DATE: February 28, 2018 TO: Roy W. Minter, Jr., Chief of Police FROM: Professional Standards Unit SUBJECT: Professional Standards Unit 2017 Calendar Year Summary Report (CALEA 52.1.5) This report is the 2017 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. PSU 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, PSU is also responsible for training of Department personnel in matters relating to the functions of PSU. PSU is staffed with one lieutenant, two sergeants, an accreditation & compliance coordinator, and a business systems analyst. Use of Force (CALEA 1.3.13) The Peoria Police Department uses the software program Blue Team to document all reportable use of force incidents. One use of force incident may have multiple officers that used different types of force. In 2017, the Peoria Police Department had 59 reportable use of force incidents involving 104 officers using various types of force, not including deadly force. As a comparison, in 2016, the Peoria Police Department had 52 reportable use of force incidents involving 79 officers using various types of force. Page 1 2017 Professional Standards Year End Report The following is a report of the force used by Peoria Police Officers from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. This report was conducted by utilizing the information entered into Blue Team and retained in IA Pro. Use of Force Reporting Process A sergeant is responsible for entering all qualifying incidents of use of force 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, more than one type of force, and more than one citizen. Once the sergeant has completed the entry, it is forwarded to that sergeant’s lieutenant for review. Once approved, the lieutenant forwards the entry to PSU for dissemination to the Use of Force Committee. The Professional Standards Unit ensures all related documents (i.e. case reports, photographs, body worn camera, and audio recordings) are made available to the Use of Force Committee when reviewing the incident. PSU sends an email to members of the Use of Force Committee, with a hyperlink to the file and a voting tab. Once the members of the Use of Force Committee have reviewed all pertinent data, they can vote on their findings utilizing the voting tab. The 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, before reporting the committee findings. 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 Description 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Difference 2016/2017 Use of Force Incidents Total number of officers involved Calls for Service 46 41 54 52 59 7 81 71 99 79 104 25 105,187 100,487 88,613 85,917 86,738 821 Arrests 3717 3722 3592 3587 4035 448 Sworn Full Time Employees 188 191 195 196 199 3 Use of Force Resulted in Injury- Citizen 25 35 32 38 48 10 Officer Injured in Conjunction with Use of Force 10 12 14 14 13 -1 Use of Force Resulted in Death 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 2 2017 Professional Standards Year End Report 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 O.C. Spray 0 0 0 0 0 Difference 2016/2017 0 Hard Empty Hand 22 26 33 18 25 7 Hard Impact Weapon 1 1 0 0 0 0 Soft Empty Hand 27 22 36 24 52 28 Less Lethal Stun-bag 0 1 0 0 4 4 Police Dog 4 6 4 11 7 -4 Taser 16 11 10 23 5 -18 Restraint Device 15 12 21 9 16 7 Forced Take-Down - - - - 6 - Control Hold - - - - 1 - Firearm 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total 86 79 104 83 116 33 Description 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Difference 2016/2017 SAU/MFF Use of Force 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Difference 2016/2017 Less Lethal Stun-bag Shotgun 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Lethal Kinetic Baton 0 0 0 0 0 0 Smoke or Diversionary Device 14 11 14 29 20 -9 SAU (SWAT) Deployments 40 24 35 61 70 9 SAU High Energy Breach 3 8 3 8 3 -5 2013 2014 2015 2016 Day (0600-1600) 8 15 23 19 Evening (1600-2200) 16 13 2 5 4 -1 Night (2200-0600) 22 13 10 9 4 -5 Description Figure 1: Use of Force Chart Times 2017 Difference 2016/2017 16 -3 (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.) Page 3 2017 Professional Standards Year End Report Figure 2 Arrests v Use of Force over Five Years UOF 4035 54 52 2017 3722 3592 3587 59 Arrests 2016 3717 46 41 2015 2014 2013  The Use of Force Committee reviewed each of the 59 incidents; all were found to be within policy.  In 2017, there were 4035 arrests. Of the 59 use of force incidents, 33 were used while the officer was making an arrest. This amounts to officers using force less than 1% of all arrests. This rate is consistent with prior years.  In 18 incidents, the officers assessed the condition of the citizen as being possibly mentally unstable.  Of the 59 total incidents, six occurred while an officer was serving an involuntary mental health committal order.  In 24 of the 59 total incidents, officers reported drugs or alcohol played a contributing factor to the citizen’s actions. Injury/Death (CALEA 1.3.6) Figure 3 Five-Year Comparison of Injuries from Use of Force Incidents 59 Officer Injured 52 48 Suspect Injured 54 Total UOF 46 41 38 35 32 25 14 13 2017 14 2016 12 2015 Page 4 10 2014 2013 2017 Professional Standards Year End Report  There were no use of force incidents in 2017 that resulted in the death of a human.  Of the 59 total use of force incidents, 48 incidents (81%) resulted in an injury or alleged injury to the suspect. This is an increase of 8% from 2016.  Figure 3 is a five-year comparison of any level of injury or alleged injury. An injury is considered significant if the suspect or officer was transported to the hospital for treatment. Of the 59 incidents in 2017, 15 citizens and 4 officers were transported to the hospital for treatment.  As shown in Figure 1, the most common type of force used by officers was “soft empty hands.” Soft empty hand techniques can be control-holds, pressure-points, a push or a “take-down.” Soft empty hands saw the largest increase in 2017, compared to any other type of force. Officers reported using soft empty hands 52 times in 2017, which is a 116% increase from 2016.  PSU looked closer into these incidents and found 20 (34% of all use of force incidents) in which the citizen was injured but the only type of force reported was soft empty hands One could expect a much lower rate of injury when only soft empty hands techniques are used.  Further examination showed that in 19 of the 20 incidents, the specific technique used was a “take-down” and one was a control hold. In an effort to better track this information, in December 2017, PSU removed “soft empty hands” as an option for selection and replaced it with options that describe the actual technique being used, versus the category it falls under. The new options are control-hold, forced take-down, impact-push, and pressure-points. Less-Lethal Force Options (CALEA 1.3.6) Figure 4 is a five-year comparison of less-lethal force used by employees Figure 4 Five-Year Comparison Less-Lethal Force 60 50 O.C. Spray Hard Empty Hand 40 Soft Empty Hand 30 Hard Impact Weapon Stun-Bag Shotgun 20 K-9 10 All Taser Options 0 2017 2016 2015 2014 Page 5 2013 2017 Professional Standards Year End Report Less-Lethal force response options are defined and explained in 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.  In 2017, there were no uses of OC spray and no change from 2016.  In 2017, there were no uses of an expandable baton. There was no change compared to 2016.  In 2017, there were four uses of stun-bag shotgun. This is a notable increase as there was only one stun-bag shotgun use during the previous four years. In 2017, two of the uses were during the same incident by separate officers on the same subject who was armed with a knife. The third incident was on a subject also armed with a knife. The fourth incident was on a subject threatening to shoot 15 people inside a business.  Hard empty hand control techniques were used in 25 (42%) of the incidents reported in 2017. This is an increase from the 18 uses in 2016. There appears to be a pattern developing between the use of hard and soft empty hand techniques and the use of a Taser. In years of increased Taser usage, hard and soft empty hand techniques decrease. Conversely, when Taser use decreases, hard and soft empty hand techniques increase.  Taser use was at a five-year low in 2017. This decline can be partially attributed to the change in the reporting requirements in 2016. In years past, department policy required officers to submit a use of force report if the Taser was only displayed to a person by either pointing the laser at them or displaying the arc. There were six uses in 2016 that fell into this category. The change in reporting standards was made to more accurately track true uses of force. It is also reasonable to extrapolate that officers are choosing the stun-bag tool over the Taser in certain incidents, as the stun-bag can be deployed at a greater distance than the Taser, which increases the officers reactionary time. Firearms (CALEA 1.3.2/1.3.3/1.3.6) Deadly Force Review Board: The Deadly Force Review Board did not convene in 2017, as there were no uses of deadly force by members of the department. Unintentional/Intentional/Accidental Discharge of a Firearm Discharge of Firearm 2017 Difference 2016/2017 1 -1 2013 2014 2015 2016 Intentional 4 1 3 2 Unintentional 0 0 0 1 0 -1 Accidental 0 1 0 0 0 0 (Note: An Unintentional Discharge and Accidental Discharge of a firearm is defined in AZ POST Firearms manual section 2 "SAFETY." An Unintentional Discharge Page 6 2017 Professional Standards Year End Report 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.)  There were no unintentional discharges of a firearm in 2017. (CALEA 1.3.6.)  The one intentional use of firearm was used to dispatch an injured wild coyote, with supervisor approval. Warning shots are prohibited by Peoria Police Department SOP PT 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) Figure 5 is a five-year comparison of SAU deployments and diversionary devices used. Figure 5 Five-Year Comparison of SWAT and Diversionay Devices 70 Deployments Diversionary Device 61 40 35 29 24 20 14 2017 2016 2015 11 2014 14 2013  There were no incidents in which the stun-bag shotgun (less-lethal) was deployed in 2017 by SAU or MFF (the four previously mentioned uses were on patrol calls for service). There was no increase or decrease when compared to 2016.  There were no uses of less-lethal kinetic batons in 2017. There was no increase or decrease when compared to 2016.  SWAT had 70 operational deployments in 2017, an increase of 9 when compared to 2015.  SWAT deployed a diversionary device 20 times in 2017. This was a decrease of nine when compared to 2015. Page 7 Professional Standards Year End Report 2017 In 2014, the department started a High Energy Breach (HEB) program. SWAT considers the use of HEB entries to be the exception and HEBs 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 services. The HEB program is based on the premise that the minimum amount of explosives is used to guarantee a positive entry into the structure.  SWAT had three uses of HEBs in 2017. A decrease of five when compared to 2016. Training (CALEA 1.3.13) In 2017, Peoria Police officers received mandatory in-service training on firearms which included a low-light and full-light qualifications, driving/pursuit, counter-vehicle ambush, contact and cover, handcuffing, first-aid & CPR, personal medical trauma kits, Naloxone (Narcan), verbal defense and influence, Taser, and law and legal update. Analysis (CALEA 1.3.13) The department saw an increase of 7 use of force incidents when compared to 2016. As previously mentioned, 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. It would be appropriate to point out that the Use of Force Committee initially found one use of force incident to be out of policy and requested an administrative investigation. PSU conducted the investigation, reviewed the body worn camera video, and interviewed the two officers. The chain of command for the officers reviewed the investigation and determined the officers’ use of force was within policy. The additional information gained by interviewing the officers was shared with the Use of Force committee. Based on the additional information, the committee re-reviewed the incident and determined the force used was within policy and their initial finding was based on the officers’ lack on documentation in their report writing. One of the officers received training on report writing. The other officer deployed with the military for one-year and therefore did not receive the same training. However, upon that officer’s return he will receive the training. The deployment of O.C Spray and collapsible baton was non-existent by officers in the field in 2017. It is reasonable to believe that the based on the increase of hard and soft empty hand techniques, officers prefer a “hands-on” approach when dealing with unarmed subjects. 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 de-escalation tactics. There were 86,738 calls for service in 2017, and officers utilized force .06% of the time on these calls for service. Officers made 4,035 arrests and utilized force 1.5% of the time during the arrest of a suspect. These are relatively low numbers and again show how well officers are utilizing police tactics and training. Page 8 2017 Professional Standards Year End Report Professional Standards Unit Figure 6 Description Total Incidents Received 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Difference 2016/2017 1305 1637 1876 1772 1522 -250 Administrative Investigations 5 5 13 13 9 -4 Service Complaints 86 120 125 48 40 -8 Citizen Commendations 118 116 105 96 44 -52 Commendations 241 241 305 272 263 -9 Early Intervention Program - 28 44 26 28 2 Employee Grievance 1 0 0 1 0 -1 Vehicle Accidents 22 33 17 25 29 4 Vehicle Pursuits 2 4 3 2 3 1 Photo Radar 4 3 3 0 0 0 Exonerated 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Difference 2016/2017 24 31 28 5 10 5 Unfounded 34 44 66 19 7 -12 Not Sustained 3 4 10 4 2 -2 Sustained 24 41 38 20 21 1 Retired 0 1 0 0 0 0 Service Complaint Findings Service Complaint Discipline 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Difference 2016/2017 Letter of Reprimand 4 4 6 1 2 1 Written Counseling 4 8 10 7 2 -5 Verbal Counseling 16 38 22 14 19 5 Training 2 1 1 0 0 0 Suspension from Extra-Duty 0 1 0 0 1 1 Administrative Investigation 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Difference Disposition 2016/2017 Exonerated 2 0 0 0 1 1 Unfounded 0 1 4 1 1 0 Not Sustained 0 0 1 0 0 0 Sustained 2 3 8 6 4 -2 Resigned Prior to completion 1 1 0 2 0 -2 Page 9 2017 Professional Standards Year End Report Administrative Investigation Difference 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Discipline 2016/2017 Termination 0 0 1 2 0 -2 Demotion 0 0 0 0 0 0 Suspension 1 1 2 2 3 1 Letter of Reprimand 0 1 4 4 0 -4 Written Counseling 0 1 0 0 0 0 Verbal Counseling 1 0 2 0 0 0 Retired/Resigned 2 2 0 2 1 -1 No Action Taken 0 0 0 2 1 -1 Preventable 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Difference 2016/2017 9 21 11 13 15 2 Non-Preventable 13 12 5 12 14 2 Preventable/Justified 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Accident Findings Vehicle Accident Discipline 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Difference 2016/2017 Suspension 0 0 0 0 0 0 Letter of Reprimand 0 1 1 2 0 -2 Written Counseling 0 0 0 0 0 0 Verbal Counseling 9 20 10 11 14 3 Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Pursuits Findings 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Difference 2016/2017 Out of Policy 0 0 0 0 0 0 Within Policy 2 4 3 2 3 1 Vehicle Pursuit Discipline 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Difference 2016/2017 Suspension 0 0 0 0 0 0 Letter of Reprimand 0 0 0 0 0 0 Written Counseling 0 0 0 0 0 0 Verbal Counseling 0 0 0 0 0 0 Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 10 Professional Standards Year End Report 2017 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. The IA Pro database has improved the accuracy and consistency by which complaints, commendations, and other performance issues are processed, tracked, and monitored. 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. 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 Complaint (SC) will normally be investigated by the involved employee’s supervisor. (CALEA 26.1.5; 52.2.1) 2017 Incidents PSU received 1522 incidents from citizens and Department personnel. Compared to 2016, PSU received 250 fewer incidents than 2016. Of the 1522 entries, 307 (20%) resulted in commendations for employees. In comparison, only 17 (1.1%) of the 1522 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 1522 incidents received in PSU, 71 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. Page 11 Professional Standards Year End Report 2017 (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 the Officers Bill of Rights for administrative investigations. 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 violation of an established rule, regulation, policy, or procedure. The involved employee’s chain of command reviews the investigation to determine if a violation has occurred and recommends corrective or disciplinary 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: 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: Administrative Investigations (AI) are investigated by the Professional Standards Unit. 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. Each DRP is comprised of the involved employee’s chain of command. A representative from Human Resources and the City Attorney’s Office attend the meeting and serve an advisory role. A total of nine AIs were authorized by the Chief of Police in 2017. Of the nine AIs, three carried over into 2018 and were still in process at the time of this report. One of the AIs was deemed a human resources matter and was closed without action. A DRP was convened for the four remaining AIs. The Arizona Officer Bill of Rights establishes a goal for AIs to be completed in 180days. If an investigation exceeds 180-days, the department must submit a written explanation to the involved officer. In 2017, one investigation exceeded 180-days. In accordance with the Arizona Officer Bill of Rights, a written explanation was provided to Page 12 Professional Standards Year End Report 2017 the officer. The delay was caused in part, by a separate but related service complaint. PSU chose to complete the service complaint before starting the AI. The investigation was actually completed within the 180-days; however, an AI is considered closed once the discipline has been issued and it was the issuing of discipline (a 10-hour suspension) that caused the delay (CALEA 52.2.3) No investigations required an officer to have medical or laboratory examinations. No investigations required an officer to have photographs, participate in 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. Dismissals/Terminations (CALEA 26.1.8) The Peoria Police Department did not terminate any employees in 2017. Service Complaints (CALEA 26.1.5) During 2017, a total of 40 service complaints were processed by PSU with 14 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 40 complaints involved 49 different employees. The findings of these 40 service complaints are shown in figure 6. Discipline resulting from sustained investigations is shown in figure 7: Figure 7 Range of Discipline for Service Complaints 1 2 2 Letter of Reprimand Written Counseling Verbal Counseling Suspension from Extra Duty 19 Page 13 Professional Standards Year End Report 2017 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 2017 2 2016 1 2015 2014 0 2013 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 2017 25 2016 20 2015 15 2014 10 2013 5 0 Letter of Reprimand Written Counseling Verbal Counseling Page 14 Training Suspension from Extra-Duty Professional Standards Year End Report 2017 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 500 400 300 All Commendations 200 Service Complaints Administrative Investigations 100 0 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Biased Based Profiling Concerns: (CALEA 1.2.9) In 2017, the department received one complaint of Biased Based Profiling. The complaint was recorded by the involved officer’s body worn camera and was deemed unfounded by the employee’s chain of command. 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 10 department employees from various ranks and positions within the department and is chaired by a department lieutenant. The VOSC is responsible for reviewing all employee involved collisions and pursuits. Employee involved collisions are entered into Blue Team in the same manner described for use of force entries. VOSC 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. In 2017, Peoria Police employees were involved in a total of 29 vehicle collisions. This was an increase of four from 2016. Of those 29 vehicle collisions, The VOSC determined 14 were “not preventable” or the employee was not at fault for the collision and 15 were “preventable” or the employee was at fault for the collision. Figure 11 is a five- y e a r comparison of preventable and non-preventable vehicle collisions. Page 15 Professional Standards Year End Report 2017 Figure 12 is a five-year comparison of the primary collision factors. Backing and inattention were the top reasons cited for the 2017 collisions. There was a slight increase in collisions from 2016; however, the ratio of employee fault remained unchanged. Figure 11 Five Year Comparison of Vehicle Accidents 35 30 25 2017 20 2016 15 2015 2014 10 2013 5 0 Total Accidents Preventable Not Preventable Preventable Justified Figure 12 Five Year Comparison Primary Collision Factors 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Discipline for employees found at fault in vehicle collisions can range from verbal counseling to termination and is determined by Department SOP GEN-706. Of the 15 preventable collisions, this was the first collision in over three years for each of the 15 employees. Each employee received a verbal counseling. Page 16 2017 Professional Standards Year End Report Pursuits (CALEA 41.2.2) In 2017, the Peoria Police Department was involved in three vehicle pursuit incidents. The VOSC reviewed each one and determined them 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. Figure 13 is a five-year comparison of vehicle pursuits. Figure 13 Five Year Comparison of Vehicle Pursuits 5 4 3 Within Policy 2 Outside of Policy 1 0 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Road Blocks and Forcible Stopping of Vehicles (CALEA 41.2.3) There were no roadblocks or forcible stopping of a vehicle in 2017. previously mentioned pursuits ended when officers lost sight of the vehicle. The three Historically, the forcible stopping of a vehicle was part of a pursuit. This allowed for an administrative review of the forcible stopping technique (CALEA 41.2.3). PSU identified a hypothetical scenario in which stop-sticks could be deployed without a pursuit, resulting in no administrative review. To address this situation before it arises, PSU created a Blue Team entry titled "Forced Vehicle Stop”. In the event an officer uses stop-sticks or other technique to stop a moving vehicle, but is not involved in a pursuit, this entry would be created and forwarded to the VOSC for administrative review. An analysis of the policies and procedures of the department indicate that effective measures are in place and no adjustments to policy or training are needed at this time. 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. Page 17 Professional Standards Year End Report 2017 Employees are encouraged to resolve problems with their immediate supervisor or lowest level of supervision before initiating a formal grievance. The Police Chief routinely meets 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 were no formal grievances filed by any employee in 2017. Since 2009, the department has had only five formal grievances filed. PSU attributes this low grievance rate to the practices mentioned above. An analysis of the procedures and practices in place indicate that effective measures are in place and the low occurrence of grievances supports this finding. No adjustments are considered necessary to policy at this time. Maintenance and control of grievance records are maintained in IA Pro from 2009 until present day. Disciplinary Action Appeals (CALEA 26.1.6) There were no appeals filed in 2017, regarding employee discipline. Early Intervention Program (CALEA 35.1.9) 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 to 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 Program, 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 2017, PSU forwarded 28 alerts to lieutenants for review and consideration of additional action. From these alerts, seven employees were offered the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Employees are reminded that early warning alerts are nondisciplinary 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 to generate alerts 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 Page 18 Professional Standards Year End Report 2017 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 2017, there were no positive returns from Banner Health. Document Purging (CALEA 26.1.8) • On a monthly basis in 2017, 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 2017, 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 July 2017, 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 2017. 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 2017, the Professional Standards Unit did not find any incidents that caused concern regarding internet usage by department members. Page 19