 3312 3717 3722 3592 3587 -5 -.001% Sworn Full Time Employees 187 188 191 195 196 1 .005% Use of Force Resulted in Injury- Citizen 26 25 35 32 38 6 18% Officer Injured in Conjunction with Use of Force 8 10 12 14 14 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 O.C. Spray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Hard Empty Hand 23 22 26 33 18 -15 -45% Hard Impact Weapon 0 1 1 0 0 0 0% Soft Empty Hand 28 27 22 36 24 -12 -33% Less Lethal Stun bag Shotgun 0 0 1 0 0 0 0% Police Dog 3 4 6 4 11 7 175% Taser 20 16 11 10 23 13 130% Handcuffing 10 15 12 21 9 -12 -57% Total 84 85 79 104 83 -21 -21% Discharge of Firearm 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Intentional 2 4 1 3 2 -1 -33% Unintentional 1 0 0 0 1 1 100% Accidental 0 0 1 0 0 0 0% Use of Force Resulted in Death Page 3 Difference % Change 2015/2016 2015/2016 Difference % Change 2015/2016 2015/2016 2016 Professional Standards Year End Report Figure 1: Use of Force Chart Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Difference % Change 2015/2016 2015/2016 SAU/MFF Use of Force 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Difference % Change 2015/2016 2015/2016 Less Lethal Stun bag Shotgun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Less Lethal Kinetic Baton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Smoke or Diversionary Device 36 14 11 14 29 15 107% SAU (SWAT) Deployments 42 40 24 35 61 26 75% 3 8 3 8 5 167% SAU High Energy Breach Difference % Change 2015/2016 2015/2016 Times 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Day (0600-1600) 14 8 15 23 19 -4 -18% Evening (1600-2200) 4 16 13 2 5 3 150% Night (2200-0600) 17 22 13 10 9 -1 -10% (Note: Calls for Service and Arrests were extracted from the Peoria Police Department LERMS system based on information available at the time of this report.)  In 2016, there were 52 incidents involving 79 officers using 83 different levels of nonlethal force. This represents a decrease of 2 incidents or 3%, in comparison to 2015.  The Use of Force Committee reviewed each of the 52 incidents; none were found to be outside of policy.  In 2016, there were 3,587 arrests. In comparison, there were 3,592 reported arrests in 2015, a decrease of 5 arrests. Of the 52 incidents of force reported in 2016, 26 of these use of force incidents or 50% were the direct result of officers affecting an arrest.  When comparing Use of Force to the number of arrests in 2016, Peoria officers used force less than 1% of the time when affecting an arrest.  Of the 52 total incidents, 12 involved officers assessing the condition of the citizen as “mentally unstable”; with 2 directly related to the service of an involuntary mental health committal order.  25 of the 54 incidents officers reported drugs or alcohol to play a contributing factor to the citizen’s actions. Figure 2 is a five year comparison of arrests vs. Use of Force incidents. Page 4 2016 Professional Standards Year End Report Figure 2 Arrests v Use of Force over Five Years UOF 3722 3592 3587 Arrests 3717 3312 52 2016 54 2015 41 2014 46 2013 38 2012 Injury/Death (CALEA 1.3.6)  Of the 52 total Use of Force incidents in 2016, 38 incidents or 73% of the incidents resulted in an injury or alleged injury to the suspect. In comparison to 2015, 32 incidents or 62% of the incidents resulted in an injury or alleged injury to the suspect. This percentile increase can possibly be attributed to an increase of Taser and K9 deployments. Taser deployments increased from 10 in 2015 to 18 in 2016. We also had an increase from 4 K9 bites in 2015 to 13 bites in 2016.  There were no uses of force incidents in 2016 that resulted in the death of a human. There was no change compared to 2015.  Figure 3 is a five year comparison of injuries connected to use of force. Significant injury was determined if the officer or suspect was transported to the hospital. In 2016, 22 citizens (42%) were transported to the hospital after a use of force. In 2015, 25 citizens (46%) were transported to the hospital after a use of force incident.  6 officers were transported to the hospital after a use of force incident in 2016. Page 5 2016 Professional Standards Year End Report Figure 3 Five Year Comparison of Injuries from Use of Force Incidents Officer Injured 54 52 Suspect Injured Total UOF 46 41 38 38 35 32 26 25 14 14 2016 12 2015 10 2014 8 2013 2012 Less-Lethal Force Options (CALEA 1.3.6) Less-Lethal force response options are defined and explained in Peoria Police policies 300 through 309. 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.  There were no reported uses of OC spray in 2016. There was no change compared to 2015.  Hard empty hand control techniques were used 18 times or 34% of all incidents reported in 2016. This is a decrease of 15 applications when compared to 2015. This significant drop in hard empty hand control techniques could be correlated to the fact that Taser and K9 deployments increased in 2016.  Soft empty hand control techniques were used 24 times or in 46% of all reported force used in 2016. This is a decrease of 12 applications compared to 2015. Soft empty hand techniques and hard empty hand control techniques have become balanced in their applications. This trend appears to continue as officers are talking more to individuals while they are being placed into custody and verbally de-escalating the situation.  There were no reported uses of an expandable baton in 2016. There was no change compared to 2015.  There were no reported uses of stun bag shotgun 2016. There was no change compared to 2015. Page 6 2016 Professional Standards Year End Report Figure 4 is a five-year comparison of less-lethal force used by the Peoria Police Department. Figure 4 Five Year Comparison of Less-Lethal Force 40 35 30 2016 25 2015 20 2014 15 2013 10 2012 5 0 O.C. Spray Hard Empty Hand Soft Empty Hand Hard Impact Weapon Stun-Bag Shotgun K-9 All Taser Options Significant Increases/Decreases The most notable change in any type of use of force was in the use of the Taser, the application of the Taser increased from 10 in 2015 to 23 in 2016. There were 14 calls for service in which the Taser was utilized 23 times. The definition of Taser applications includes discharge of probes, drive stun, arc for compliance, and also laser point. Of the 14 calls for service, 10 of the calls involved 14 officers discharging their Taser probes. The remaining Taser applications consisted of 3 drive stuns, 5 laser points, and 1 arc for compliance. In each use of the Taser the suspect was showing some level of resistance. 5 suspects were displaying defensive resistance and 11 suspects were displaying active aggression. Each one of the Taser applications was found to be within policy by the Use of Force Committee. K9 deployments also had an increase from 4 in 2015 to 11 in 2016. Although there was an increase in utilization of the K9, it appears that Officers are doing an outstanding job of understanding when to utilize the K9 during searches and calls for service that have a high risk to the officer. Of the 11 K9 deployments, 6 of them involved the suspect fleeing from officers on foot during the commission of a felony crime, 2 of them involved suspects wanting to commit “suicide by cop,” and 3 involved suspects refusing to exit their home when being ordered to. The department had a significant decrease in both hard and soft empty hand techniques. Hard empty hand techniques decreased from 33 in 2015 to 18 in 2016, while soft empty hand techniques dropped from 36 in 2015 to 24 in 2016. There are several factors involved in this decline, one being that the utilization of the Taser and K9 increased, which reduced the amount of times officers needed to go “hands-on.” A second factor involved in the decrease can be attributed to the fact that the department has always and continues to educate and train officers on verbal de-escalation. Officers continue to communicate effectively and evaluate situations before acting, allowing resolution with the minimal use of force possible. Page 7 Professional Standards Year End Report 2016 While the use of force incidents decreased by 2 from 2015 to 2016, there was an increase in the number of citizens injured. 2015 saw 32 citizen injuries while that number increased to 38 in 2016, which was a 15% increase. Again this can be attributed to the increased use of Taser and K9 deployments. Other Contributing Factors 37 use of force incidents in 2016 involved drugs, alcohol, or mentally unstable subjects, or 71% of the reported 52 incidents from use of force. When examining use of force data over the past four years, officers are more likely to use force on suspects that are under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol or who are mentally unstable. The number of incidents that involved suspects under the influence of drugs or alcohol or who are mentally unstable could be higher than what has been reported because the information is dependent upon officer’s observations of the suspect and also that supervisors record this information in Blue Team. Specific analysis of use of force incidents in relation to mental health reveals 12 incidents in which the officer attributed the citizen’s behavior to mental illness, 8 incidents in which the officer believed the suspect was impaired by alcohol, 11 incidents in which the officer thought the suspect was impaired by drugs, and 6 incidents where the officer believed the suspect was impaired by either drugs or alcohol. Of those 12 incidents, 2 occurred while officers were attempting to serve the citizen with an involuntary mental health evaluation. The category of ‘mental health’ under use of force entries allows for more accurate tracking of the instances when an involuntary mental health evaluation results in a use of force. Firearms (CALEA 1.3.2/1.3.3/1.3.6) Deadly Force Review Board: The Deadly Force Review Board did not convene in 2016, as there were no uses of deadly force by members of the department. Unintentional/Intentional/Accidental Discharge of a Firearm  There was one unintentional discharge of a firearm in 2016. The incident occurred on the range during firearms training. There were no injuries. The incident was investigated and the officer received a verbal counseling and additional firearms training before returning to his normal duties. (CALEA 1.3.6.)  Two intentional discharges of a firearm were reported in 2016. Both of these discharges involved a call for service where the officer, with on-duty supervisor approval, dispatched an animal. (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.) Page 8 2016 Professional Standards Year End Report Warning shots are prohibited by Peoria Police Department SOP PTY 300—there were no violations of this policy in 2016. (CALEA 1.3.3) Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) and (Mobile Field Force (MFF) Use of Force (CALEA 1.3.6)  There were no incidents in which the stun bag shotgun (less-lethal) was deployed in 2016 by SAU or MFF. There was no increase or decrease when compared to 2015.  There were no uses of less-lethal kinetic batons in 2016. There was no increase or decrease when compared to 2015.  SWAT had 61 operational deployments in 2016, an increase of 26 when compared to 2015.  SWAT deployed a diversionary device 29 times in 2016. This was an increase of 15 when compared to 2015.  SWAT had 8 uses of HEBs in 2016. An increase of 5 when compared to 2015.  The High Energy Breach (HEB) program was started in 2014, SWAT considers the use of HEB entries to be the exception and HEB are used during some tactical situations when the speed of getting officers into a structure would be invaluable and increase the likelihood of a positive outcome and ensure the safety of officers, citizens, and suspects. Examples of these situations include hostage rescue operations and certain high risk search warrant service. The HEB program of the Peoria Police Department is based on the premise that the minimum amount of explosives is used to guarantee a positive entry into the structure.  Figure 5 is a five year comparison of SAU deployments and diversionary devices used. Figure 5 Five Year Comparison of SWAT Deployments Diversionary Device 61 42 40 36 35 29 24 14 2016 2015 11 2014 Page 9 14 2013 2012 2016 Professional Standards Year End Report Training (CALEA 1.3.13) In 2016, Peoria Police officers received mandatory in-service training on Taser deployment, dealing with the mentally ill, and de-escalation. In addition, all officers received Low Light Firearms Training and completed a “discretionary shoot” using Multiple Interactive Learning Objectives (MILO). Analysis (CALEA 1.3.13) The department saw a decrease of 2 use of force incidents when compared to 2015. It should be noted that each use of force incident may have multiple officers using several different types or levels of force. Officers continue to be effective when utilizing force and using the minimal amount of force necessary to control the situation. This conclusion is apparent since each use of force was found to be within policy by the Use of Force Committee. The deployment of O.C Spray and collapsible baton was non-existent by officers in the field in 2016. It is reasonable to believe that the continual decrease in the use of hard empty hand techniques and soft empty hand techniques is due to the increase in Taser deployments and effective de-escalation tactics. An analysis of the overall numbers of use of force incidents related to the number of calls for service and the number of arrests made indicates officers are doing a great job utilizing deescalation tactics. There were 85,917 calls for service in 2016, and officers utilized force .0006% of the time on these calls for service. Officers made 3,587 arrests and utilized force 1% of the time during the arrest of a suspect. These are relatively low numbers and again show how well officers are utilizing tactics and training. Professional Standards Unit Figure 6 Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Difference 2015/2016 Total Incidents Received 794 1305 1637 1876 1772 -104 -6% Administrative Investigations 10 5 5 13 13 0 No Change Service Complaints 88 86 120 125 48 -77 -61% Citizen Commendations 108 118 116 105 96 -9 -9% Commendations 200 241 241 305 272 -33 -11% Early Intervention Program 1 0 0 0 0 0 No Change Employee Grievance 3 1 0 0 1 1 100% Vehicle Accidents 24 22 33 17 25 8 47% Vehicle Pursuits 2 2 4 3 2 -1 -33% Photo Radar 6 4 3 3 0 -3 -100% Page 10 % Change 2015/2016 2016 Professional Standards Year End Report Service Complaint Findings 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Difference 2015/2016 % Change 2015/2016 Exonerated 30 24 31 28 5 -23 -82% Unfounded 29 34 44 66 19 -47 -71% Not Sustained 2 3 4 10 4 -6 -60% Sustained 24 24 41 38 20 -18 -47% Retired 0 0 1 0 0 0 No Change 2012 2013 2014 2015 Letter of Reprimand 8 4 4 6 1 -5 -83% Written Counseling 3 4 8 10 7 -3 -30% Verbal Counseling 11 16 38 22 12 -10 -45% Training 2 2 1 1 0 -1 -100% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Difference 2015/2016 % Change 2015/2016 Exonerated 0 2 0 0 0 0 No Change Unfounded 1 0 1 4 1 -3 -75% Not Sustained 1 0 0 1 0 -1 -100% Sustained 7 2 3 8 6 -2 -25% Resigned Prior to completion 1 1 1 0 2 2 200% Administrative Investigation Discipline 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Difference 2015/2016 % Change 2015/2016 Termination 1 0 0 1 2 1 100% Resigned 1 1 0 0 0 0 No Change Demotion 2 0 0 0 0 0 No Change Suspension 3 1 2 2 2 0 No Change Letter of Reprimand 0 0 1 4 4 0 No Change Written Counseling 0 0 1 0 0 0 No Change Verbal Counseling 0 1 0 2 0 -2 -100% Retired/Resigned 0 0 1 0 2 1 100% No Action Taken 0 0 0 0 3 3 300% % Change 2015/2016 18% Service Complaint Discipline Administrative Investigation Disposition Difference 2016 2015/2016 Vehicle Accident Findings 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Difference 2015/2016 Preventable 15 9 21 11 13 2 Page 11 % Change 2015/2016 2016 Professional Standards Year End Report Non-Preventable 9 13 12 5 12 7 140% Preventable/Justified 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Change 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Difference 2015/2016 % Change 2015/2016 Suspension 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Change Letter of Reprimand 0 0 1 1 2 1 100% Written Counseling 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Change Verbal Counseling 15 9 20 10 11 0 No Change Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Change 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Difference 2015/2016 % Change 2015/2016 Out of Policy 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Change Within Policy 1 2 4 3 2 -1 -50% Determined Not a Pursuit 1 0 0 0 0 0 No Change Vehicle Pursuit Discipline 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Difference 2015/2016 % Change 2015/2016 Suspension 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Change Letter of Reprimand 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Change Written Counseling 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Change Verbal Counseling 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Change Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Change Vehicle Accident Discipline Vehicle Pursuits Findings Commendations/Complaints (CALEA 52.1.1) The Professional Standards Unit uses a tracking software system called IA Pro. IA Pro allows for accurate records of complaints and commendations received by the Peoria Police Department and citizens. Additional software called Blue Team augments the IA Pro software. Blue Team allows certain incidents traditionally tracked in an employee’s individual performance record (IPR) or in CAD to be entered into Blue Team. The IA Pro database has improved the accuracy by which complaints, commendations, and other performance issues are processed, tracked, and monitored for consistency. IA Pro also tracks use of force incidents, vehicle accidents, supervisor notes, firearm discharges, employee grievances, drug screenings, and inspections. IA Pro and Blue Team continue to be a valuable tool for PSU and the members of the Peoria Police Department as we strive to meet our department goal of building partnerships and trust with the community we serve. Page 12 Professional Standards Year End Report 2016 Complaint/Commendation Process When a complaint is received, it is classified into one of two categories based upon the allegation or 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. Complaints classified as Administrative Investigations (AI) are investigated by the Professional Standards Unit (PSU) due to the severity of allegations and/or the potential level of discipline. Complaints classified as Service Complaints (SC) will normally be investigated by the involved employee’s supervisor. (CALEA 26.1.5; 52.2.1) 2016 Incidents PSU received 1772 incidents from citizens and Department personnel. Compared to 2015, PSU received 104 fewer incidents in 2015 or a 6% reduction in entries tracked through IA Pro. Of the 1772 contacts, 368 or 21% resulted in commendations for Peoria Police Department employees. In comparison, only 61 or 3% of the 1772 contacts resulted in a complaint. 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 located in the figure 6 of this report. When looking at the 1772 incidents received in PSU, 121 were from citizens. There are multiple methods for citizens to file commendations and complaints. • Citizens can call the PSU hotline. • Citizens can download the Commendation/Complaint Form from the City of Peoria website and mail it. This form can also be submitted on-line. • Citizens can enter the lobby of both precincts and fill out a Commendation/Complaint Form. This form is also available in Spanish. • Citizens can email commendations and complaints to PSU without completing the form. • Commendations and complaints can also be filed with any police supervisor. (CALEA 52.1.4) PSU takes action on all complaints, regardless if the citizen provides their identity or remains anonymous. (CALEA 52.1.1) Investigations of Complaints The Professional Standards Unit utilizes a process, developed in 2003 and modified in 2011, to comply with Arizona Revised Statute (ARS 38-1101) laws concerning officers’ bill of rights on how investigations are 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. Page 13 Professional Standards Year End Report • 2016 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: 1. Unfounded: The events or allegations reported by the complainant did not happen or were false. 2. Exonerated: The allegation did occur but the employee’s actions were lawful, proper, and within department policy. 3. Not Sustained: The allegation against the employee could not be proven or disproved during the investigation. 4. Sustained: The allegation against the employee met the “standard of proof” and was determined to be true. Administrative Investigations: A total of 13 Administrative Investigations (AI) were authorized by the Chief of Police in 2016. AIs are investigated by the Professional Standards Unit (PSU). When the AI is completed, it is forwarded to a Discipline Review Panel (DRP) for review. The DRP then makes a formal recommendation of findings and discipline to the Chief. A DRP was convened for 7 AIs. For the remaining six, one of the investigations is ongoing and five were closed by the Chief of Police. The other five were closed for to different reasons. Two of the investigations were closed after the officers resigned or retired. One involved a medical concern which was handled by the Human Resources Department and the other two were closed after PSU served the employees with a Notice of Investigation, but before starting the investigation. This was due in part to PSU learning new information showing that there were no policy violations. 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 terminated one employee in 2016. Service Complaints (CALEA 26.1.5) During 2016 a total of 48 service complaints were processed by PSU with 25 being brought forth by a citizen. Service Complaints are tallied by incident, not the involved officer or allegation. One service complaint can involve more than one officer and more than one allegation. These 48 complaints involved 49 different employees, 6 complaints involved “unknown officers”. PSU uses the category “unknown officer” to track citizen complaints that truly involve an unidentified officer. In the past, to include throughout 2016, ‘unknown officer’ category or ‘no linked officer’ has also been used to track complaints that are not directed at a specific employee, the allegation is baseless, or after the citizen speaks to PSU they no longer wish to file a complaint. Based on this practice it was identified that some of the reported ‘service complaint’ numbers and ‘unknown officer’ numbers could be misrepresented. At the beginning of 2016, a new category of “Citizen Inquiries” was created and will be used in these circumstances. Page 14 2016 Professional Standards Year End Report The findings of these 48 complaints are shown in figure 6. Discipline resulting from sustained investigations is shown in figure 7: Figure 7 2016 Range of Discipline for Service Complaints 1 7 Letter of Reprimand Written Counseling Verbal Counseling 14 One investigation required an officer to have medical or laboratory examinations. There were no investigations which required an officer to have photographs, be subjected to a line-up, disclose financial statements, or take a test that would detect deception. This criterion is outlined in Peoria Police Department policy 1020. (CALEA 52.2.6.) There were no recommendations for policy changes or training as the result of a service complaint. However, there was a change to the service complaint process itself. Historically, Notices of Investigation (NOI) were issued only for Administrative Investigations. Beginning in 2016, supervisors began issuing NOIs for service complaints as well. This change in process was brought about after conferring with the police department’s legal advisor and to more strictly follow the Arizona Officer Bill of Rights as defined in Title 38, Chapter 11 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Page 15 2016 Professional Standards Year End Report Figure 8 is a five year comparison of discipline in connection to sustained Administrative Investigations. (CALEA 26.1.8) Figure 8 Five Year Comparison of Discipline for Administrative Investigations 4 3 2 1 0 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 Figure 9 is a five year comparison of discipline in connection to sustained Service Complaints. (CALEA 26.1.5) Figure 9 Five Year Comparison of Discipline for Service Complaints 40 35 30 2016 25 2015 20 2014 15 2013 10 2012 5 0 Letter of Reprimand Written Counseling Page 16 Verbal Counseling Training Professional Standards Year End Report 2016 Figure 10 is a five year comparison of Citizen Commendations, Commendations, Service Complaints, and Administrative Investigations received in PSU. (CALEA 52.2.1) Figure 10 Five Year Comparison of Commendations, Service Complaints and Administrative Investigations 450 400 350 300 250 All Commendations 200 Service Complaints 150 Administrative Investigations 100 50 0 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 Biased Based Profiling Concerns: (CALEA 1.2.9) In 2016 the department received zero complaints of Biased Based Profiling. An annual review of departmental efforts to prevent bias based profiling is conducted by the Deputy Police Chief of Operations. The review is forwarded to the Chief of Police to identify any changes in training or operations. Vehicle Operations and Safety Committee (VOSC) The VOSC is comprised of 9 department employees from various rank and positions within the department and is chaired by a department lieutenant. The VOSC is responsible for reviewing all employee involved collisions and pursuits. Their review involves actions made by employees, policy and training. The VOSC determines if the collision was “preventable” or “not preventable” with regard to the employee’s actions. If the VOSC determines the collision was preventable, the involved employee is subject to discipline. The VOSC will also make recommendations on policy changes or training needs. Employee involved collisions are entered into Blue Team in the same manner already described for Use of Force entries. The positive feedback on the new streamlined process for reviewing Use of Force incidents inspired the same process to be carried over to the VOSC. All VOSC members are reporting that the new procedure is working well and allows for a more timely review and conclusion to employee collisions. During 2016, Peoria Police employees were involved in a total of 25 vehicle collisions. This was a 32% increase from the 17 collisions that occurred in 2015. Of those 25 vehicle collisions, 12 were determined “not preventable” or the employee was not at fault for the collision and 13 were determined “preventable” or the employee was at fault for the collision, as determined by the Vehicle Operation Safety Committee. Figure 11 is a five year comparison of preventable and non-preventable vehicle collisions. Figure 12 is a five year comparison of Page 17 2016 Professional Standards Year End Report all the primary collision factors. Inattention and backing were the top reasons cited as the primary cause of collisions in 2015. Even though there was a significant increase in vehicle accidents, this can be contributed to the fact that there was a 58% increase in “not preventable” collisions. Not preventable again means that it was determined by the VOSC that there was nothing the employee could have done to avoid the collision. In each one of the 12 “not preventable” accidents it was determined that the employee was not at fault. The Peoria Police Department is still focusing on the “Below 100” program to bring driving safety and awareness to the attention of Peoria Police employees. This program was i m p l e m e n t e d , and officers continued to receive training and reviews from their Sergeants. Part of the focus of the program is to get officers to wear their seatbelts, slow down, and focus on their driving. Figure 11 Five Year Comparison of Vehicle Accidents 35 30 25 2016 20 2015 2014 15 2013 10 2012 5 0 Total Accidents Preventable Not Preventable Page 18 Preventable Justified Professional Standards Year End Report 2016 Figure 12 Five Year Comparison Primary Collision Factors 16 14 12 10 8 6 2016 4 2015 2 2014 0 2013 2012 Discipline for Peoria Police employees found to be at fault in a vehicle collision ranges from verbal counseling to suspension and is determined by Department SOP GEN-706. Of the 13 collisions in 2016 that were deemed preventable, 11 employees received a verbal counseling and 2 officers received a letter of reprimand. 10 employees received a verbal counseling because this was their first collision within the past 3 years. One of the preventable accidents involved a Police Department volunteer, who also received a verbal counseling. Pursuits (CALEA 41.2.2) In 2016, the Peoria Police Department was involved in two vehicle pursuit incidents; each was reviewed by the VOSC and determined to be within policy. The VOSC reports that the current reporting and review procedures are functioning well and are recommending no changes to the process at this time. Page 19 2016 Professional Standards Year End Report Figure 13 is a five year comparison of vehicle pursuits. Figure 13 Five Year Comparison of Vehicle Pursuits 5 4 3 Within Policy Outside of Policy 2 1 0 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 Road Blocks and Forcible Stopping of Vehicles (CALEA 41.2.3) In 2016, there was one incident of officers using “stop sticks”. The incident involved officers contacting an erratic and possibly impaired driver. As officers approached, the driver slowed and then stopped. The officers spoke with the driver while the driver was still inside the vehicle. The officers placed the “stop sticks” underneath the vehicle in case he attempted to drive away. The driver did drive away but then stopped in the roadway a few miles away. Grievances: (CALEA 25.1.3) A "grievance" is any dispute regarding the meaning, interpretation, or alleged violation of the Administrative Regulations. This includes any written allegation by an employee concerning the interpretation or application of rules and regulations governing personnel practices, Peoria Police Department work rules, working conditions, or alleged improper treatment of an employee, in which the complaint has not been resolved satisfactorily in an informal manner between the employee and their immediate supervisor. Employees are encouraged to resolve problems with their immediate supervisor or lowest level of supervision before initiating a formal grievance. The Police Chief meets weekly with members of the collective bargaining units to discuss potential problems and concerns in an effort to resolve them at the earliest moment. Additionally, the Police Chief holds regular “open door” days where any member can have direct access to discuss concerns. There was one formal grievance filed by the Peoria Police Officers Association. The grievance was in regards to a department manager issuing overtime assignments without regard to department seniority. The grievance came to a resolution and staff was instructed on how to prevent a reoccurrence. Page 20 Professional Standards Year End Report 2016 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. Disciplinary Action Appeals (CALEA 26.1.6) There was one appeal filed in 2016, regarding an employee termination. Early Intervention Program (CALEA 35.1.9) In 2014, PSU formalized the process of the Early Intervention Program with the addition of Policy 1019. The Early Intervention Program (EIP) is designed to provide assistance or training to employees experiencing/potentially experiencing performance or personal difficulties and provide them assistance or training in a non-punitive way. EIP was designed as a non-punitive tool that will allow employees an opportunity to overcome problems without the stigma of discipline in a proactive manner. Assistance offered to employees can come from a variety of support services offered through the city’s Employee Assistance Plan, such as counseling, financial services, legal services, and childcare or eldercare assistance. Peer counseling, mentoring or additional training may be considered as additional options to assist employees. In 2016, 28 alerts were forwarded to lieutenants for review and consideration of additional action. From these alerts, one employee was offered the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Employees are reminded that early warning alerts are non-disciplinary and are intended to create an opportunity for supervisors/managers to converse with employees reference the alert as a matter of general discussion to determine if there are any personal or professional concerns or influences that could be affecting the employee’s job performance. Incident thresholds are set at the following levels: • (3) Service Complaints within a 12 month period • (4) Use of Force incidents within a 12 month period • (3) Photo Radar incidents within a 12 month period • (2) Pursuits within a 12 month period • (2) Firearm Discharges within a 12 month period • (2) Administrative Investigations within a 12 month period • (2) Vehicle Accidents within a 36 month period • (6) Overall Incidents Listed within a 12 month period Audits/Inspections: (84.1.6) Controlled Substance Screening All Peoria Police Department sworn personnel are subject to quarterly random drug screenings. Banner Health supplies the City of Peoria’s Human Resources Department with a random selection each quarter. The Human Resources Department then provides the Professional Standards Unit with the names of the randomly selected employees for drug screening. The Professional Standards Unit ensures the randomly selected employees are notified and the random drug screen is performed in a timely manner. In the year 2016, there were no positive returns from Banner Health. Page 21 Professional Standards Year End Report 2016 Document Purging (CALEA 26.1.8) On a monthly basis in 2016, an audit and review for internal PSU files was conducted. Per Arizona State Law and department policy, all Professional Standards files must be purged three years after the completion date of the investigation. Involved employee names were purged from IA Pro per policy and retention laws. K-9 Drug Testing Kit (CALEA 84.1.4) Throughout 2016, the K-9 supervisors periodically inspected all K-9 narcotic training kits and those inspections were processed through Blue Team on a quarterly basis. All of the quarterly inspections returned with no discrepancies. In February and November 2016, the Professional Standards Unit conducted an unannounced internal compliance inspection on all K-9 narcotic training kits. Each of the four kits issued to the K-9 officers were visually inspected and weighed and each kit was within compliance of Department policy. The Professional Standards Unit conducted unannounced inspections on the K-9 officers’ assigned vehicles and home kennels. The inspection of the vehicles also included the locked storage compartments within the vehicles used to secure and transport the training kits. The vehicles and home kennels were within compliance of Department policy. Mobile Data Computer/Positron Messages Random audits were conducted quarterly on Mobile Data Computer and Positron messaging in 2016. The messages are read by the Professional Standards Unit to ensure employees are following policy. The audits found all reviewed messages to be in compliance with department policy. Internet Use 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 quarterly Audit/Inspections of the entire police department’s internet usage. During 2016, the Professional Standards Unit has seen no incidents of concern. Page 22