Memorandum DATE: May 22, 2019 TO: Chief Art Miller #13224 Chief of Police FROM: Sgt. David Foulke #3061 Professional Standards Unit SUBJECT: Professional Standards Unit 2018 Calendar Year Summary Report (CALEA 26.2.5) This report is the 2018 calendar year activity summary for the City of Peoria Police Department Professional Standards Unit (PSU). The Professional Standards Unit is responsible for the internal records regarding all Administrative Investigations and other specified administrative matters. PSU is responsible for the coordination and records storage of the following: • • • • • • • Discipline Review Panels Use of Force Committee Vehicle Operations and Safety Committee Early Intervention Program Department grievance and appeal processes Department Controlled Substance Screening Program Department audits and non-audit inspections 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 the Professional Standards Unit. The Peoria Police Department Professional Standards Unit is staffed with one Lieutenant, two Sergeants, an Accreditation & Compliance Coordinator and a Business Systems Analyst. 2018 Incidents/Entries Note: For the purposes of this report, each entry into the IAPro tracking system is considered an “incident”. Each item, whether it is generated internally or externally, is processed by the Professional Standards Unit and is given a tracking number. Typically, throughout the remainder of this report, the term “incident” will stand for an action documented in the IAPro system and processed by PSU. peoriaaz.gov An Internationally Accredited Law Enforcement Agency The Professional Standards Unit utilizes the tracking software system, IAPro. Additional software known as BlueTeam augments the IAPro software. The IAPro database has improved the accuracy and consistency by which complaints, commendations, and other performance issues are processed, tracked, and monitored. IAPro also tracks use of force incidents, vehicle related incidents, supervisor notes, firearm discharges, employee grievances, drug screens, and inspections. The combination of IAPro and BlueTeam continues to be a valuable tool for the Professional Standards Unit 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. During the 2018 calendar year, the Professional Standards Unit processed 1322 incidents generated from citizens or the Department. Comparatively, this is 200 fewer incidents processed than in 2017. Commendations/Complaints (CALEA 26.2.1) Of the 1322 entries processed in 2018, 255 (19%) resulted in commendations for department employees. In comparison, only 32 (2.4%) of the 1322 entries resulted in some type of complaint. The remaining entries consisted of Supervisor Notes, Use of Force, Vehicle Accidents, Drug Screens, K-9 Kit Audits, Mobile Data Computer (MDC) audits, and other incidents tracked by IAPro located in the Figure 6 of this report. When looking at the 1322 incidents received in PSU, 84 were from citizens initiated contacts with the Professional Standards Unit. 19 of the contacts resulted in service complaints against employees. Seven (7) of those 19 service complaints were due to missed off-duty jobs. 24 of the contacts resulted in “Citizen Inquiries” which were handled within PSU. There are multiple methods for citizens to file commendations and/or complaints with the Peoria Police Department (CALEA 26.2.1): • Citizens can call the PSU hotline and speak directly with a member of the Professional Standards Unit or they may leave a detailed message. The goal of the unit is to return or address messages left by callers before the close of business. • Citizens can download the Commendation/Complaint Form from the City of Peoria website and mail it. This form may 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 at both locations. • Citizens may email commendations and complaints to PSU without completing the form. • Commendations and complaints can also be filed with any police supervisor. ~2~ PSU takes action on all complaints, regardless if the citizen provides their identity or remains anonymous. (CALEA 26.2.1) Use of Force (CALEA 4.2.4) The Peoria Police Department uses the software program BlueTeam to document all reportable use of force incidents. One use of force incident may have multiple officers that utilized or applied different types of force. In 2018, the Peoria Police Department had 67 reportable use of force incidents involving 122 officers using various types of force, not including deadly force. For comparison purposes, in 2017, the Department had 59 reportable use of force incidents involving 104 officers utilizing various types of force. The following is a report of the force used by Peoria Police Officers from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. This report was conducted by utilizing the information entered into BlueTeam and retained in IAPro. Use of Force Reporting Process A sergeant is responsible for entering all qualifying use of force incidents into BlueTeam. 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 the Professional Standards Unit for processing and dissemination to the Department’s 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 containing information relative to the incident. Once the members of the Use of Force Committee have reviewed all pertinent data, they submit their findings to the committee chair. 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. The committee can also requested to speak with the employee utilizing force to ask clarifying questions and gain a better perspective of the incident. In the event 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. ~3~ INCIDENT REVIEW (CALEA 4.2.4) Figure 1: Use of Force Chart (General) Description 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Difference 2017/2018 Use of Force Incidents Total number of officers involved Calls for Service 41 54 52 59 67 +8 71 99 79 104 122 +18 100,487 88,613 85,917 86,738 89,932 +3194 Arrests 3722 3592 3587 4035 4348 +313 Sworn Full Time Employees 191 195 196 199 191 -8 Use of Force Resulted in InjuryCitizen 35 32 38 48 55 +7 Officer Injured in Conjunction with Use of Force 12 14 14 13 20 +7 Use of Force Resulted in Death 0 0 0 0 1 +1 Description 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Difference 2017/2018 O.C. Spray 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hard Empty Hand 26 33 18 25 21 -4 Hard Impact Weapon 1 0 0 0 1 +1 Soft Empty Hand* 22 36 24 52 80 +28 ----- Forced Take-Down - - - 6 38 +32* ----- Control Hold - - - 1 42 +41* ----- Impact Push - - - - 0 0 ----- Pressure Points - - - - 0 0 Less Lethal Stun-bag 1 0 0 4 1 -3 Police Dog 6 4 11 7 11 +4 Taser 11 10 23 5 9 +4 Restraint Device 12 21 9 16 8 -8 Firearm 0 0 0 0 5 +5 Total 79 104 83 116 136 +20 *To gain more accurate data, the “Soft Empty Hand” category has been itemized out to the various types of actions taken in this category in the past. These four actions are now classified as “Forced Take-Down”, “Control Hold”, “Impact Push” and “Pressure Points”. The expansion of this category began in late 2017. ~4~ Figure 2: Arrests vs Use of Force over Five Years Arrests vs Use of Force over Five Years UOF 4348 67 2018 4035 59 2017 Arrests 52 2016 3722 3592 3587 54 41 2015 2014  The Use of Force Committee reviewed each of the 67 incidents; all were found to be within policy.  In 2018, there were 4348 arrests. Of the 67 use of force incidents, force was utilized in 62 incidents that resulted in an arrest. This amounts to officers using force less than 2% (1.4 %) of all arrests. This rate is consistent with prior years.  During 15 incidents from 2018, the officers assessed the condition of the citizen as being possibly mentally unstable.  Of the 67 incidents, one (1) occurred while an officer was serving an involuntary mental health committal order. This number is down from six (6) such incidents in 2017.  In 31 of the 67 total incidents, officers reported drugs or alcohol played a contributing factor to the citizen’s actions. INJURY/DEATH (CALEA 4.2.4) Figure 3: Five-Year Comparison of Injuries from Use of Force Incidents ~5~  There was one (1) use of force incident in 2018 that resulted in the death of a human.  Of the 67 total use of force incidents, 55 incidents (82%) resulted in an injury or alleged injury to the suspect. This is an increase of 1% from 2017.  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 67 incidents in 2018, 31 citizens and three (3) 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 2018, compared to any other type of force. Officers reported using soft empty hands 80 times in 2018, which is a 54% increase from 2017. One factor of this number increasing is better reporting categorically. For 2018, “Forced Take-down” and “Control Hold” were added as reporting options to increase accuracy.  Further examination showed that in each of the 27 incidents, the specific technique used was a “take-down”. Note-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 pressurepoints. Less-Lethal Force Options (CALEA 4.2.4) Figure 4 is a five-year comparison of less-lethal force used by employees. Figure 4: Five-Year Comparison-Less Lethal Force Five Year Comparison Less-Lethal Force 60 O.C. Spray 50 Hard Empty Hand 40 Soft Empty Hand 30 Hard Impact Weapon 20 Stun-Bag Shotgun 10 K-9 0 All Taser Options 2018 2017 2016 2015 ~6~ 2014 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 2018, there were no uses of OC spray and no change from 2017.  In 2018, there was one use of an expandable baton and one use of a flashlight as an impact weapon. This was an increase of two (2) applications from 2017.  In 2018, there was one (1) incident utilizing the effective use of stun-bag shotgun/ 40mm blunt impact projectile (BIP). This is a decrease in stun-bag use from 2017 where there were four (4) uses. In 2018, two (2) officers deployed stunbag rounds and one (1) officer deployed a 40mm blunt impact projectile while subduing a man who was swinging a machete over his head out in a busy roadway.  Hard empty hand control techniques were used in 21 (31%) of the use of force incidents reported in 2018. This is a decrease from the 25 uses in 2017.  Taser use was up slightly in 2018. There were seven (7) incidents in which Tasers were utilized. This is an increase of two (2) uses from 2017. In 2017, there was a 5-year low of five (5) uses of the Taser. Training (CALEA 4.3.3) In 2018, Peoria Police officers received mandatory in-service training on firearms which included a low-light and full-light qualifications, contact and cover, officer down rescue, defensive tactics, Taser, and law and legal update. Analysis (CALEA 4.2.4) The department saw an increase of eight (8) use of force incidents when compared to 2017. 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 each 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 was non-existent by officers in the field in 2018. There were two (2) uses of impact weapons (one (1) collapsible baton and one use of flashlight). 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 89,932 calls for service in 2018. Officers ~7~ utilized force .07% of the time on these calls for service. Officers made 4,348 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. Firearms (CALEA 4.1.2/4.1.3/4.2.1) Deadly Force Review Board: The Deadly Force Review Board convened one (1) time in 2018. Unintentional/Intentional/Accidental Discharge of a Firearm Difference 2017/2018 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Intentional 1 3 2 0 0 1 2* 2 +1 Unintentional 1 0 Accidental 1 0 0 0 0 0 Discharge of Firearm +2 *There were two (2) Officer Involved Shootings in 2018. A Deadly Force Review Board is pending for AI2018-007, an Officer Involved Shooting that occurred in September 2018. 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. o A Voluntary Unintentional Discharge is defined as consciously pressing the trigger but not really intending to fire. o 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 or 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 two (2) Unintentional Discharges of a firearm in 2018. (CALEA 4.2.1) 1- An Unintentional Discharge occurred when a detective was in the process of clearing a residence with an Urban Patrol Rifle. The detective lost his footing in some plastic sheeting and discharged a round into a doorjamb, as his rifle safety was not engaged. Nobody was injured during this incident. The detective received remedial training and was returned to full duty. 2- An Unintentional Discharge occurred when a detective was in the process of clearing his department issued handgun for cleaning following firearms training and discharged a round into the firearms cleaning table. The detective received remedial training and was returned to full duty. Warning shots are prohibited by Peoria Police Department SOP PT 300. There were no violations of this policy in 2018. (CALEA 4.1.3) ~8~ Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) and Mobile Field Force (MFF) Use of Force (CALEA 4.2.4) Figure 5 is a five-year comparison of SAU deployments and diversionary devices used. Figure 5: Five-Year Comparison of SWAT Figure 5a: Use of Force Chart (Special Assignments Unit/ Mobile Field Force) Description 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Difference 2017/2018 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 11 14 29 20 6 -14 SAU (SWAT) Deployments 24 35 61 70 106 +36 SAU High Energy Breach 8 3 8 3 6 +3 Warrant Service Times 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Difference 2017/2018 Day (0600-1600) 15 23 19 16 32 +16 Evening (1600-2200) 13 2 5 4 5 +1 Night (2200-0600) 13 10 9 4 6 +2 SAU/MFF Use of Force 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. ~9~  There were no incidents in which the stun-bag shotgun (less-lethal) was deployed in 2018 by SAU or MFF (the one previously mentioned incident in which the stunbag was utilized resulted from a patrol based call for service). There was no increase or decrease when compared to 2017.  There were no uses of less-lethal kinetic batons in 2018. There was no increase or decrease when compared to 2017.  SWAT had 106 operational deployments in 2018, an increase of 36 deployments when compared to 2017.  SWAT deployed a diversionary device 6 times in 2018. This was a decrease in use by 14 incidents when compared to 2017. In 2014, the Department implemented 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. The Peoria Police Department Special Assignments Unit had six (6) incidents utilizing High Energy Breach entries in 2018. This was an increase of use by three (3) when compared to 2017. Professional Standards Unit Figure 6: Total Incident/entries processed by PSU Description 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Difference 2017/2018 Total Incidents Received 1637 1876 1772 1522 1322 -200 Administrative Investigations 5 13 13 9 7 -2 Service Complaints 120 125 48 40 33 -7 Citizen Commendations 116 105 96 44 43 -1 Citizen Inquiry - - - 10 25 15 Commendations 241 305 272 263 212 -51 Early Intervention Alerts 28 44 26 28 32 +4 Employee Grievance 0 0 1 0 0 0 Vehicle Accidents 33 17 25 29 30 +1 Vehicle Pursuits 4 3 2 3 1 +2 Photo Radar 3 3 0 0 0 0 ~ 10 ~ Difference 2017/2018 Service Complaint Findings 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Exonerated 31 28 5 10 5 -5 Unfounded 44 66 19 7 7 0 Not Sustained 4 10 4 2 0 -2 Sustained 41 38 20 21 20 -1 Retired 1 0 0 0 0 0 Service Complaint Discipline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Difference 2017/2018 Letter of Reprimand 4 6 1 2 2 0 Written Counseling 8 10 7 2 8 +6 Verbal Counseling 38 22 14 19 14 -5 Training 1 1 0 0 0 0 Suspension from Extra-Duty 1 0 0 1 0 -1 Administrative Investigation Disposition 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Difference 2017/2018 Exonerated 0 0 0 1 1 0 Unfounded 1 4 1 1 0 -1 Not Sustained 0 1 0 0 0 0 Sustained 3 8 6 4 4 0 Investigation Ongoing/ Pending - - - - 1 +1 Resigned/ Retired Prior to completion 1 0 2 0 1 +1 Administrative Investigation Discipline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Difference 2017/2018 Termination 0 1 2 0 0 0 Demotion 0 0 0 0 0 0 Suspension 1 2 2 3 2 -1 Letter of Reprimand 1 4 4 0 1 +1 Written Counseling 1 0 0 0 1 +1 Verbal Counseling 0 2 0 0 0 0 Retired/Resigned 2 0 2 1 1 0 No Action Taken 0 0 2 1 0 -1 ~ 11 ~ Difference 2017/2018 Vehicle Accident Findings 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Preventable 21 11 13 15 20 +5 Non-Preventable 12 5 12 14 9 -5 Preventable/Justified 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Accident Discipline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Difference 2017/2018 Suspension 0 0 0 0 0 0 Letter of Reprimand 1 1 2 0 4 +4 Written Counseling 0 0 0 0 0 0 Verbal Counseling 20 10 11 14 16 +2 Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Pursuits Findings 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Difference 2017/2018 Out of Policy 0 0 0 0 0 0 Within Policy 4 3 2 3 0 -3 Vehicle Pursuit Discipline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Difference 2017/2018 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 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, may result in a suspension or higher. • Service Complaint: The allegation, if true, would result in no more than a letter of reprimand. Complaints classified as Administrative Investigations (AI) are typically investigated by the Professional Standards Unit (PSU) due to the severity of allegations and/or the ~ 12 ~ potential level of discipline. On a rare occasion, an outside agency may be utilized to conduct the investigation. Complaints classified as Service Complaint will normally be investigated by the involved employee’s supervisor. (CALEA 26.1.5; 52.2.1) 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 up to a Deputy Chief or the Deputy Director. A representative from Human Resources and the City Attorney’s Office attend the meeting and serve in an advisory role. Seven (7) Administrative Investigations were authorized by the Chiefs of Police in 2018. It should be noted, Chief Roy Minter Jr. retired from the Peoria Police Department in August 2018. Chief Art Miller assumed the role of Police Chief in September 2018. ~ 13 ~ Of the seven (7) administrative investigations, two (2) carried over into 2019. One investigation resolved in April 2019 due to the retirement of the Involved Employee and the second is still in process at the time of this report. A Discipline Review Panel was convened for four (4) of the remaining investigations and one Deadly Force Review Board convened to evaluate an Officer Involved Shooting (AI2018-001). The Arizona Officer Bill of Rights establishes a goal for Administrative Investigations to be completed in 180-days. If an investigation exceeds 180-days, the department must submit a written explanation to the involved officer. In 2018, two investigations exceeded 180-days. Both of these were Officer Involved Shootings where a majority of the delay was due to the time taken to review the incident by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. One of the OIS’s are now closed. The other is still pending due to the MCAO review process. (CALEA 26.3.3) Except as authorized during Officer Involved Shooting investigations for photographs, 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 criteria is outlined in Peoria Police Department policy 1020. (CALEA 26.3.6) There were no recommendations for policy changes or training as the result of an administrative investigation in 2018. Dismissals/Terminations (CALEA 26.1.4) The Peoria Police Department did not terminate any employees in 2018. Service Complaints (CALEA 26.1.5) During 2018, a total of 32 service complaints were processed by the Professional Standards Unit. Of these 32 complaints, 13 were 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 32 complaints involved 39 different employees. There were no recommendations for policy changes or training as the result of a service complaint in 2018. The findings breakdown of these 32 service complaints are shown in Figure 6 (See previous pages). ~ 14 ~ Employee Discipline resulting from sustained investigations is shown in figure 7: Figure 7: Discipline resulting from sustained investigations Range of Discipline for Service Complaints 2 8 14 Letter of Reprimand Written Counseling Verbal Counseling Figure 8 is a five-year comparison of discipline in connection to sustained Administrative Investigations. (CALEA 26.1.4) Figure 8: Five-Year Comparison of Discipline for Administrative Investigations Five Year Comparison of Discipline for Administrative Investigations 4 3 2018 2 2017 1 2016 0 2015 2014 ~ 15 ~ Figure 9 is a five year comparison of discipline in connection to sustained Service Complaints. (CALEA 26.2.1) Figure 9: Five-Year Comparison of Discipline for Service Complaints Five Year Comparison of Discipline for Service Complaints 40 35 30 2018 25 2017 20 15 2016 10 2015 5 2014 0 Letter of Reprimand Written Counseling Verbal Counseling Training Suspension from Extra-Duty Figure 10 is a five-year comparison of Citizen Commendations, Commendations, Service Complaints, and Administrative Investigations received in PSU. (CALEA 26.2.4) Figure 10: Five-Year Comparison of Commendations, Service Complaints and Administrative Investigations Five Year Comparison of Commendations, Service Complaints and Administrative Investigations 500 400 300 All Commendations 200 Service Complaints Administrative Investigations 100 0 2018 2017 2016 2015 ~ 16 ~ 2014 Biased Based Profiling Concerns: (CALEA 1.2.9) In 2018, the department received one complaint of Biased Based Profiling or Discrimination. The complaint was recorded by the involved officer’s (3 involved Officers) body worn camera and was deemed unfounded by the employee’s chain(s) 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 eight (8) department employees (plus two reviewers from the City of Peoria, Risk Management Section) 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, pursuits and injuries occurring to incustody persons (not a result of use of force). Employee involved collisions are entered into BlueTeam 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 2018, Peoria Police employees were involved in a total of 30 vehicle collisions. This was an increase of one (1) from 2017. Of those 30 vehicle collisions, The VOSC determined 11 were “not preventable” or the employee was not at fault for the collision and 19 were “preventable” or the employee was at fault for the collision. Figure 11 is a five-year comparison of preventable and non-preventable vehicle collisions. Figure 11: Five-Year Comparison of Vehicle Accidents Five Year Comparison of Vehicle Accidents 35 30 25 2018 20 2017 15 2016 2015 10 2014 5 0 Total Accidents Preventable Not Preventable ~ 17 ~ Preventable Justified Figure 12 is a five-year comparison of the primary collision factors. Backing and inattention were the top reasons cited for the 2018 collisions. Figure 12: Five-Year Comparison Primary Collision Factors Five Year Comparison Primary Collision Factors 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 There was a slight increase in collisions from 2017; however, the ratio of employee fault increased by 11% (2017- 52% and 2018- 63%). 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 19 preventable collisions, this was the first collision in over three years for 15 employees. Each of these employees received a verbal counseling as a result of a preventable collision. Of the remaining four (4), this was the second preventable collision in three years resulting in a Letter of Reprimand. Pursuits (CALEA 41.2.2) In 2018, the Peoria Police Department was involved in no vehicle pursuit incidents. 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 Five Year Comparison of Vehicle Pursuits 5 4 3 2 1 0 Within Policy Outside of Policy 2018 2017 2016 2015 ~ 18 ~ 2014 Road Blocks and Forcible Stopping of Vehicles (CALEA 41.2.3) There were no roadblocks or forcible stopping of a vehicle in 2018. 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). The Professional Standards Unit 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. 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 2018. Since 2009, the department has had only five formal grievances filed. The Professional Standards Unit 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 2018, regarding employee discipline. ~ 19 ~ Early Intervention Program (CALEA 35.1.9) The Early Intervention Program (EIP) is designed to provide assistance or training to employees experiencing work performance or personal difficulties. The intent of the program is to provide the employee with assistance or training in a non-punitive manner. The also allows an employee an opportunity to overcome work performance problems without the stigma of discipline in a proactive manner. During 2018, two (2) Employee Improvement Plans were implemented and successfully completed. These were the first two (2) EIPs implements since 2012. In 2018, the Professional Standards Unit forwarded 32 alerts generated through the IAPro Early Warning Alerts function to various lieutenants for review and consideration of additional action. Alerts are generated when an employee reaches a pre-designated threshold for various type of incidents. Incident thresholds to generate alerts are set at the following levels: • (4) Use of Force incidents within a 12-month period • (3) Service Complaints 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 Employees who receive alerts are reminded that early warning alerts are nondisciplinary and are intended to create an opportunity for supervisors/managers to converse with employees reference the specified 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. From the alerts generated in 2018, six (6) employees were offered services through the City of Peoria Employee Assistance Program (EAP). 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. Audits or 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 sworn employees are notified and the random drug screen is performed in a timely manner. In the year 2018, there were no positive returns from Banner Health. ~ 20 ~ Document Purging (CALEA 26.1.8) • On a monthly basis in 2018, 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. During the 2018 year, information was clarified regarding retention of documentation of discipline. The standard is now five (5) years for retention of Letters of Reprimand and all discipline actions to include suspensions, demotions and terminations. K-9 Drug Testing Kit/ Kennel and Equipment Inspections (CALEA 84.1.4) • Throughout 2018, 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. • The Professional Standards Unit conducted unannounced inspections on the K-9 officers’ assigned vehicles and home kennels in December 2018. The inspection of the vehicles, conducted by K-9 Sgt H. Scheideman, also included the locked storage compartments within the vehicles used to secure and transport the training kits. The home kennel inspection was completed virtually utilizing a process where K-9 Officers were given instruction to provide a minimum of two (2) photos showing their kennel from multiple angles within two (2) hours of receiving the message from Sgt. Scheideman. The vehicles and home kennels were within compliance of Department policy. • Sample of photos utilized for virtual K-9 kennel inspection Mobile Data Computer/Positron Messages • Random audits were conducted quarterly on Mobile Data Computer messaging in 2018. 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. Note, Postitron, an inter-Communications messaging system, is no longer in use by the Peoria Police Department. ~ 21 ~ 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 2018, the Professional Standards Unit did not find any incidents that caused concern regarding internet usage by department members. Additional Non-Audit Inspections During 2018, members of the Professional Standards Unit also completed nonaudit inspections of the following processes: November- Firearms Trade ProgramDuring the inspection, 60 total firearms were identified as entering the Department’s transfer/trade program for an upcoming trade in the near future. These firearms were associated with police cases that occurred between the years 2006 and 2018. During the inspection, each transfer program firearm was inspected to ensure it meets criteria established in the past by Department legal counsel recommendations to remain in the Department’s trade/transfer program: • The firearm is not currently identified as being stolen from another law enforcement jurisdiction. Note- Each transfer program firearm was checked again through NCIC by Property and Evidence Supervisor as part of the inspection of each firearm. • The firearm is not determined to be illegal (“chopped” or defaced). • The firearm does not create an exposure to an excessive amount of biohazard material. • The firearm is able to be NIBIN tested. During the inspection, the following discrepancies/ concerns were discovered regarding two (2) total transfer program firearms: • One (1) firearm was found to have a reportable discrepancy due to the wrong serial number documented on property impound records. This was caused by a serial number being worn badly and making it extremely hard to verify. A jeweler’s loop was utilized to confirm the serial number. The firearm was run again under the correct serial number and was found to be listed as stolen out of a neighboring agency. • One (1) firearm was found not to meet the above listed criteria due to the fact the firearm was damaged and not recommended for sale due to biohazard and rust. The handgun, an FN P35, was designated for destruction through the contraband disposal program. It is evident the processes in which the members of the Property and Evidence Section teach, employ and monitor regarding the impounding and storage of ~ 22 ~ firearms has greatly reduced and maintained a low number of discrepancies discovered during the Firearms Transfer/Trade Program audit. December- Contraband Destruction and Random Packaging Inspection • During the course of 2018, numerous impounded items were identified through standard Property and Evidence processes as contraband, primarily drug related and were designated for destruction to prevent their release back into society. There were a series of appointments where members of the Professional Standards Unit and members of the Property and Evidence section worked together processing bins of destruction items. In all, 2,275 individual items, some dating back to 1999, (to include five (5) small bales of marijuana and ten (10) large bins containing evidence and drugs seized from a Mushroom grow house, 93 knives and 12 firearms) were accounted for and designated for incineration. • All of the designated property was incinerated utilizing a local mine smelter. The incineration process utilized members of PSU and Property for oversight. The total weight of the 2275 items destroyed was 1280 pounds. • Packaging inspection: • During the inspection process, more than two hundred and fifty (250+) items were selected at random for inspection of packaging and labeling of items for accuracy. All items were well marked with case numbers via the labeling system and were adequately sealed in accordance with standard acceptable processes. Destruction process photos- 2018- Contraband destruction process. Items Packaged and loaded into transport truck Load of mushrooms and paraphernalia ~ 23 ~ Loading the crane hopper Contraband hitting the molten metal