1

DOJ Investigations Committee: Comparative Analysis of 10

United States DOJ Findings Letters

May 2nd, 2015

Dr. David Correia

AMST 310: UNM

Group 4

2

Table of Contents Abstract......3

Comparative Analysis Chart......4

Alamance County Sheriffs Office5

Albuquerque Police Department...7

Cleveland Police Department......11

East Haven Police Departments..15

Miami Police Department....24

New Orleans Police Department.27

Portland Police Department.....31

Puerto Rico Police Department...35

Seattle Police Department...40

Washington Metropolitan Police Department43

Works Cited48

3

Abstract The following is the first-ever compilation of summarized and cross-referenced Department of

Justice Police Investigations throughout the United States. We have analyzed ten major police

departments, whose misconduct and questionable practices led to external investigations at the

federal level. The problems listed in this document do not fully encompass the issues

investigated by the Department of Justice, but they have been analyzed in a way that brings forth

the most immediate issues regarding violations of citizens constitutional rights, and the various

police departments abuse of their authority. This cross analysis hopes to expose some of the

larger, systemic issues that are being experienced in countless police departments throughout the

United States, as well as U.S. provinces. Furthermore, it will be a comprehensive resource for

anyone wishing to gain a broad perspective of the issues, and how they have been examined and

documented throughout the DOJ investigations. The following summaries are condensed

representations of the problems the DOJ chose to focus their investigations on.

4

Comparative Analysis Chart

5

Alamance County Sheriffs Office The US Department of Justice (DOJ) began investigating the Alamance Country Sheriffs

Office (ACSO) in June of 2010. The DOJ focused their investigation on the pattern or practice of

discriminatory policing and unconstitutional searches and seizures by ACSO. The DOJ found

evidence that ACSO engages in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing, specifically,

that ACSO unlawfully targets, stops, detains and arrests Latinos, which violate a citizens Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The DOJ published its Findings Letter in September 18,

2012.

1. Discriminatory Practice A. First, ACSO targets Latinos for traffic stops. Statistical analysis showed that,

depending on the road analyzed, ACSO deputies are anywhere between four to ten

times more likely to stop Latino drivers than non-Latino drivers. Interviews with

deputies and community members provided additional evidence of discriminatory

traffic stops, which involved drivers cited only for driving without a license, an

offense that is not observable from the road. In one reported incident, an ACSO

deputy said he stopped a Latino man because "most of them drive without licenses."

(4)

B. ACSO targets Latinos with vehicle checkpoints. Sheriff Johnson selects, and encourages his officers to select, predominantly Latino neighborhoods to set up

vehicle checkpoints. Documented checkpoints and interviews confirmed that ACSO

checkpoints cluster at or near the entrances of predominately Latino neighborhoods.

(4).

C. ACSO checkpoint practices discriminate against Latinos. Deputies single out Latino drivers for arrest at checkpoints, even for minor traffic violations. ACSO treats

drivers depending on the driver's ethnicity. When stopped for minor traffic offenses,

ACSO deputies arrest Latinos rather than citing them. Sheriff Johnson directed his

supervisory officers to tell their subordinates, "If you stop a Mexican, don't write a

citation, arrest him." In one example a Latino man and a white woman were stopped

by the same deputy, on the same day, for the same offense but the deputy arrested the

Latino man and only gave the white woman a written citation. (5)

6

D. ACSO discriminates against Latinos in its jail booking and detention procedures. Correctional officers verified the immigration status of all detainees who "appeal'"

Latino, regardless of their response to citizenship questions. Officers decide which

detainees to interview based on assumptions about nationality and ethnicity. Those

who appear "American" are not interviewed, even if they cannot produce

identification. (5)

E. Sheriff directs his deputies to target predominantly Latino neighborhoods for increased enforcement based on the Sheriff's often-stated belief that Latinos are

responsible for Alamance County's drug trade. For example, at a staff meeting Sheriff

Johnson stated, "We've had a big drop in the Hispanic population, but we still got a

lot dealing dope and we still got a lot of citizens in this country dealing dope with

them." (5)

F. ACSO's discriminatory practices prevents it from serving and protecting the Alamance Countys Latino residents. Effective policing is largely built on a

relationship of trust with all segments of the community. ACSO has done almost

nothing to build such a relationship with the County's Latino residents, and much to

destroy it. Interviews with ACSO officers and community members revealed that the

absence of this trust has substantially compromised policing by limiting the

willingness of witnesses and victims to report crimes and speak to ACSO deputies

about criminal activity or complaints of misconduct by ACSO officers. Latinos are

afraid to call the police to report crimes and provide information pertinent to solving

crimes. (5).

2. Discriminatory Bias A. Sheriff Johnson and the highest levels of command staff support and foster a culture

of bias within ACSO. Sheriff Johnson has made numerous statements supporting the

culture of bias against Latinos. For example, in one widely publicized statement,

Sheriff Johnson suggested that anyone of Mexican national origin was inherently

suspicious, saying: "Their values are a lot different - their morals - than what we have

here. In Mexico, there's nothing wrong with having sex with a 12-, 13- year old girl....

They do a lot of drinking down in Mexico." Sheriff Johnson has also referred to

7

Latinos as "taco eaters. Sheriff Johnson explicitly directs his deputies to target

Latinos and to arrest them instead of issuing citations for minor infractions. (6).

3. Departures from Policing Standards and Procedures A. ACSO has evidently departed from state law and policing standards in multiple ways

that directly affect Latinos and violate their constitutional and federal rights. One

example is that ACSO does not comply with state law, standard policing practices or

with its own policies regarding documentation of checkpoints and traffic stops.

Another example is that ACSOs Special Operations Unit does not comply with

record keeping or standard policing practices. They dont comply with standard

policing practices by targeting predominately Latino neighborhoods with road blocks

and vehicle raids. When performing these activities they fail to document

enforcement actions. (6-7).

Synopsis

The US Department of Justices investigation of the Alamance County Sherriffs Office

revealed that ASCO engages in a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing, specifically

against the Latino community. This bias against Latinos is supported by and even promoted by

Sherriff Johnson, resulting in the discriminatory policing demonstrated in DOJs Findings Letter.

Albuquerque Police Department The US Department of Justice (DOJ) began investigating the Albuquerque Police

Department (APD) in November of 2012. The DOJ focused their investigation on

unconstitutional use of force issues. The DOJ report found evidence that APD engages in a

pattern of excessive use of force, including deadly force, which violates citizens Fourth

Amendment rights. The DOJ published its Findings Letter in April of 2014.

1. Pattern or practice of unconstitutional use of deadly force

A. In October 2009, an APD officer shot and killed Dominic Smith. Smith was fleeing the scene of a robbery on foot and unarmed. Smith had robbed a pharmacy using a menacing

note, and no witnesses at the pharmacy reported to have seen Smith with a weapon. An

8

officer apprehended Smith, who appeared to be heavily intoxicated, just minutes after the

robbery. Smith refused to comply with the officers orders, so the officer retrieved an

assault rifle from his car. The officer claimed Smith motioned near his waist, which led to

the officer shooting and killing him. No weapon was found on his body (11).

B. In May 2011, an APD officer shot and killed Alan Gomez. Gomez was unarmed and posed no immediate threat to the officers. Gomez would not allow his brother and

girlfriend to leave their house, resulting in a standoff with APD officers. After nearly an

hour, Gomez exited the house. This is when one officer, who gave inconsistent

statements on the incident, fired a single, lethal shot. This same officer shot and killed an

unarmed man while working for the New Mexico State Police and wounded another

unarmed man in 2010 (11-12).

2. Unreasonable use of deadly force on individuals who only pose a threat to themselves

A. In January 2010, an APD officer shot and killed a 25-year old veteran named Ken Ellis

III, whom they pulled over for suspected theft. Ellis was holding a gun to his head, and

never indicated he intended to use the weapon on anyone but himself. Ellis held the gun

to his head as he made several phone calls, and after a few minutes an officer shot Ellis

in the neck. Ellis was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (13).

3. Officers own recklessness sometimes led to their use of deadly force

A. In March 2012, an officer shot and killed Daniel Tillison after responding to a call about

an individual selling stereo equipment in a parking lot. Without waiting for backup, an

officer approached Tillison with his gun drawn. Tillison attempted to exit his vehicle, but

the officer shut the door. Tillison then backed into the officers car, so the officer shot at

the tires of Tillisons vehicle. The officer claimed he saw something resembling a weapon,

and that Tillison gave him a warrior stare, so he shot and killed Tillison. No weapon

was found in the vehicle. Tillison never posed an immediate threat to the officer, and it

was the officers escalation of the situation that led to the use of deadly force (13-14).

4. Officers use excessive non-lethal force against individuals who were passively resisting

9

A. In March 2009, APD officers used excessive non-lethal force on Albert, a 60-year-old

man. Albert was intoxicated and arguing with a friend who reported that Albert had

threatened him with a knife and pellet gun. Forty-seven officers responded to the scene.

After Albert complied with their commands and dropped the knife, he was struck by

beanbags from a shotgun, wooden batons, disoriented by a flash-bang grenade, bitten by a

canine, and shocked with Tasers. District Judge Bruce Black found that no reasonable

person could believe that an inhibited, slow-moving, 60-year-old individual, who made no

physical or verbal threats, and wielded no weapons, could constitute a threat to the safety

of any of the forty- seven armed and shielded police officers who stood over twenty feet

away (17-18).

5. Officers use excessive force against individuals with A) mental illness B) impaired

faculties and C) those in need of medical attention.

A. In September 2012, officers were dispatched to the home of a schizophrenic man called

Jeremy to check on his welfare. The officers found Jeremy locked in the bathroom and

refusing to come out. They kicked the door in and proceeded to beat, choke, and use their

Tasers on Jeremy. The officers had been called to check on the welfare of a mentally ill

man who had committed no crime, and ended up using excessive force on him (21-22).

B. In March 2012, two officers fired Tasers at, and beat, a 25-year-old man with a

developmental disability referred to as Greg. Greg was unable to speak or understand

the officers commands, resulting in the officers excessive use of force. The officers later

found out that Greg had the mental capacity of a five-year-old (20-21).

C. In June 2010, officers responding to a car crash used their Tasers on Larry as he

convulsed in the wrecked vehicle because he was not complying with their commands.

They used their Tasers several times causing Larry to drift in and out of consciousness

(22).

6. Structural and systemic deficiencies contributing to the pattern of excessive use of force

including A) inadequate internal accountability B) documentation deficiencies like failure

to properly report use of force and C) lack of supervisory concern

10

A. Inadequate documentation and investigation of use of force incidents cause a sever lack of accountability in APD (23). Superficial use of force reviews show the chain of

commands disinterest in detecting patterns of excessive force as well as the departments

failure in holding officers accountable for policy violations (25).

B. APDs use of force policy states that, Upon firing the [Taser], the officer shall energize the subject the least number of times and no longer than necessary to accomplish the

legitimate operational objective. Officers routinely ignored this policy and then failed to

report the number of five-second cycles they used on individuals (26). Officers also failed

to take statements from people subjected to force, provide photographic evidence of the

inflicted injuries, and investigate discrepancies (27).

C. When improper force was used, the problems were not addressed by the chain of command. In 2011 and 2012, APD investigators found that only two use of force

incidents breached departmental policy. APD policy does not require supervisors to

conduct an objective review of officers use of force. Supervisors failed to address policy

violations by instituting corrective measures and recruiting Internal Affairs to further

investigate the policy violation (24-25).

7. Deficiencies in training contributing to the pattern of excessive use of force include A)

overemphasis on use of force B) and insufficient emphasis on de-escalation.

A. APD training overemphasizes use of force as the primary way to resolve stressful situations. This type of training leads officers to believe that violent outcomes are

normal and desirable (30).

B. APD officers tended to escalate the situation during scenario-based training meant to replicate stressful interactions with civilians, even though this type of training is designed

to train officers in peacefully resolving these encounters (30). Officers fail to analyze a

situation and account for an individuals physical, mental, and emotional state when

making use of force decisions (20).

11

Synopsis

The US Department of Justices investigation of the Albuquerque Police Department

revealed that APD engages in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional use of force, including

deadly force. APD consistently uses force on individuals in emotional crisis and the mentally ill.

Structural deficiencies in internal accountability, policies, procedures, and training contribute to

the use of force issues that plague APD.

Cleveland Police Department The US Department of Justice (DOJ) first started investigating the Cleveland Police

Department (CPD) in 2000, coming to the first amicable agreement in 2004. Not more than ten

years later in March 2013, the DOJ announced they were reinvestigating CPD for the use of

excessive force such as unauthorized deadly force that violates a citizens Fourth Amendment

rights. The DOJ published their Finding Letter in December of 2014.

1. Pattern or practice of unconstitutional use of deadly force

A. An incident from 2013 entailed a sergeant shooting at a victim who had escaped from two armed assailants. Anthony had been held captive by armed men in a house. After CPD

arrived on scene and surrounded the house, Anthony escaped the assailants wearing nothing

but boxer shorts. One sergeant proceeded to fire two shots at him, luckily missing. (14)

B. A report from a 2012 incident involved an officer shooting a lawfully armed man who seemed to be cooperating with the officers. Brian was asked to stop by a couple of

officers. At first it appeared as though he wasnt cooperating with the police as he walked to

12

nearby porch. Brian set down his beer and accordingly, turned towards the officers zone

car in a manner that indicated he was going to speak with them. (15) The first officer

reportedly saw Brians weapon and yelled gun as he pointed at it. The second officer

reported that in response, Brian raised his hand and indicated he had a legally concealed fire

weapon. The second officer proceeded to handcuff him. Brains hands were reportedly a

bit below ear level when the first officer fired a shot into his abdomen. (15).

2. Unreasonable use of deadly force on individuals who only pose a threat to themselves

A. One case involved an officer that made the decision to reach into a mans vehicle while

he had his gun drawn and in the process accidently shoots the man in the chest. Nathan

had tried to make a right turn from center lane, cutting off and almost colliding with

another car proceeding through the intersection. It was 2:30 AM and the area was

crowded with people pouring out of local bars and restaurants. Nathan was unable to

complete his right turn and was stuck in the middle of the intersection blocked off by

pedestrians on the crossing the street. At this point an officer approached the car with his

weapon drawn. The incident report provides no written basis to explain why he drew his

gun. (25) With the gun pointed at Nathan, the officer commanded him to turn off the

ignition and to show his hands. When Nathan did not comply the officer reached in the

car to attempt to turn off the ignition himself. While doing this the officer had his gun

pointed at Nathan with his finger on the trigger. The officer claims he felt force on his

hand, stating Nathan was trying to grab my weapon. The gun discharged striking

Nathan in the chest, someone who was stopped for an unlawful left turn. (25)

3. Officers use excessive non-lethal force against individuals who were passively resisting

A. CPD officers use less lethal force- including Tasers, OC Spray, and strikes to a suspects body- against individuals who pose little, if any, threat, or who offer

minimal resistance, including those who are handcuffed, already on the ground, or

otherwise subdued. (19).

4. Officers use excessive force against individuals with A) mental illness B) impaired

facilities C) those in need of medical attention.

13

A. One incident, an officer tased a suicidal, deaf man who committed no crime, posed minimal risk to officers and may not have understood the officers commands. Larrys

mother had requested CPDs assistance because her son with bipolar disorder and who

communicates through sign language, was holding a piece of glass to his neck threating

suicide. (23) When the officers arrived Larry retreated to a half filled tub as the officers

followed. The officers without confirming that he could communicate through notes

proceeded to write him a note saying he needed to go to the hospital. Larry waved his

hands aggressively which was taken as refusal from the officers. One officer grabbed

Larrys arm and Larry pulled back. At this point, the other officer yelled Taser and

pointed at his Taser. Larry continued to struggle and the officer eventually fired his Taser

into Larrys chest. (23)

B. Perhaps one of the most egregious incidents, a CPD officer tased a man who was suffering from a medical emergency and was strapped onto a gurney in the back of an

ambulance, because he was verbally threating officers. Two officers were flagged down

over to a man who was having seizures and was now laying on the sidewalk. The victim

Mark told the officers he suffers from grand mal seizures and that he had been

drinking. The officers called EMS and, while waiting Mark had at least four more

seizures. (24) Once the EMS arrived they strapped Mark into a gurney. He then became

angry and threatened to punch one of the officers. One of them unholstered their Taser

and told mark to calm down. He them proceed to try and stand up, stating hed rather

walk home. The officer continued to warn Mark three more times to calm down, finally

drive stunning Mark on his top left shoulder. (24)

5. Structural and systemic deficiencies contributing to the pattern of excessive use of force

including A) inadequate internal accountability B) documentation deficiencies like failure

to properly report use of force and C) lack of supervisory concern

A. CPD officers are involved in many incidents that seem irreproachably unjust, and yet still are considered justified in their course of action. For instance, there was an

incident were an off-duty officer with no way to identify himself approached a group of

suspects without back up and struck a civilian in the head with his service weapon during

a struggle. The officers use of force was excessive and he demonstrated poor tactical

14

decisions that placed him and others in danger. Still, Internal Affairs determined that the

officers actions were justified and that no further action should be taken. (36)

B. Officers often use canned or boilerplate language that does not describe with sufficient particularity the type of force they used. (29) Officers also fail to adequately

describe the level of the threat, if any, posed by those against whom force was used.

They justify use of force with non-specific language. Officers frequently justify force

by expressing a fear that subject had weapon without articulating any basis for that fear.

(29)

C. Supervisors often deliver superficial analyses of incidents that are designed to justify their subordinates use of unreasonable force. An incident in which an officer punched a

13 year old in the face three to four times while they were handcuffed highlights this

problem. Despite the officer weighing twice the size of the victim, along with having

another officer to help detain the suspect, the supervisor still deemed the excessive and

punitive use of force on the handcuffed 13 year old as arguably the best response. (32)

He justifies the face punches because the boy had kicked the officer trying to escape the

zone car. This failed to even consider the retaliatory nature of the officers punches on the

young man for trying to flee the car. This abdication of supervisory responsibility allows

for unreasonable use of force to continue unchecked. (32)

6. Deficiencies in training contributing to the pattern of excessive use of force include A)

insufficient emphasis on de-escalation.

A. CPS officers, especially the majority who are not specially trained on this issue, do not use appropriate techniques to de-escalate encounters with individuals with mental illness

or impaired faculties to prevent the use of force and, when force is used, officers do not

adjust the application of force to account for the persons mental illness. (23)

Synopsis

US Department of Justices second investigation of Cleveland Police Department

reinstates that CPD continues to engage in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional use of force,

in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Findings Letter determines that structural

15

deficiencies-including inadequate accountability, policy, and engagement with the community-

contribute to CPDs unconstitutional use of force upon its citizens.

East Haven Police Department The US Department of Justice (DOJ) began investigating the East Haven Police

Department (EHPD) in September of 2009. The DOJ focused their investigation on

unconstitutional engagements of patterns discriminatory policing, and discriminatory practices

against Latinos. The DOJ report found evidence that EHPD engages in a patterns of excessive

discrimination against Latinos, which violates citizens Fourth Amendment rights and violates

Title VI and the Safe Streets Act. The DOJ published its Findings Letter in December of 2011.

Intentionally Targets Latinos for Disparate Traffic Enforcement and Treatment

Our statistical analysis of EHPDs traffic stop data shows that Latinos experience vastly

disparate treatment on East Haven roads compared to non-Latino motorists. The size of this

disproportion illustrates the degree to which EHPD suffers from significant institutional

deficiencies. A law enforcement agency with adequate systems of oversight and accountability

would have discovered this problem and rapidly corrected it, rather than permitting it to continue

unabated for years. (6).

1. Focus their traffic enforcement activity on areas where Latinos congregate A. During their investigation, they received numerous reports that EHPD officers target

Latino places of business by focusing their traffic enforcement activity on customers

leaving those businesses. Consistent with these reports, they found that EHPD

officers also target specific areas of Frontage and Foxon Roads for their traffic

enforcement activity: areas where Latinos are known to congregate. Based on the

EHPD incident reports, they found that EHPD officers deliberately choose these

locations to wait in their patrol cars for Latino drivers to pass so that they can initiate

traffic stops on these vehicles, a tactic known in law enforcement as sandbagging."

(8).

2. Use non-standard, and some cases, unacceptable methods to generate reasons for stopping Latino drivers that are not employed for non-Latino drivers

16

A. That certain EHPD officers are specifically targeting Latino drivers is demonstrated by the extreme tactics they employ to justify these traffic stops. Once these EHPD

officers target a Latino driver for a traffic stop, they employ a variety of methods to

find cause to initiate the traffic stop, methods they typically do not employ on non-

Latino drivers. With Latino drivers, the incident reports show that EHPD officers will

first attempt to identify a facial defect on the license plate of the car. If there is no

obvious defect, and the car has an out-of-state license plate, the officers will stop the

car based on claims that, in their experience, such out-of-state plates are often forged.

On other occasions, the officers will follow the Latino driver and wait for a traffic

violation to occur that they can cite, a tactic rarely used against non-Latino drivers. In

other instances, the officers cite speeding as the justification for a stop, but, contrary

to standard police practice, given no indication of how they know a car is speeding,

failing to state that they paced the vehicle or used a radar gun. In at least one case, the

officer took the highly unusual step of looking up the insurance information for a

moving vehicle in order to find cause for the stop, demonstrating the degree to which

legitimate traffic enforcement is a secondary consideration to targeting Latino drivers.

(8).

3. Treat Latino drivers more punitively than non-Latino drivers after traffic stop. A. The incident reports further reveal a pattern of discriminatory treatment following the

stop. After a traffic stop is initiated, they found that some EHPD officers subject

Latino drivers to much harsher treatment than non-Latino drivers. In particular, these

EHPD officers will typically arrest Latino drivers and have their vehicles towed.

Consequently, Latinos stopped by these officers not only lose the use of their

vehicles, but they are required to post a surety bond in order to be released. In

contrast, the same EHPD officers typically treat non-Latino drivers in a less punitive

fashion, often releasing them from the scene after giving them a written notice to

appear in court. These drivers generally do not have their vehicles towed. EHPD's

towing policy is ambiguous, and appears to permit officers to make discretionary

decisions regarding towing that have been used to discriminate against Latinos.

17

Moreover, the supervisors responsible for reviewing these reports have failed to

question or correct this behavior. (9).

EHPD's use of tactics that are directed almost entirely at Latinos demonstrates the degree to

which Latinos are disparately impacted by EHPD practices. Indeed, the use of these

discriminatory tactics is so pervasive as to independently show that they were taken with the

intent to target Latinos in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

EHPD Retaliates against Individuals who Criticize or Complain of Disparate Treatment of

Latinos

1. EHPD perpetuates a culture of fear and intimidation in East Haven by retaliating against individuals who criticize or complain of EHPD's disparate treatment of

Latinos. A pattern of hostility towards a discrete community, such as that found

here, serves as important evidence of discriminatory conduct. They interviewed

community members who recounted first hand incidents of abusive and retaliatory

behavior. The following incident is one of many that illustrate retaliatory conduct

by police officers:

A. A local priest began documenting EHPD activity directed at Latinos. As a result, the priest became the target of intimidation and harassment by EHPD. For instance, in

March 2009, EHPD officers entered a Latino-owned business and accused the owner

of attempting to sell license plates, an allegation apparently based solely on the

approximately 80 license plates the business owner had decorating a store wall. The

owner denied that the plates were other than decorative, but two EHPD officers then

initiated a criminal investigation of this activity, which, at most, would culminate in a

minor infraction of State registration laws if it comprised a violation at all. The priest

began videotaping the officers' activities in the store. Upon seeing that they were

being videotaped, the officers demanded that the priest stop recording. When the

priest refused, the EHPD officers used force against him and ultimately arrested him.

The arresting officer falsely reported that he did not know that the priest was holding

a video recorder, and falsely reported that he thought the priest was instead holding a

weapon, necessitating the use of force and subsequent arrest. In a videotape of the

18

incident that we reviewed, the officers can clearly' be heard acknowledging that the

priest was carrying a video recorder. Based on their investigation, EHPD command

staff conducted no meaningful investigation of the incident in question, and meted out

no discipline, despite agreeing that the incident took place as the videotape showed.

(10-11).

EHPD Has Failed to Remedy a History of Discrimination

1. Their investigation found that East Haven has an extensive history of past discrimination that it has failed to meaningfully address or remedy. This historical

background serves as evidence of discriminatory purpose, especially if it reveals a

series of official actions taken for invidious purposes.

A. East Haven and EHPD has been the subject of litigation for a decade in which EHPD officers were accused of discriminatory conduct towards African Americans. This

litigation ended with a jury verdict against East Haven. The federal court concluded

in 2007 that sufficient evidence was presented at trial for a jury to find that "there

existed within the EHPD a custom or practice of deliberate indifference to the

constitutional rights of African-Americans, [and] that the Chief of Police was aware

of the custom or practice and deliberately indifferent to it. In the Jones v. Town of

East Haven case. The investigation uncovered no evidence that EHPD instituted any

meaningful changes in any of its policies following the Jones verdict. Indeed, officers

directly involved in the incidents giving rise to the Jones verdict remain with EHPD

and have been, in some cases, promoted to supervisory roles. They found no evidence

that they were subject to meaningful discipline or retraining as a consequence of their

roles in the Jones incidents. Retention of persons in places of authority and with no

apparent disciplinary or responsive policy modifications is strongly probative of

discriminatory intent on the part of EHPD. (11-12).

EHPD's Targeting of Latinos Arises from a Willful Failure to Prevent Discrimination in its

Institutional Practices

1. EHPD does not comply with state laws designed to prevent racial profiling.

19

A. Law enforcement agencies in Connecticut are required by State law to document all traffic stops, including demographic information, and report this information to a

State body. This statute, one of the first of its kind in the nation, is specifically

designed to prevent racial profiling by Connecticut law enforcement agencies. The

press made public EHPD's failure to have ever fully complied with this statute. They

confirmed with EHPD command staff that this failure had not been remedied.

Although EHPD possesses sophisticated data terminals capable of recording the

required information, EHPD has never meaningfully reviewed the data it collects, nor

has it turned it over to the State as required by the statute. EHPD's failure to audit the

data also places it out of compliance with the State statute. Their own review of the

data showed that a large number of entries reflecting traffic stops were devoid of

ethnicity data or appeared to misreport ethnicity data. Because EHPD failed to audit

its own data, it could not comply with the statute's requirement to accurately report

such data. EHPD's failure to comply with a state statute designed to prevent biased

policing is evidence that EHPD command staff sought to obscure the unlawful

activities of EHPD officers. (12).

2. EHPD does not maintain policies preventing biased policing A. EHPD has put in place no policies to help its officers communicate with Spanish-

speaking members of the community, thereby preventing EHPD officers from

building relationships that can enhance officer safety and depriving a significant

portion of the Latino community of policing services. Nor does EHPD have formal

policies addressing enforcement of immigration law, or the appropriate tactics that

may be used in conducting a traffic stop, such as requiring the means that an officer

used to develop probable cause for the stop to be recorded. (13).

3. EHPD does not train officers to avoid biased policing A. EHPD officers receive no training in the topics that are necessary supplements to

avoiding biased policing, including diversity training or cultural sensitivity training.

These failures are particularly egregious in light of recent discrimination-related

20

civilian complaints, media reports, and litigation, as well as the finding of

discrimination by EHPD officers in Jones. (13).

4. EHPD does not hold officers accountable for biased policing 1. EHPD hinders the ability of Latinos to file complaints

A. During the time period of their investigation, they witnessed that the required form was available only in English. Had a Latino person with limited English proficiency

come to the station house, the only available complaint form was useless. The failure

to provide accessible complaint forms to Latinos was even more egregious in light of

the tensions that have existed between EHPD and the Latino community, and EHPD's

awareness of those tensions. (14).

1. EHPD limits the initiation, scope, and resulting discipline of internal investigation.

A. AEHPD was made aware of a number of complaints against individual officers and the department as a whole involving unlawful stops. EHPD Chief undertook the

investigation himself and informally determined that the complaints of individual

misconduct were unsubstantiated. They found that this incident was part of a larger

pattern of informal resolution of serious complaints without independent review done

through routine internal investigation procedures. (15).

The broken system for handling officer misconduct within EHPD permits officers to target

Latinos with little fear of consequences. Investigations that are completed are superficial,

permitting arbitrary decisions giving rise to an inference that officers may engage in misconduct

so long as it is supported by the relevant EHPD command staff. Indeed, EHPD officers we spoke

to reported precisely this kind of favoritism.

2. EHPD exercises minimal oversight of its officers

A. EHPD has no system to track and analyze complaints, incidents in which an officer has used force, or any other policing activity that would allow its command staff to

determine whether an officer has engaged in discriminatory policing. Notably, the

absence of such a system is damaging to the officer as well as to EHPD and the

broader community: such systems are used regularly by policing agencies as a means

21

to intervene in response to officer misconduct or potential misconduct before the

officer has put him or herself or members of the community at risk of harm. (15).

3. EHPD has refused to provide meaningful language access to Latinos

A. EHPD, as a recipient of federal funds, is obliged under Title VI to provide language services to persons with limited English proficiency and has been on notice of that

obligation since well before the initiation of this investigation, despite EHPD's

awareness of this obligation, their investigation found that EHPD has made scant

effort to provide Spanish language assistance to persons with whom EHPD officers

come into contact. EHPD has failed to utilize a language line for communication with

persons that are not proficient in English and has no formal policies guiding EHPD

officers in the field for their encounters with such persons. (16).

4. EHPD has disregarded the consular rights of Latinos

A. EHPD Failed to abide by treaties entered into by the United States obligating law enforcement agencies nationwide to notify arrested foreign nationals of their right to

contact their respective consulates. Their investigation found that EHPD regularly

comes into contact with Latinos who are nationals of other countries. In these

circumstances, depending on the nationality of the person involved, EHPD must

either contact the appropriate consulate and notify the consulate of the arrest, or

notify the arrestee that the arrestee has the right to make such contact. But they found

that EHPD has entirely failed to understand or protect these clearly-defined rights.

Despite EHPD command staffs awareness of the numerous Latinos of foreign

nationality that live in and travel through its jurisdiction, EHPD has adopted no

training or policies assuring that their consular notification rights will be respected.

(16).

5. EHPD has refused to meaningfully engage with the Latino community, despite the

Latino community's growth

22

A. EHPD has made almost no attempt to conduct meaningful outreach to the Latino community. They encountered Latinos who described being reluctant to seek police

assistance out of distrust and fear of EHPD officers. (17).

6. An audit commissioned by the Town of East Haven also found that EHPD suffers

from significant institutional deficiencies

A. The PERF Report found that EHPD policies "fell well short of best professional practices," including policies regarding use of force, less lethal weapons, civilian

complaints and internal investigations, and an early intervention system. The PERF

report emphasized that "many of the current policy directives are outdated" and

encouraged EHPD to take action to update them. During the course of the audit,

PERF learned that some EHPD officers ignored the policies that existed. This

problem of officers disregarding policies was further complicated by EHPD's "uneven

enforcement of policy infractions and inconsistent application of discipline." (17).

EHPD Violates Title VI and the Safe Streets Act by Engaging in Discriminatory Practices

against Latinos

1. Title VI prohibits intentional discrimination. The Safe Streets Act prohibits

discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex by police

departments receiving certain federal funds. The United States is authorized to bring a civil

action in an appropriate United States district court to address a pattern or practice of

discrimination by 'any state or local criminal justice agency receiving such federal funds.

The Safe Streets Act has been interpreted by both case law and regulation to prohibit

government activity having a discriminatory impact.

The actions and willful inactions discussed above constitute a violation of Title VI and the Safe

Streets Act. However, the United States is deferring formal determinations of noncompliance

with Title VI and the Safe Streets Act at this time to provide you an opportunity to voluntarily

cooperate in resolving this matter so that your federal funding from the Department of Justice is

no longer at risk.

A. The pattern or practice of bias described above, including EHPD's targeting of Latinos, particularly in traffic enforcement, the pattern of hostility towards the Latino community,

23

and numerous institutional practices enabling discrimination, supports finding

independent violations of Title VI and the Safe Streets Act. (19).

Additional Areas of Serious Concern

1. They revealed serious deficiencies in the accountability and supervision of officers that

creates an unreasonable risk of other constitutional violations. In particular, they found

serious institutional deficiencies in EHPD's management and accountability systems that

fail to protect individuals from unlawful searches and seizures and use of excessive force.

We are also concerned with reports that Chief Gallo and other EHPD officers created a hostile

and intimidating environment for persons who wished to cooperate with our investigation at

EHPD. During our tours, we observed notes that were publicly displayed outside individual

offices referencing our investigation in a disparaging manner and messages on a police union

bulletin board that referred to "rats" at EHPD. We also learned that Chief Gallo had warned staff

that DOJ had agreed to provide him with the names of individuals who cooperated with the

investigation, contradicting our discussions with Chief Gallo. Indeed, prior to this incident we

notified Chief Gallo that we would keep the names of officers or staff who spoke to us during

our investigation confidential in order to protect individuals from potential retaliation. The

hostility we observed was also directed at civilian members of the Police Commission.

A. During one of their tours, officers referred to EHPD headquarters as a "poisoned pond" when a Police Commissioner entered the building for a scheduled interview with us. The

Police Commissioner became visibly upset and agitated at the officers' comments and

canceled the interview. (19).

B. DOJ staff members were also the object of similar questionable conduct by several officers and union representatives who met with us prior to our first on-site tour of

EHPD. At a late evening meeting, officers warned DOJ staff and a police practices

consultant that that they could not guarantee their safety during ride-alongs with officers,

a highly unusual statement given the nature of our ride-alongs and the relatively low

violent crime rate in East Haven. We continued to receive subsequent reports of hostility

and intimidation by EHPD officers and police union representatives. These recent reports

caused us to advise the Mayor in early December 2011 of his obligation to prevent

retaliation. (19).

24

Synopsis

EHPD engages in a pattern or practice of biased policing against Latinos in violation of

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and federal law. Specifically, we

have reasonable cause to believe that EHPD officers intentionally target Latinos for disparate

traffic enforcement and treatment because of their race, color, or national origin.

Miami Police Department This is the second time in ten years that the Department of Justice has had investigate the

Miami police department. The first investigation in 2002 started because of excessive use of

force allegations. The DOJ did not find a practice or pattern of excessive use of force during the

first investigation but did find serious deficiencies in the Miami Police Departments investigative

practices. After the first investigation Miami did show a willingness to work with the DOJ to

address the concerns. Here is what they found during the second investigation.

1. The city of Miami Police Department has engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive

force in officer- involved Shootings at persons.

MPD's own finding of a 13% unjustified shooting rate (3 of the 24 completed

investigations) is one factor underlying our determination of a pattern or practice of

unconstitutionally excessive deadly force. Throughout the DOJs review of the Miami Police

department from 2008 to 2011 they identified other shootings that appeared to be unjustified.

A. MPD terminated the officer after he killed an unarmed motorist and wounded an unarmed passenger in 2011. MPD rejected the shooting officer's statement that he

saw a dark object in the driver's hand that appeared to be a weapon. MPD also

appeared to credit a witness's account that the passenger complied with the

officer's demands to show his hands. Notably, the shooting officer was also

involved in a non-shooting role in a 2008 shooting that is still under investigation.

Had MPD fully investigated the 2008 shooting, perhaps retraining or other

corrective action may have been taken which could have influenced whether the

2011 shooting had to occur (6).

25

B. MPD disciplined an officer after the officer shot at a motorist who reached into his back pocket to retrieve his wallet after the officer requested identification. The

Firearms Review Board voted 4-1 that the shooting was justified. The dissenting

Firearms Review Board member noted that (1) the officer should have anticipated

that the driver would reach into his rear pocket to get identification; and (2) it was

questionable that the officer gave several commands as he claimed. Chief Orosa

overruled the Firearms Review Board to find the shooting unjustified (6).

C. MPD disciplined an officer after the officer shot several times at a subject in a fleeing vehicle. The officer had witnessed the subject repeatedly shoot another

man in front of a building before the subject turned the gun towards the officer

and then entered a vehicle and fled. The Firearms Review Board found that the

officer was unjustified in delivering the last of several shots since the car was

fleeing and there was no longer an imminent threat to the officer. It is extremely

dangerous to shoot at a moving vehicle and the practice is prohibited by policy in

many departments. Should the driver become incapacitated; he or she could lose

control of the vehicle creating a serious risk of harm to bystanders (6).

2. MPD Officers Routinely Employ Poor Tactics

MPD's own review of some of these incidents recognized deficiencies such as poor

marksmanship, shooting from too great a distance, failure to follow perimeter protocol, and

firing at a moving vehicle. In other incidents, though, as described below, we found other serious

deficiencies that MPD did not find. In addition to increasing the likelihood that officers will use

deadly force unnecessarily, tactical deficiencies can endanger the lives of officers and

bystanders.

A. An officer apparently entered a dark building alone in search of an unknown and unarmed subject, who was ultimately shot by the officer. The circumstances of the search

did not present an immediate risk to the public that necessitated entry without backup.

The officer had no information about whether or not the subject was armed prior to

entering the building and placed himself at significant risk of harm by proceeding without

assistance (7).

26

B. In one case, an officer chasing a subject fired numerous shots into a dark alley that was surrounded by homes (7).

C. In one case, a man known by MPD to have mental illness was shot after he lunged at officers with a broken bottle. Numerous officers unnecessarily surrounded the man,

escalating the situation, while a member of the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) was

attempting to speak with him (7 8).

3. Improper Actions by Specialized Units

A. In one case, for example, a team of officers in a specialized unit improperly deviated from the requirements of a tactical plan. Using unmarked vehicles, the officers diverted

from a plan in which they were only to provide particularized assistance when requested

and, instead, followed a young man walking on the street. The officers ultimately shot the

man, who had been carrying a gun (8).

No marked police vehicles involved in the initial felony stops, and officers who

participated in the related shootings and arrests were not immediately recognizable as

officers.

MPD's Investigations of Officer-Involved Shootings Are Inadequate

To date, to our knowledge, MPD has completed only 24 internal investigations for the 33 officer-

involved shootings that are the subject of our investigation. Thus, for almost a third of the

shootings, MPD has not reached a conclusion internally as to whether or not the officer's firearm

discharge was within policy. In some cases, the investigations have remained open for more than

three years.

4. Outcomes of Shooting Investigations Are Unreasonably Delayed

A. 2009 shooting in which the only living witnesses are the shooting officers. More than three years after the incident, the involved officers still have not provided statements

about what transpired during the shooting (9).

27

5. Shooting Investigations Fail to Adequately Analyze and Explore Facts to Determine

Whether a Shooting is Justified.

A. In one investigation, for example, multiple civilian witnesses alleged that officers involved in a fatal shooting exhibited questionable behavior prior to the shooting.

Despite physical evidence at the scene that partly collaborated the civilians' allegations,

investigators did not mention the physical evidence in written reports or ask any of the

involved officers about the allegations or physical evidence in their sworn statements,

ignoring a relevant part of the investigation (9) .

6. DOJ found that MPD does not adequately or timely capture the shooting officer's

version of events.

A. In some of the earlier cases reviewed, they found that MPD would complete an administrative investigation with the single exception of taking the shooting officer's

statement, which would be taken as soon as the SAO declined to prosecute the officer

(10).

Synopsis

Unlike the first investigation of the Miami Police depart were use of force was not an

issue the second investigation by the US Department of Justices revealed that the MPD engages

in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional use of force. Poor training and inadequate

investigations contribute to the Use of force issues at the Miami Police Department.

New Orleans Police Department The US Department of Justice (DOJ) began investigating the New Orleans Police

Department (NOPD) in May of 2010. The DOJ focused their investigation on unconstitutional

use of force, unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests, and discriminatory policing. The DOJ

found evidence that NOPD engages in a pattern or practice of the issues listed above. The DOJ

published its Finding Letter in March of 2011.

1. Pattern or practice of unconstitutional use of A) lethal force and B) non-lethal force

28

A. NOPD officers routinely violate policy by firing their weapons at moving vehicles. In one case, an officer stood in front of a moving vehicle and was thrown over the vehicles

hood. This led to other officers to shooting and killing the vehicles driver. Sergeants in

the NOPD perpetrated many of the problematic uses of lethal force. One sergeant, who

was involved in six shooting in four years, fired multiple rounds at a fleeing suspect in a

residential area, contrary to NOPD policy (9).

B. NOPD officers use non-lethal force in situations where it is unnecessary. In one incident, a handcuffed arrestee spit on the back of an officer head so the officer retaliated by

punching the arrestee in the jaw with a closed fist (4). NOPD officers deploy their

electronic control devices (ECD) in situations contrary to official policy. For example,

officers deployed their ECDs on an individual for fleeing on his bicycle. It is against

official policy to deploy ECDs on individuals riding bicycles because the loss of motor

control can cause serious injury. NOPD also has poor control of their canines. NOPD

canines bite subjects approximately six out of ten times they are deployed, twice what

you would expect from a properly managed canine unit (6-7).

2. Pattern or practice of unconstitutional A) stops, searches and B) arrests

A. NOPD officers stop and search individuals without probable cause. In one instance, an officer pulled over and searched an individuals vehicle after receiving a call about a

suspicious person. Although the officer found stolen property in the vehicle, reports of

a suspicious person do not provide reasonable cause to stop and search an individual or

their vehicle. In another case, officers opened the backpack of a juvenile suspect without

consent and took an iPod they believed to stolen (31).

B. NOPD officers often arrest individuals without probable cause. In one incident, officers arrested a juvenile for a curfew violation but the arrest report on the incident did not

provide any valid narrative as to why the officers believed a curfew violation had taken

place (31).

3. Pattern or practice of discriminatory policing on the basis of A) race, ethnicity and B)

LGBT status

29

A. African-American residents of New Orleans reported negative encounter with NOPD, resulting in distrust between their community and the police. These negative encounters

include harassment, illegal stops, violent arrests, and excessive use of force. Many

Latinos in New Orleans, especially young males, reported being stopped by NOPD for

unknown reasons and minor reasons that do not merit police involvement. Latinos also

reported being pulled over at high rates, and they believe this is because they are being

profiled as undocumented immigrants (36).

B. Members of New Orleans LGBT community reported that they are unjustifiably targeted by NOPD for prostitution arrests. Transgender people reported being charged with

Louisianas criminal statute of soliciting crimes against nature instead of being

charged with under the generic solicitation statute. Until August 2010, being charged

under the crimes against nature resulted registration as a felony sex offender (36).

Many members of the LGBT community also reported both sexual and physical abuse by

NOPD officers, and that NOPD does not take their complaints seriously (37).

4. Structural and systemic deficiencies contributing to the pattern of unconstitutional

conduct including A) use of force policy B) unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests

and C) discriminatory policing

A. The DOJ found that officers, supervisors, and commander have a poor understanding of their own use of force policies. This poor understanding stems primarily from the

deficiencies in NOPD force-related policies. These policies are outdated and many are

contradictory. Key terms throughout the policies are not clearly defined. Two of these

ambiguous terms are non-lethal and physical force (9-10). NOPD policy claims to

require force reporting, investigation, and reporting but there is no established framework

to do so. Because of this, NOPD tolerates widespread underreporting. Underreporting of

force is a symptom of poor understanding of official policy and the systemic failure to

hold officers accountable for their actions. One sergeant who leads a taskforce with an

above average number of arrests reported there was not a single incident that required a

force report in a three-month period (13-14).

B. The DOJ found that NOPD policy regarding warrantless searches and seizures. There was consensus in NOPD that officers have a poor understanding on how to lawfully carry

30

out stops, searches, and arrests due to the lack of detail in the official policies. In a four-

page policy regarding stop and frisks, or Terry stops, only two paragraphs explain the

appropriate legal standards an officer must follow. The policy regarding so-called Terry

stops is emblematic of the lack of clear and comprehensive guidance in NOPD official

policies (27-28).

C. The inadequate policies regarding the performing of legal stops, searches, and arrests leads to officers to use inappropriate stereotypes and personal bias when making

decisions. NOPD does not acknowledge the reality that stereotypes and personal bias

influence police work on both the individual and structural level. Because of this, NOPD

lacks a comprehensive policy regarding discriminatory policing. There is no framework

in place to collect and analyze complaints of racial profiling. Many members of the

community blame the discriminatory policing on NOPDs focus on maximizing arrests

(34-35).

5. Deficiencies in training contributing to the pattern of unconstitutional conduct including

A) use of force training B) illegal stops, searches, and arrests and C) discriminatory

policing

A. The deficiencies in NOPD use of force policies are exacerbated by the lack of proper use of force training. NOPD does not provide adequate training on how to effectively use

force or how to avoid using force all together to new recruits or in-service training to

their existing officers. The in-service training consists primarily of annual recertification

in firearm and ECD use. The recertification course is scheduled for two hours, but due to

a variety of issues the actual instruction lasts only thirty minutes. There is no training on

use of force policy, when to use deadly force, or the practical application of force.

Because there is no training, there is no test to determine whether an officer is capable of

using force within the limits of the law and NOPD policy. This failure to properly train

officers leads to them being ill equipped to deal with dangerous situations. This systemic

failure leads to a higher likelihood of officers losing control of the situation and resorting

to force in order to regain control (31).

B. NOPD training on proper stops and seizures is deficient in content and frequency. Officers reported they had not received search and seizure training since they left the

31

academy. The DOJ found no evidence of any efforts to reinforce the limited training

officers receive as recruits. This poses the risk of institutionalizing illegal search and

seizure practices. For example, many officers believe they can pat down any individual

they detain to look for weapons. Legally, they can only pat down an individual if they

have reasonable cause to believe an individual is armed (28-29).

C. NOPD requires the Education and Training Division to provide in-service training on bias-based profiling, yet most NOPD personnel had not received this training since

Hurricane Katrina.

Synopsis

The Department of Justices investigation of the New Orleans Police Department

revealed that NOPD engages in a pattern or practice of violating the constitutional rights of

citizens through the use of force, unlawful stops, searches, and arrests, and discriminatory

policing practices. Structural and systemic deficiencies in policy, training, and internal

accountability contribute to the unconstitutional conduct that NOPD engages in.

Portland Police Department The Department of Justice entered Portland, Oregon on June 8th, 2011. They were

specifically investigating the Portland Police Department in regards to excessive force used

against people with mental illness. In other circumstances, the Department was upheld to

constitutional standards relating to the standards of the DOJ investigation. However, unlike many

of the other departments investigated, mental health was the primary focus of the DOJ when

investigating Portland. This issue is backed by larger gaps regarding healthcare and mental

health treatment in the state of Oregon.

1. The Portland Police Department, through most of the findings were deemed constitutional, except when it comes to encounters with people with mental illness.

The following were the most identifiable issues with PPD, as written by the DOJ:

32

A. Pattern of Excessive force with a focus on the use of force against people with mental illness or in health crises, either perceived mental illness or actual health

conditions.

B. PPD officers repeatedly used Electronic Control Weapons (tasers) against people with mental illness, including excessive and repeated uses of shock against single

victims.

C. Lack of adequate crisis response to help stabilize people in crisis D. Officers do not consider a persons mental state before engaging in use of force,

or use of deadly force

E. Lack of specialty training for officers F. In May 2011, a desperate mother called the PPD because he had allegedly

assaulted his mother and was in possession of a sword. The subject had a history

of mental illness, and when the officers arrived they demanded that he come

downstairs. When he refused to put his hands on his head, the officers shot him

with a beanbag shotgun round to his leg, while another officer deployed ECWs

rounds on his back. The subjects hands were visible throughout the situation, and

a sword was never observed. (12).

G. In May 2011, an officer was called to check on an unarmed man who had been standing in the rain for over an hour. The officer could not speak to the subject

because of a language barrier and went back to his car to ask for assistance from a

Spanish speaking officer. When the officer stepped out of his car, the subject

approached the officer and kicked at the officer, but did not make contact. The

officer caught the subject by the leg and threw the subject to the ground. The

subject rolled onto his back and the officer proceeded to punch him 7-10 times in

the face, while the subject grabbed at the officers hands to try and stop the blows.

(17).

2. Inadequate Supervision and Review of Officers Use of Force A. Certain elements of police accountability is not under PPDs

control

B. Failure to implement timely corrective action or accountability after officer misconduct

33

C. Self-Defeating Accountability System because of close relationship with administrative review committee and officers

D. Ineffective Police Review Board 3. Inefficient process, complaining citizens not allowed to attend, significant delay in

the timeliness of accountability AND CRC (Citizen Review Committee) is also

inefficient

A. Only allowed to look at certain recommendations of findings, and reports back to the police department. It consists of nine volunteer citizens that meets once a

month, adding additional delays. At the appeal, CRC considers only the

recommended finding on the officer accountability incident. CRC does not

consider and does not receive information on the recommended disciplinary

action, if any. CRC has limited authority to reach findings. CRC representatives

have informed us that they have been counseled that they may only send a

complaint back to PPD for further information or to determine whether a prior

finding is irrational.

4. Lack of clarity and timeliness when it comes to PPDs Early Intervention System

A. The EIS was recently computerized, but the process took six years to get up and working functionally. The goal was to create a system that would indicate certain

behavioral trends by certain officers, and using repeated offenses as a way to

command discipline up the chain of command.

B. PPDs stated goal for its EIS is to keep officers productive by offering officers interventions when PPD identifies behavior, medical issues, or psychological

problems that adversely affect PPDs goals. (35). The EIS serves as a database to

understand different types of officers behavior. EIS would ideally recognize

triggers in officers behavior that could be potentially harmful, when officers

are recognized by the system, the person in that officers chain of command

would intervene.

C. Nothing has been done to address the efficacy of the system. Officers are only looked at individually, but the DOJ recommends the system looks at entire units

for triggers that indicate higher uses of force.

34

Synopsis

While the publishings put forth by the DOJ, accurately define a problem of mental

health policing, and the many structural and training errors, which provide mentally ill Portland-

civilians with deficient protection, this analysis is specifically limited to the larger role of

mentally ill people and their treatment and societal perception throughout Oregon, extending to

insufficient facilities and care. The Report alluded to structural and supervisory issues, yet to not

relate these to how it may be affecting the way the PPB treats people of color, homeless, or

minorities. There is a section for comprehensive solutions, which includes community policing

and improved access to medical care. The review of Portland was unique in the specific focus of

35

unconstitutional policing against people with mental illness, which was not a primary focus of

the other departments analyzed in this compilation. However, it was also a very limited

investigation, in its own acknowledgement of not looking into any patterns of bias-based

policing.

Puerto Rico Police Department The US Department of Justice first opened their investigation of the Puerto Rico Police

Department (PR PD) in 2008, focusing on a four year period from 2004-2008. The DOJ focused

their investigations on patterns or practices of conduct by PR PD that deprives persons of rights,

privileges, or immunities secured or protected by both the Constitution and federal law,

including excessive and deadly force. The DOJ published its Findings Letter in September of

2011.

1. Puerto Rico Police Department has engaged in excessive force patterns and practices

which are in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

A. Force is frequently used when it is unnecessary and gratuitous, and is often the first and last option considered by PRPD officers. The use of excessive force carried out by PR

PD includes punching or taking subjects to the ground, as well as striking and jabbing

with batons, deploying chemical agents, using choke holds and other neck restraints, and

discharging firearms, with subjects of excessive force, many were, at the time of the

incident carrying out ordinary activities or committing minor infractions. Officers also

use excessive physical force in response to perceived verbal slights or after an individual

stops resisting (20).

B. On August 11, 2007, Cceres Cruz was directing traffic as part of a motorcade that had gathered for a birthday celebration. Three PR PD officers drove by Cceres Cruz and

stopped after they heard him say something they believed was an insult. One officer

exited the vehicle, approached Cruz, and engaged in a verbal exchange. The officers then

told Cruz he was under arrest. The officer grabbed Cceres Cruz and wrestled him to the

ground, as they struggled; the officer discharged his firearm and shot himself in the leg.

The officer then unholstered his firearm and shot Cruz multiple times at close range in

36

the head and body. The two other officers left Cruz lying on the sidewalk as they drove

the injured officer to the hospital without notifying central command that anyone else

had been shot. The officers initial report indicated that Officer Pagn Cruz acted in self-

defense because Cruz resisted arrest and tried to gain control of the officers firearm, but

a video recording taken by a civilian showed the officer standing over Cceres Cruz and

shooting him several times. Murder charges were filed on August 14, 2007 (20).

Table 1: Subjects Shot and Killed by PR PD, As Reported by SIB, 2005-2010

(DOJ Report, 40)

2. Unreasonable force and other misconduct designed to suppress the exercise of protected First Amendment rights.

A. PRPD indiscriminately using chemical agents, batons, and physical force against demonstrators and other individuals on University Avenue in August 2009, at the

Sheraton Hotel in May 2010, and at the Capitol in June 2010 (26-32).

B. PRPD officers also using choke holds and pressure techniques against protestors who were passively resisting or otherwise not posing any significant threat as recently as

December 2010 and January 2011 (31-32).

3. Reliance on heavily armed tactical units and strategies. A. Units relying almost exclusively on extreme displays of force and actual force, rather

than on problem-solving approaches, are neither trained nor intended to perform such

patrol functions (6, 42-43)

B. Units relying on intimidation, fear, and extreme use of force to manage crowds and are often deployed to low-income and minority communities on routine patrols (42).

37

4. Unlawful searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment. A. 1,302 civilian complaints against PR PD officers for unreasonable or illegal searches

and seizures from 2004 to 2008 according to PRD (48).

B. PR PD involved in patterns and practices of conducting searches of civilians homes without a warrant or consent and in the absence of any circumstance or exception that

would render such a search constitutional (45).

C. PR PD officers frequently planting evidence during searches, relying on excessive force and intimidation as search aids or tools, and proceeding with searches even

when knowing that the address, identity of the individual, or other pertinent

information is incorrect (45).

D. On June 21, 2007, Robert Gonzlez Ramrez was standing in front of a business with a neighbor when four officers detained Ramrez and seized his car. The officers hit

Ramrez with their service weapons and repeatedly threatened him as they asked him

about drugs. The officers then took Ramrez to his home, where they conducted a

search but found nothing. Gonzlez Ramrezs arrest and the search and seizure of his

property were not based on any mentioned probable cause (48).

5. Insufficient training on use of force A. January 1 - November 30, 2010, only a small fraction of active PR PD officers

received any training on use of force (42).

B. 415 officers received training on the use of batons during this period, or fewer than 3% of active PRPD officers (42).

C. PR PD also does not consistently train officers adequately, as well as fail to train supervisors to independently review officers use of force (42).

6. Systems of accountability flawed A. PRPDs systems of accountability do not ensure the lawful and effective use of force

(44).

38

B. PRPD continues to demonstrate a deliberate indifference to the publics safety and the civil rights of individuals by failing to control the violence and fear exerted by TOUs

(44-45).

C. PR PD failing to report its uses of force. (44-45).

7. Inadequate policies and practices which fail to address A) - D) Police crime and corruption within PR PD and E) - F) Instances of domestic violence committed by

PR PD officers.

A. The degree of police corruption and criminal misconduct in Puerto Rico alarmingly high, contributing to public safety (14.)

B. More PR PD officers involved in criminal activity than any other major law enforcement agency in the country, with officers arrested for criminal activity ranging

from simple assault to theft to domestic violence, drug trafficking, and murder (14).

C. January 2005 November 2010: more than 1,709 arrests of PR PD officers (14). D. In December 2010, Officers Raquel Delgado Marrero and ngel Rivera Claudio were

convicted of three counts each for drug and firearm-related charges for participation

in a July 2009 drug transaction in which they provided armed protection to a drug

dealer during the sale of seven kilograms of cocaine (15).

E. 2005 to 2010, PRPD received 1,459 civilian complaints alleging domestic violence by officers. Of the complaints resolved during this period, administrative

investigators recommended disciplinary or corrective action in 1,018 cases in the

form of orientation, admonishment, suspension, separation or expulsion (16-17).

(DOJ Report, 17)

39

F. On January 13, 2008, Officer Ramos Santiago killed his wife, Deborah Berrocal Lugo, in front of their then-four-year-old daughter. A jury found him guilty of first-

degree murder and a weapons charge (17).

8. Discriminatory Police Practices by PR PD A. PR PD engages in discriminatory policing practices that target individuals of

Dominican descent in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Safe Streets

Act, including the routine employment of excessive force, unlawful searches and

seizures, and intimidation. (55-56).

B. On December 28, 2006, Flix Escolstico Rodrguez was parking his vehicle at his home when a group of PRPD officers approached him. The officers seized Rodrguez

and, without a legitimate law enforcement purpose, hit him in the head, chest, arms,

and legs as they yelled derogatory and xenophobic slurs at him related to his

Dominican origin. On March 27, 2010, the district court dismissed Escolstico

Rodrguezs civil rights case after the parties entered into a confidential settlement

agreement (56).

9. PR PD frequently failing to police sex crimes and incidents of domestic violence. A. Serious concerns of PR PD failings to adequately address sexual assault, with serious

underreporting, and to prevent and address domestic violence committed by PRPD

officers (57).

B. PR PD repeatedly failing to appropriately discipline officers accused of domestic violence. PR PD allowing officers accused of serious crimes to continue on active

duty as a result of inefficient and faulty systems of accountability (58).

10. Further Deficiencies Causing Constitutional Violations

Inadequate Policies and Procedures, Insufficient and Inadequate Training (incl. Pre-Training),

Supervision, and Discipline, Deficient and Discouraging Civilian Complaint Processes, Lack of

Oversight and Accountability, and Limited Risk Management (59-84).

11. Outlined Recommended Remedial Measures

40

Independence and Professionalism, PR PD Staffing Evaluations, Specialized Tactical Units

Reforms, Evaluations of Use of Force Policies, Internal Controls, Accountability, and Reporting

and Review, Training, Supervision, and Discipline Evaluations, and Oversight and Community

Engagements.

Synopsis

The US Department of Justices investigation of the Puerto Rico Police Department

revealed the heavy reliance on force by PR PD coupled with inadequate training which results in

excessive and deadly force occurring regularly. Structural deficiencies in internal accountability

and oversight fail to address instances of domestic violence committed by officers and police

corruption within PR PD which perpetuate the use of force issues which are heavily embedded in

this police department.

Seattle Police Department The US Department of Justice (DOJ) began investigating the Seattle Police Department

(SPD) in March of 2011. The DOJ focused their investigation on whether SPD engaged in a

pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing through the use of excessive force and

discriminatory policing. The DOJ report found that the SPD engages in a practice of

unnecessary or excessive force, which violates citizens Fourth Amendment rights. The DOJ

report did not make a finding of discriminatory policing, but their investigation raised some

serious concerns on this issue. The DOJ published its findings on SPD in December of 2011.

1. SPD officers use excessive force in response to minor offenses A. In one incident, an officer viewed a man exhibiting irrational behavior. The man was

standing in the road yelling at a traffic light. He was sweating, his eyes bulging, and

he was talking incoherently. The officer ordered the man to get out of the road.

When the man didnt respond to the officer, the officer proceeded to spray the man

with pepper spray. The man reportedly balled up his fist so the officer then

delivered between 14 to 18 punches, 5 to 7 elbow strikes, and 3 baton strikes, while

an additional officer struck the man with a baton. In the end the man was arrested for

pedestrian interference and obstruction (10).

41

2. SPD officers use excessive force when they apply force in tandem against a single individual

A. One incident illustrates this problem. Four officers were called to a house to investigate a stabbing at a party. When the officers searched the house a man was

lying face down on a bed with his arms under a pillow. The man had fallen asleep

after having too much to drink. The man was 49 years old and did not speak English

as his first language. After the man did not follow the orders of the officers they

decided to arrest him. As the officers made contact with the man, he began to kick

his legs. The officers saw this resistance as reasonable cause to use force. Officer

one delivered 5 to 7 punches to the mans face. Officer two struck the man 3 to 4

times in the head. Officer 3 struck the man in the side of his body 3 to 4 times with

his knee. Officer 4 delivered multiple strikes with his flashlight to the mans

midsection. The mans incoherent state is further illustrated by the fact that when

officers took the man to the precinct for booking, he said that someone had beaten

him up and thanked the SPD officer for saving him. In this case the officers involved

used excessive force when trying to gain compliance from the suspect (12).

3. SPD officers too quickly and unreasonably resort to the use of impact weapons A. In the course of one arrest, an officer made contact with a man whom he suspected

had put a bag of crack cocaine into his mouth. The officer used his baton to pry the

mans mouth open so that a second officer could take out the drugs. This is an

inappropriate use of a baton. Yet, despite the fact that the officers supervisor

identified the inappropriate use of the baton, neither the supervisor nor anyone in the

chain of command identified this incident as an unreasonable use of force (13).

B. See chart on page 42.

42

This graph shows that officers used their batons in an excessive manner 57% of the time (9).

4. SPD officers use excessive force against individuals who are already under physical control

A. In one incident, a handcuffed man was being seated in a patrol car when he began to struggle. One officer than then struck the man 5 times in the chest, rather than

finding alternate way to gain full compliance from this already restrained subject

(14).

5. SPD officers use excessive force against individuals who talk-back A. In one incident, two officers arrested a young man for his refusal to comply with an

officers orders to go down to his knees. After the man was put in handcuffs and laid

face down on the ground, he then said, Go ahead, do what you got to do. The

officer then punched the man in the chest and struck him with his knee. Because the

man was prone and in handcuffs there was no need to use force (14).

6. Unlawful Pedestrian encounters

43

A. SPD officers continually make unlawful pedestrian stops. Many of the incidents reported individuals were stopped without reasonable suspicion or cause, detained,

and told they were not free to leave. Many of these incidents involve officers

stopping youths of color. The DOJ is concerned that these practices may particularly

affect racial and ethnic minorities, which would constitute a violation of the

fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause (27).

7. Incidents of overt discrimination contribute to the problem A. A number of individuals reported incidents in which racial epithets were used or

minorities were singled out for harsh treatment. In one incident, a Black male

bystander at an accident asked the SPD officer on site if he could help because he

worked at a hospital. The officer replied, what are you the janitor? (27).

8. Additional indicators of potential biased policing A. Of the cases that the DOJ investigated that involved excessive or unreasonable uses

of force, more than half involved non-white subjects. In a review of use of force

complaints from 2003 to 2005 revealed a high proportion of complaints about force

were made by citizens of color. (28).

Synopsis

The DOJ Investigation into the Seattle police department revealed that SPD engages in in

a practice of unnecessary or excessive force. The DOJ also raised some serious questions

regarding discriminatory policing. SPD often uses excessive force with impact weapons, in

tandem with other officers, and often for small offences. SPD also exhibits discriminatory

policing when dealing with racial and ethnic minorities. Failure to report use of force incidents,

inadequate policies, inadequate supervision, and lack of training, seem to contribute to these

problems listed above.

Washington Metropolitan Police Department The US Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division sent District of Columbia

Mayor Anthony Williams and Metropolitan Police Department Chief of Police Charles H.

44

Ramsey the Findings Letter re Use of Force by the Washington Metropolitan Police Department.

The Civil Rights Division conducted an investigation at the request of the department.

Following the investigation it was revealed there was a pattern or practice of excessive force by

MPD.

The DOJ does compliment MPDs pledge to reduce the liability of excessive use of force,

executed by the MPD in requesting the DOJ conduct an investigation in assisting the MPD to

recognize and establish methods to correct the imperfections. The DOJ recognizes the effort

MPD has initiated to begin making critical reforms into the way the department records,

investigates, supervise, and manages use of force issues. DOJ acknowledges the commitment

MPD has on executing these reforms in order to ensure effective and respectful policing.

Investigative Findings

1. Use of Excessive Force

A. The DOJ conducted an in-depth investigation of layered selection of samples of use of

force incidents it showed almost 15 percent of cases involved use of excessive force by

MPD officers.