SHR:SBC:JE:TMG:LN
Re: Investigation of the Cincinnati Police Division
Dear Mr. Martin:
As an initial matter, my team and I would like to
echo the sentiments of Mr. Boyd at last month's meeting and express
our own appreciation for the considerable cooperation we have
received from the City, the Police Chief and the
men and women of the Cincinnati Police Division
in our mutual effort to improve policing in
Cincinnati. The Division's willingness to review and improve
its policies and procedures is gratifying We likewise want
to thank the Fraternal Order of Police, the Sentinel Police
Association and community leaders who share the Division's
desire constantly to improve police practices.
At the meeting Mr. Boyd outlined, in general terms,
some of the recommendations we can make at
this preliminary stage. recommendations were
in the areas of use of force policy, use of force
reporting, public accountability, monitoring and auditing,
and training. He also committed to provide, in writing,
more specifics about our police practices
experts recommendations. In this letter, we
convey in greater detail our recommendations.
To date we have reviewed relevant CPD directives
and conducted interviews with City officials,
abroad cross-section of the CPD (including
a large number of its command staff), and those
charged with oversight of the CPD. We have also talked
with representatives of the police union and the
Sentinel Police Association, as well as community
leaders and citizens.
This letter is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather
focuses on significant recommendations we can provide
at t-his preliminary stage of the investigation
under 42 U.S.C. 5 14141. important aspects
of our fact-gathering process have yet to be completed,
most notably reviewing the incident reports included in
the documerts we received from the City in August. Therefore
this letter is preliminary in nature.
We hope this letter will assist in our mutual goal
of ensuring that the CPD provides the best
possible police service to the people of Cincinnati,
and we look forward to continued cooperation
toward this goal. We would also be happy to provide' examples
of policies used by other police departments that might
address some of the issues we raise below.
I. USE OF FORCE POLICY
The CPD should revise its policies to clarify terms,
and to ensure that force is only wed in appropriate
circumstances.
The use of force policy states that force may be
used when reasonably necessary to "apprehend
the offender," or "effect the arrest"
and also states that officers may use force to protect
themselves and to "perform their duty."
It is unclear whether "perform their
duty" in this context is intended only to be equivalent
to "effect the arrest" and "apprehend the offender,"
or authorizes force in other, undefined situations.
This ambiguity may lead officers to believe
they are justified in using force in situations
in which it would be unreasonable. While the
Supreme Court has recognized that the right to make an
arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries
with it the right to use some degree of force,
there are many activities within a police
officer's duty that do not require any force. For
example, an officer cannot reasonably use force when conducting
a traffic stop unless such force is necessary to effect
an arrest or protect the officer or others.
The use of force policy states that "courts
could consider a choke hold or similar type
hold as deadly force." According to CPD
officials, this statement is intended to be a blanket prohibition
on the use of choke holds. If this is the case, we recommend
that the policy make this prohibition explicit. At a minimum,
the policy should state that a choke hold or similar hold
may not be used in any circumstance in which the use of
deadly force would be unreasonable.
Other examples of such ambiguity are provided in
the sections below addressing the use of chemical
irritant and the usa of canines.
The multiple instances of vague or unclearly defined
terms cited in this letter raise the concern
that other policies contain terms which are
not sufficiently defined. all critical terms
in all policies are defined, we recommend a thorough
review of all CPD policies aimed at eliminating undefined
terms.
The CPD should modify its policy regarding the use
of chemical irritant to limit its use to appropriate
circumstances. The CPD should also track and monitor
the amount of chemical irritant officers use,
and the ways in which they use it.
The CPD use of force policy states that officers
"will use chemical irritant as the primary
response to aggressive citizen behavior."
This suggests that chemical irritant should or must be
used even when verbal commands or less serious types of force
would be equally effective. In addition, the term
"aggressive citizen behavior" should
be explicitly defined to limit the use of
chemical ir .tant to those cases in which the force is
necessary to effect an arrest or to protect the safety
of the officer or a civilian.
The use of force policy also allows for the use of
chemical irritant as a "crowd control
device in self-defense situations, or to disperse
a disorderly crowd." The policy does not define a
"self-defense situation" or a "disorderly
crowd" and therefore does not provide
enough guidance to ensure that chemical irritant is
only used when such force is reasonable. We also recommend,
absent exigent circumstances, that the approval of
a supervisor be required any time chemical
irritant is used against a crowd.
Additionally, the use of force policy provides procedures
for using chemical irritant against a "disorderly
prisoner" after the prisoner is handcuffed
and sitting in the back of a police vehicle.
This suggests that chemical irritant may be used against
a restrained individual, when in fact it is the exceptional
case in which chemical irritant can be constitutionally
used in such situations. chemical irritant
should be subject to the highest level of scrutiny.
We received reports about CFD officers using chemical
irritant at closer range than is allowed pursuant
to the CPD's policy, or quantities that seem
unreasonable. For example, interviewees related
instances in which officers emptied entire canisters
of chemical irritant on a single subject or sprayed chemical
irritant up subjects' noses or down their throats. At the
in-service training we attended, officers engaged in a drill
in which they sprayed chemical irritant on a target.
The participating officers used different
amounts of chemical irritant and in some cases,
none the irritant actually reached the target.
To ensure the appropriate use of chemical irritant,
the CPD should weigh officers' canisters on
a regular basis or, at least, track the number
of canisters annually distributed to and utilized
by each officer. The CPD should also provide regular in-service
training on the proper amount of irritant to use, how to
deliver irritant effectively, and the proper anatomical
targets for chemical irritant.
The use of large quantities of chemical irritant
may also indicate that the CPD is not using
the most effective type of chemical irritant
for its purposes. We recommend that the CPD review
recent research regarding chemical irritant, principally
that conducted by the National Institute of Justice,
and consider whether it should switch to a
different type of irritant. Some of these
studies have reported that the use of pepper spray is favored
in many departments because it is highly effective and
causes less risk of injury to subjects.
The CPD should adopt a "find and bark"
policy and eliminate undefined terms from
its canine policy. It should also provide
more guidance to its officers regarding when canines are
to be deployed. Moreover, we recommend that the CPD track
and monitor the frequency with which its canines bite civilians
when making apprehensions.
The CPD's canine policy does not specify whether
it has a "find and bite" policy
(which allows dogs to bite upon locating the
subject) or a "find and bark" policy (requiring a dog
to bark, rather thar. bite). According to
canine unit supervisors, the CPD's policy
is "find and bite." We recommend that the CPD
explicitly adopt a find and bark policy. A find and
bark policy prevents canines from biting subjects
in situations in which such force is not necessary
to effect an arrest or protect the safety of
officers or civilians.
The canine policy also does not provide for giving
verbal warnings before releasing a canine.
The policy should require, absent exigent
circumstances, a set number of announcements, and a
sufficient interval between announcement and deployment to
allow for subject surrender. Except when conducting
a building search, the policy also should
prohibit releasing the canine from the leash
before the canine is ready to be deployed. The policy also
fails to provide guidance for post-release handler controls
of the canine.
Moreover, critical terms in the canine policy are
undefined and unit supervisors were unable
to provide clarification. For example, according
to the CPD policy, canines can be used for "psychological
deterrent" in high crime areas. However, there is
no definition of that term.' Additionally, canines
can be used to arrest those who commit a felony
or a "serious misdemeanor." While
some examples of serious misdemeanors are given, the term
is not sufficiently defined to limit the situations
in which it might be viewed as authorizing
the release of a canine.
In general, canine deployment for purposes of apprehending
a person should be limited to searches for
serious felons or to cases where a subject
is armed or has the potential to use force or
cause harm to the officer, the subject or others. Moreover,
deployrnents should always be made in accordance
with appropriate safeguards.
We were told that the CPD does not track apprehensions
made by the canine unit. Instead, it tracks
dispatches to a scene and bites. An apprehension
is defined as any time the canine is deployed
and plays a clear and well-documented role in the capture
of a person. The mere presence of a canine at the scene
of an arrest does not count. Not only does this failure
to track apprehensions make the monitoring
of the use of canines more difficult, but
it prevents the CPD from properly calculating bite ratios.
Bite ratios are properly defined as the number of apprehensions
accomplished by means of a dog bite divided by the total
number of apprehensions (both with or without a bite).
Bite ratios enable a police department to assess
its canine unit and individual canine teams.
Finally, we understand that supervisors do not receive
formal standardized training in canine handling procedures.
Such traiing should be provided not only to
supervisors in the canine unit, but to all
supervisors, because CPD policy allows supervisers
not assigned to the canine unit to supervise handlers in
some situactions.
The CPD should adopt a use of force continuum.
The CPD does rot utilize a use of force continuum.
When properly designed and implemented, a
use of force continuum is a fluid and flexible
policy guide. Moreover, many major city police
departments employ a use of force continuum because it
provides a useful tool in training officers to consider
lower levels of force first, which protects
the safety of both the officer and the civilian.
Moreover, a use of force continuum would enable
the CPD to emphasize that officers' presence, verbal commands,
and use of "soft-hands" (using hands to escort rather
than control subjects) can often be used as an alternative
not only to chemical irritant (which pursuant
to CPD policy is the "primary response
to aggressive citizen behavior"), but also to other
more significant uses of force.
The CPD should create a committee to advise the Planning
Section on policy development, and should increase
community involvement in this process.
We understand that the Planning Section seeks feedback
on proposed policy changes by sending copies
to every section and district commander. This
method does not ensure that the Planning Section
receives the benefits of feedback from the entire
CPD, including the rank and file. We recommend that the
CPD create a policy committee which includes a cross
section of ranks (both sworn ance civilian
employees) and a representative of OMI. Each
member of the committee would be required to respond to
each proposed change (even if merely to state that they agreed
with the policy without comment). Membership on this
committee could be rotated to give as many
employees as possible a chance to participate.
We also recommend that policy revisions be sent to
community representatives for feedback. We
recognize that some policies and some revisions
are of more interest to the community than others,
and that such consultations may not be practical for minor
or chemical changes to the policies. We iso understand
the concern that the public may lack the expertise
to provide useful feedback in some areas.
The very act of asking for such feedback,
however, increases community acceptance and provides an opportunity
for public education. Moreover, there are clearly scree
policies (i.e., the comlaint resolutio process, civil disturbance)
in which the public has a major interest, and therefore
should play an important part in any revisions.
Finally, we recommend that every policy charge be
evaluated by the City Solicitor's Office.
The Planning Section should consider the input
of the committee, the public and the Solicitor's
Office, make its recommendation regarding the policy change,
and retain all comments in a central file.
II. USE OF FORCE REPORTING
The CPD should require officers to report all uses
and shows of force.
The CPD's use of force policy distinguishes between
"force" and "restraining force."2
Although officers are required to report all
uses of "force," they are not required to report
restraining force or other physical contacts with
civilians unless those contacts lead to injury.
This artificial distinction causes the under-reporting
of force. The CPD should report all physical
and instrumental (i.e., baton or firearm) acts
that impose any degree of force on a civilian, including all
acts that would currently be regarded as restraining
force. To do this, the CPD could revise its
definition of "use of force" to include
all physical and instrumental acts, and any use of chemical
irritant.
The CPD uses different forms for reporting different
types of uses of force (e.g., taser, canine,
chemical irritant), but only one use of force
form is filled out for any one incident. This
practice may undermine the ability of the CPD to track all
uses of force because more than one type of force
may be used in a particular incident. For
example, it is impossible to count every use
of chemical irritant without reviewing all use of force
reports, use of taser reports, canine reports and
injury to prisoner reports, and determining,
in each case, whether the box indictating
the use of chemical irritant is checked. As a result, simply
counting the number of chemical irritant reports would
seriously underestimate the number of times chemical
irritant was used. Moreover, tracking multiple
uses of force on one report may well lead
to supervisors not evaluating the appropriateness of
each and every use of force. For example, if an officer uses
both chemical irritant and some other form of force,
there is no place on the arm for the supervisor
to evaluate the appropriateness of the use
of chemical irritant. We recommend that the
CPD use a single uniform use of force report that indicates
each and every type of force that was used and requires
the evaluation of each use of force. Not only will
this aid the CPD in investigating and reviewing
uses of force, but it will also allow the
CPD to take advantage of available computer systems
to track and evaluate uses of force.
We nave particular concerns with the reporting of
chemical irritant use. As discussed in more
detail below, the CPD, when it reports the
use of chemical irritant, does not provide a narrative
of the incident. Narratives should be provided in all instances.
In addition, the CPD does not require, but should, that
photoqraphs be taken in instances where complainants suffer
prolonged physical injury resulting from the use
of chemical irritant. We recommend that when
the use of a chemical irritant results in
prolonged physical injury, the CPD report uses of chemical
irritant as it reports other serious uses of force by including
in the report a taped statement, photos, and (if treated)
a medical release' summarizing the doctor's diagnosis.
This is especially important given the CPD's direction
that chemical irritant be used as the "primary
response to aggressive citizen behavior."
Finally, we have talked to many civilians who believed
that firearms were improperly pointed at themselves
or their families. For example, we were told
about guns being drawn on citizens for minor
traffic violations where there was no indication that a
felony was commited or that the occupants were armed.
We also learned from some CPD officers that
they are trained to brandish their firearms
in a wide variety of circumstances, including, for example,
any time they make a traffic stop on a car with tinted
windows. This information raises concerns that CPD
officers are un-holstering and pointing their
guns in circumstances where it is not appropriate
under the CPD's policy. Therefore, we recommend
that CPD officers be required to report any instance in
which they un-holster their firearm and point it
at an iindividual. This reporting requirement
would allow the CPD to identify, monitor,
and evaluate the types of circumstances in which
officers un-holster and seriously consider using firearms.
The CPD should revise its use of force reporting
forms to clarify terms and to ensure that
force is only used in appropriate circumstances.
CFD use of force reporting forms have boxes for supervisors
to indicate the civilian's conduct which led to the
use of force. We found considerable confusion
among the officers we interviewed about what
many of the boxes were intended to convey (e.g., "resistive
tension," "conspicuously ignoring" and "excessive
emotioral tension"). Moreover, some of these
boxes could be read to authorize force in
response to civilian conduct that would rot,
in a significant number of circumstances, provide sufficient
justification for that force to be reasonable (e.g.,
"conspicuously ignoring," "ceased
all movement" and "violent history")
. We recommend that these boxes be revised to clearly indicate
the conduct that they are designed to measure, and to avoid
suggesting that force can be used in inappropriate ways.
Moreover, these boxes should not take the place of
requiring the officer who uses the force to
provide a written narrative explaining the
sequence of events and circumstances that prompted each
use of force. Such a narrative is required for supervisors
to fully evaluate uses of force.
III. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
The CPD should better disseminate information to
the public about the citizen complaint process
and should solicit feedback regarding public
perception of that process.
Each district police station should have information
about the complaint process posted in a visible
place in the public reception area. A pamphlet
providing this information should be added
to the information brochures currently available at City
Hall. The CPD should also consider making information
about the complaint process available on-line.
Finally, we recommend that the CPD re-institute
its customer satisfaction surveys, and include
questions regarding the public's perception of the complaint
process.
The CPD should change aspects of its citizen complaint
process that have the potential to discourage the
filing of complaints, and to impair their
effective tracking and resolution. Supervisors
should also receive appropriate training in
handling and adjudicating citizen complaints.
The CPD should revise its use of force reporting
forms to clarify terms and to ensure that
force is only used in appropriate circumstances.
CFD use of force reporting forms have boxes for
supervisors to indicate the civilian's conduct
which led to the use of force. We found considerable
confusion among the officers we interviewed about
what many of the boxes were intended to convey (e.g., "resistive
tension," "conspicuously ignoring" and "excessive
emotioral tension"). Moreover, some of these
boxes could be read to authorize force in
response to civilian conduct that would rot,
in a significant number of circumstances, provide sufficient
justification for that force to be reasonable (e.g.,
"conspicuously ignoring," "ceased
all movement" and "violent history")
. We recommend that these boxes be revised to clearly indicate
the conduct that they are designed to measure, and to avoid
suggesting that force can be used in inappropriate ways.
Moreover, these boxes should not take the place of
requiring the officer who uses the force to
provide a written narrative explaining the
sequence of events and circumstances that prompted each
use of force. Such a narrative is required for supervisors
to fully evaluate uses of force.
III. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
The CPD should better disseminate information to
the public about the citizen complaint process
and should solicit feedback regarding public
perception of that process.
Each district police station should have information
about the complaint process posted in a visible
place in the public reception area. A pamphlet
providing this information should be added
to the information brochures currently available at City
Hall. The CPD should also consider making information
about the complaint process available on-line.
Finally, we recommend that the CPD re-institute
its customer satisfaction surveys, and include
questions regarding the public's perception of the complaint
process.
The CPD should change aspects of its citizen complaint
process that have the potential to discourage the
filing of complaints, and to impair their
effective tracking and resolution. Supervisors
should also receive appropriate training in
handling and adjudicating citizen complaints.
CPD policy requires, where circumstances allow,
that supervisors, typically sergeants, accept
incoming citizen complaints. Nonetheless,
both command staff and CPD offiicers acknowledged
being aware of instances where citizens attempting to
file a citizen complaint were inappropriately made to wait to
file their complaint with a particular sergeant,
or were told to go to a different district
to file a complaint. This may also discourage
the filing of complaints. The CPD should reinforce with
its staff that failure to accept a citizen complaint is
always unacceptable. In addition, while the CPD's
complaint policy allows complaints to be registered
in person, by mail, or by telephone, the policy
requires CPD employees to ask individuals
who attempt to register a complaint by telephone to appear
in person. This practice may have a deterrent effect on
would-be-complainants who fear retaliation or who
are simply unable or otherwise reluctant to
come to a police station.
We understand that it is the CPD's practice to allow
some citizen complaints to be deemed resolved
by a sergeant without being reduced to writing.
This practice interferes with the effective
monitoring and resolution of citizen complaints. We recommend
that a citizen complaint form be completed every time a
person enters a police district to make a complaint,
telephones the district to make a complaint,
or sends in a complaint by mail. Immediately
upon completion of the form, it should be assigned
a unique identifier (that is provided to the complainant)
and tracked by the type of complaint (e.g., excessive
force, discourtesy, improper search). This numbering and
tracking should be done by a central control desk.
In completing citizen complaint forms, the policy
encourages CPD officers to include an analysis
of the complainant's apparent mental and physical
description, specifically to describe whether "complainant/subject
exhibits any unusual behavior." This encourages
the CPD officer to make a number of subjective judgments
about the complainant's credibility and may provide the
officer with an opportunity to be dismissive of the
complainant. Furthermore, not only could such
judgments intentionally be used to protect
an officer who engaged in misconduct, but such an evaluation
may well be outside the officer's area of expertise. These
subjective judgments may therefore bias the complaint process.
We recommend this policy of encouraging or even allowing
such subjective descriptions be eliminated.
We also recommend that sergeants charged with accepting
citizen complaints be given appropriate training
on handling citizen complaints with an emphasis
on interpersonal skills. Additionally, supervisory
staff we interviewed gave varying explanations
for the appropriate standard of proof to be used in evaluating
citizen complains. CPD should provide training on appropriate
burddens of proof (i.e., preponderance of the evidence)
to supervisors who are responsible for investigating and
determining the outcome of a complaint, and the factors to
consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility
(to ensure that their recommendations regarding
dispositions are unbiased, uniform and legally
appropriate).
The City should clarify the roles of all entities
charged with investigating serious allegations
of misconduct by the CPD and it should provide
adequate resources for such investigations.
The City should better educate civilians and
CPD officers about the citizen complaint process.
We understand from our investigation that CPD's Internal
Investigations Section is responsible for investigating
complaints of serious police misconduct, criminal
conduct, sexual misconduct, uses of excessive
force and investigations directed by the Chief.
All other complaints, such as discourtesy, use of unnecessary
restraining force, lack of proper service or procedural
violations, are typically investigated at the district
level by an officer's supervisor. In addition to
these internal processes, three non-CPD bodies
receive citizen complaints: 1) The Office
of Municipal Investigation ("OMI"); 2) the Citizens
Police Review Panel ("CPRP"); and 3) the
Human Relations Commission ("HRC").
OMI, an independent review body initially created
by the City Council approximately fifteen
years ago in response to several shooting
incidents, was originally charged with reviewing and
investigating officer involved shooting incidents and any
otter wrongdoing by other City employees. According
to its past and current directors, OMI has
never had sufficient staff to carry out its
mission of investigating all serious allegations of mis-induct
by the CPD. They told us that OMI has had only two or three
staff people available to investigate the as many as 450
complaints per year it receives about CPD officers.
This information strongly suggests that OMI
is not sufficiently staffed. Moreover, even
when OMI does investigate an incident and
finds misconduct or deficiencies related to the incident,
there is no formal mechanism to ensure that the CPD
addresses the results of the investigation.
Finally, QMI directors, both past and present,
reported a lack of coordination between OMI and the CPD
when both are investigating bc the incident. Formal procedures
regarding timing, notification, and the interviewing of
witnesses should be developed to ensure that such parallel
investgations do not impair the effective investigation
of incidents
CPRP was reportedly formed three years ago as the
result of a media ion conducted by the Community
Relations Service. Although there is some
dispute about the scope of its authority, CPRP
is generally authorized to review all complaints alleging
police misconduct. According to its members, the
CPRP does not conduct its own investigations
of serious allegations of misconduct against
the CPD, but only reviews the investigations conducted
by the CPD and OMI. CPRP reports its ultimate findings
to the City Manager, although it is within the City
Manager's discretion to decide whether to
follow a recommendation made by the CPRP.
We understand that the HRC docs not investigate complaints,
but only attempts to informally resolve complaints with
the officer's chain of command.
To provide oversight of the CPD's complaint resolution
process and to aid in ensuring that citizen complaints
are handled in an objective and thorough manner,
we recommend that there be a non-CPD body
that actually investigates all serious allegations
of misconduct. There should be formal mechanisms for the
CPD to respond in writing to any discrepancies between its
own investigations and the one conducted by the non-CPD
body. In such cases, the CPD should be required
to explain, again in writing, how the discrepancy
was resolved, and why it was resolved in that
manner. Moreover, the CPD should conduct additional
community outreach to expand public awareness on how complaints
are adjudicated and how each of these investigatory bodies
function. Similarly, we recommend that members of the investigative
bodies be allowed to address recruits at the academy
and members of the rank and file to explain their purpose
and "unction. This will encourage an atmosphere
of trust and cooperation for future interactions.
The CPD should change aspects of the Citizen Complaint
Review Process ("CCRP") that may discourage
citizens from participating. The CPD should
also take measures to prevent inclusion of
a complaint in the CCRP from interfering with the
effective investigation and appropriate adjudication of
that complaint.
Citizen complaints that the CPD determines do not
require review by its Internal Investigations
Section are subject to CCRP, a "feedback"
session conducted internally by the CPD. The civilian
involved in the incident is asked to attend a resolution meeting
at the district with the officer and the officer's superisor.
Prior to the meeting, the officer's supervisor is suppoed
to investigate and adjudicate the complaint. The CPD intends
the CCRP to allow citizens and officers to air their concerns
about a particular incident in a structured setting and
perhaps, allow the CPD to clear up any misunderstandings
with the citizen.
Allegations of serious misconduct such as excessive
restraining force and unlawful searches and seizures
and handled through the CCRC. While the CPD
seems to regard complaints of the improper
use of restraining force as a minor matter, improper restraining
force, because it is an unreasonable use of force, is a
constitutional violation. Moreover, despite the seriousness of
these types of allegations, according to many senior
CPD officials, the most severe form of discipline
that can result from allegations deemed appropriate
for CCRP resolution, including excessive restraining
force and unlawful searches and seizures,
is an oral reprimand or an entry in the district's Evaluation
Supplement Log. Inclusion in the CCRP should not prevent
the imposition of serious discipline for serious misconduct.
Additionally, we were told by some of the officers
and citizens we interviewed that complaints
were considered resolved, without a full investigation
and an administrative adjudication, if the
complainant declined to participate in the Complaint Resolution
Meeting.3 Command staff also advised us that complaints
are sometimes considered resolved, simply because the complainant
is deemed to be "satisfied" with the explanation
provided at the meeting. We interviewed several civilian
claimants the CPD reportedly had deemed "satisfied."
They told us that they werc not satisfied
with the CPD's explanation and still believed
the CPD officer(s) had engaged in misconduct.
Complaints handled through the CCRP should be fully
investigated, and adjudicated, prior to a complaint
resolution meeting. Moreover, it should be
made explicit that the complainant's willingness
to participate in the CCRP, and the outcome
of any meeting (i.e., whether the complainant came away from the
meeting "satisfied") shall have no bearing on the
investigation or the adjudication of that complaint.
We also recommend that the CPD consider narrowing
the categories of complaints that are investigated
through the CCRP to those involving discourtesy,
rudeness or similar complaints. The CCRP should
not be used for complaints of excessive force, discrimination
or improper searches and seizures.
Finally, many people we talked to whose complaints
were desigrated for the CCRP objected to being
asked to attend a meeting, to which they were
not allowed to bring any kind of support person,
at the police station, with the officer and the officer's
supervisor. A number of citizens reported that they believed
this created an adversarial environment, intimidated them,
and discouraged them from participating in the process.
Therefore, we recommend that the CPD consider changing
where these meetings are held, having a higher
level supervisor or a non-CPD mediator conduct
the meetings, and allowing a support person
to accompany the complainant.
The CPD should increase and improve its interactions
with the community councils.
During our investigation, we spoke to a number of
leaders of the community councils that represent
the neighborhoods of Cincinnati. We understand
from CPD officials that meetings between these
leaders and the CPD are the primary way in which the
CPD interacts with the community. Officers attend meetings
of the community councils, and community council
leaders attend resource meetings at the police
districts.
However, we learned from some community council leaders
that they had never been invited to a resource
meeting, even though council leaders from
other neighborhoods within the same district reported
frequent invitations. We also learned that the frequency
of such resource meetings varied considerably between districts,
and depended on the inclinations of the district commander.
We recommend that these resource meetings be well publicized
(to ensure that all community leaders have the opportunity
to attend), and that the CPD require that such meetings
occur on a regular basis in all districts.
We were told by community council leaders and CPD
officials that community policing officers
(who are referred to as "neighborhood
officers") regularly attend community council meetings.
We recommend that all other officers who patrol that community,
not just neighborhood officers, be encouraged (whenever
schedules and resources permit) to attend community council meetirgs.
Finally, we were told of several incidents in which
neighborhood officers were abruptly designated to be trarsferred
to another district. We recomnmerd that such transfers
only be made with sufficient lead time to allow for a transition
period to a new reighborhood officer.
IV. MONITORING AND AUDITING
The CPD should centralize all information regarding
uses of force by its officers, and take steps to
ensure that all of its commanders fully use
this information.
In interviewing various CPD management officials,
we learned that while some general summary
statistics regarding uses of force are reported
in an Executive Information Summary, sufficiently
specific trend data (i.e., citizen complaints broken down
by type of complaint or use of force data broken down by
shift) is not regularly available to, or used by,
district commanders. This makes it difficult
for district commanders to measure and manage
the use of force by their officers, especially if
they are relatively new to their command. We understand all
of the district commanders have been in their current
assignments for less than a year. We are also
concerned by the opinion expressed by some
CPD command staff that the collection and review
of data by the Inspections and Planning Sections lessened
their responsibility to monitor the officers under
their command. Trend data must be available
to supervisors, and it should be made clear
that it is their responsibility, not just the responsibility
of the Inspections Section, to monitor this information
to ensure that officers under their command are using force
appropriately.
The CPD should centralize all of its disciplinary
information regarding officers.
We learned from a number of the district commanders
and other CPD management officials that the
complete disciplinary records of officers
are difficult to review because they are kept in
a number of different files housed in a number of locations.
For example, information about an officer's record
could be housed at internal affairs, OMI and
any district or unit in which they served.
Moreover, many of these files are reportedly not organized
or automated in ways that are conducive to retrieval. We
recommend that all disciplinary information (from the most
serious misconduct to the types of minor courseling
entered in district logs) be centralized and
automated.
The CPD should expand its review of firearm discharges
by its officers.
We're commend that CPD expand and normalize its mechanism
for reviewing firearm discharges to incorporate
a cross-section of division personnel who
will review the incident for compliance with
policy and procedure requirements, as well as for tactical
and training related implications. Ore way for CPD
to accomplish this is to designate formally
personnel to review the investigate files
and report to the Chief. Many police Departments
convene a special board to review all officer firearm discharges.
These boards hear presentations about the incident from
the internal investigations unit and determine whether the
discharge was within policy and whether any tactical
errors were made. At a minimum, such boards
typically include high ranking command staff
officials, a training academy representative, and a City
Attorney or Solicitor's office representative. Some departments
augment their boards with Field Training Officers, a representative
of the police u-.ion, and a community representative.
The CPD should institute risk management and audit
systems that track a wider variety of conduct
over a longer period of time.
According to CPD management, the CPD currently has
a risk management system that only alerts
CPD management or "flags" officers
who repeatedly engage in the same type of conduct within
a certain time period {e.g., when officers use chemical
irritant a certain number of times or receive
a certain number of citizen complaints). We
also understand that past risk management systems
have only tracked one year's worth of incidents. Reportedly,
the CPD is working on a new system that will flag officers
based on the accumulation of various types of conduct (e.g.,
some number of complaints plus some number of uses of chemical
irritant). We support this change.
In devising this new system, we recommend that at
a minimum the CPD account for shootings, uses
of force (including chemical irritant and
restraining force), citizen complaints (whether filed
with the CPD, OMI, the CPRP or the HRC) criminal charges
against officers, civil suits alleging officer misconduct,
and disciplinary actions (including counseling,
redirecting, and reinforcing). Moreover, the
one year time frame is too short and should
be increased. Finally, in regard to citizen complaints,
the CPD should track all citizen complaints. For
example, the CPD should track those complaints
that are not sustained because of factual
discrepancies that can not be resolved by the investigation. Non-sustained
complaints containing allegations of similar
types of misconduct (e.g., verbal abuse, use of excessive
force, improper search and seizure) should be tracked because
the repeated appearance of these complaints may indicate
that the officer is engaging in a pattern of inapprogriate
behavior. The resulting supervisory review of the
officer' s ccnduct should result, where appropriate,
in non-disciplinary corrective actions.
The CPD should standardize its auditing practices
and increase the scope and frequency of its
audits.
We were informed during our investigation that the
Inspections Section (the CPD body that is primarily
responsible for auditing) does not have standardized
procedures or checklists for conducting the
types of audits it currently performs. We recommend
that such standardization occur, to ensure @edits are thorough,
complete and consistent. We also recommend that the Inspections
Section conduct its audits on a regular and fixed schedule
to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency,
and reach all parts of the CPD (i.e., cover all five of
the districts). For example, we understand that the inspections
Section selected a sample of complaints that were processed
through the CCRP and attempted to contact the complainants
to evaluate whether the actions and views of the citizen
were captured correctly in the CCRP report. However, we
were told that such an audit does not happen regulating
We commend the CPD for conducting this type
of audit, but believe it should happen more
regularly, and should cover all five districts.
Such an audit should also examine whether there is consistency
in the CCRP across districts.
We also recommend that the CPD increase the scope
of its audit function. For example, the CPD
should monitor the frequency with which officers
charge civilians with resisting arrest, assault
of a police office", and obstruction of justice. The
CPD should examine instances in which particular officers use
such charges more frequently then their peers, because
such charges can be used to mask misconduct.
The CPD should also monitor patterns and trends
regarding officers' court acctivity (including
the dismissal of charges and officers' failure to appear
to testify). We also recommend that the Inspections Section
have regular meetings with the local pprosecutors to identify
problems in officer performance. Finally, we recommend
that the CPD audit investigations conducted by the
Internal Investigations Section.
The CPD should increase its crime analysis capabilities.
We understand from our investigation that the CPD
uses a crime analysis system that tracks calls
for service and certain types of crimes. We
recommend that the CPD take fuller advantage of
this type of system by tracking additional types of police
activity. For example the system should be used to
track pursuits and citizen complaints. To
aid in the better utilization of this system,
we recommend that the CPD add to its crime
analysis staff. This could be done by adding civilian staff
mergers or even out-sourcing crime analysis functions.
The CPD should require its officers to use mobile
video cameras in more circumstances, supervisors
should increase their review of such tapes,
and the tapes should be used by supervisors
for more purposes.
Currently, mobile vehicle cameras automatically record
when the police vehicle's emergency lights
are activated. Officers are only required
to manually activate the equipment when operating
in "emergency mode" for all traffic stops and
pursuits.4 We suggest that the CPD make greater use
of this equipment by enlarging those situations
in which it is required to be used. For example,
instead of making the recording of prisoner
transports optional, the CPD should give circumstances
(e.g., when the prisoner being transported is violent)
in which officers are required to activate
the recording device.
We also recommend that the CPD make greater use of
the tapes produced by these cameras. Currently,
CPD supervisors review the tapes, at random,
for general training purposes. We recommend that
the tapes also be used to correct or discipline officers who
engage in improper conduct. Moreover, supervisors
should be required not only to review any
tapes that may be relevant to a questionable
use of force or a citizen complaint, but should retain
and preserve those tapes beyond the current 30-day retention
period. We also recommend that the CPD eliminate an ambiguity
in the policy requiring supervisors to review tapes. The policy
states that "if applicable" supervisors should review
the tapes. It is unclear what "if applicable"
means in this context, and this ambiguity
may cause inappropriate failures to review tapes.
We also recommend that supervisors be required, rather
than encouraged, to conduct random checks
of the working condition of the cameras during
each shift.
The CPD should upgrade its communications technology,
ensure that officers responding to calls for service
have information about locations to which they respond,
and provide more guidance to its telephone operators
about the information they should gather from
callers.
We understand that the CPD is in the process of upgrading
its communications technology. We recommend that
this occur as soon as possible because the
current equipment lags well behind the state-of-the-art.
In general, given the considerable information
technology challenges the CPD faces, we recommend that
the CPD have a separate technology budget so that the funding
of technology does not come at the expense of other programs.
According to communications staff, they do not receive
information from CPD commanders about on-going special
operations. This lack of information can cause an
officer to be dispatched to a location by
the communications section in response to
a call for service without the officer being aware of other
police activity at that location. This could endanger the
officer or compromise police operations. We recommend
that the district commanders regularly inform
the communications section about on-going
operations.
We also recommend that the telephone operators be
given more guidance on the types of questions
to ask in particular situations. For example,
they could be given a script or checklist
to ensure that they obtain all information about the incident
being reported, which would reduce the chance of operators
speculating about details they forget to inquire about.
The CPD should consider having different scripts
or checklists for different types of incidents.
V. TRAINING
The CPD should provide adequate use of force decision-making
training, both for recruits and experienced officers,
and more in-service training in weapons use.
Training in "use of force decision-making"
should encompass both training officers to
only use reasonable force, and instructing
them in tactics and de-escalation techniques that can eliminate
the need for an officer to use force. En response to feedback
from our expert consultants the training academy instituted
a new course that covers aspects of use of force decision-making.
We applaud this addition to the curriculum. The
training academy staff deserves special recognition, not just
for their knowledge, dedication, and general effectiveness
as instructors, but also for their commitment
to constantly re- evaluating the curriculum
and their openness to new ideas to improve
officer training.
We recommend, however, that this training emphasize
how officers can avoid the use of force, or
minimize the force they are required to use,
rather than focusing solely on when officer are
legally justified in using force, and the types of force they
can use. Moreover, we recommend that this training
focus on discussions with officers about particular
scenarios (preferably taken from actual incidents
involving CPD officers) with the goal of educating
the officers regarding the legal and tactical issues raised
by the scenarios.
The CPD should also provide more in-service training
regarding both use of force decision-making and weapons
use. All CPD officers receive 3 types of in-service
firearms training. One day of firearms training
(divided between classroom instruction and
firearms qualification), one day of civil disturbance
training (divided between instruction in tactics to be
used at civil disturbances and additional time for firearms
qualification), and an hour or two of firearms simulation
training (which presents officers with scenarios
in which they make use of force decisions).
We recommend that the CPD provide its officers with
more in-service training in the use of firearms.
We agree with the opinion expressed by the
firearms training staff that firearm qualification
(which focuses on testing officer's current proficiency)
is not a substitute for firearm training (which focuses
on improving the officer's proficiency, safe handling skills,
and shooting technique). In short, testing is not the same as
training. Moreover, the CPD should provide additional training
a simulate the car ditiors officers will face in the field.
Specifically, we recommend that the officers receive night
training (the current use of glasses to simulate darkness
is not a sufficient substitute), and stress training
(i.e., training in using a firearm after undergoing
physical exertion).
We recommend that the in-service training, like the
new recruit training, provide more instruction
in use of force decision-making. Currently,
officers spend one hour in the classroom during
which they are read portions of the use of force policies
by the instructor. Rather than reading from the policies,
we recommend that this training, like the new recruit training,
focus on discussing with officers particular scenarios
(preferably taken from actual incidents involving
CPD officers) with the goal of educating the
officers regarding the legal and tactical
issues raised by the scenarios. This type of training is
so critical that a small amount of time using a simulator and
one hour in the classroom is not sufficient. Finally,
use of force decision-making should be emphasized
at every opportunity during in-service training.
For example, we observed a drill in which
officers were instructed to command a person to "stop and
drop the weapon," but, there was no discussion
or instruction regarding how an officer should
decide when and if to use deadly force.
The CPD should institute formal mechanisms for the
training academy staff to receive information
regarding incidents that may raise training
issues.
There is no formal mechanism for the training academy
staff to be notified about firearms discharges
by CPD officers. If provided with this information,
the staff could tailor its training to reflect
the types of situations actually encountered by
CPD officers. The training staff also receives no feedback
from the Internal Investigations Section regarding
issues identified during misconduct investigations
that may suggest the need for additional training.
The training academy staff does not meet with
the Solicitor's Office every time a civil suit is settled.
Such meetings could prevent future constitutional violations
and help the City avoid future liability. In general, the
more the training staff knows about the situations actually
encountered by CPD officers, the better able it will
be to provide for their training needs.
The CPD should provide greater incentives to attract
volunteers to be Field Training Officers (FTOs),
take additional measures to ensure officers
with troubling disciplinary histories are
not selected as FTOs, give district commanders
greater control over FTOs, and provide the
training staff and recruits with a role in the FTO program.
We were concerned to hear from many CPD staff we
interviewed that the CPD has trouble getting
a sufficient number of qualified volunteers
for these positions. We recommend that the CPD provide
additional incentives to attract the best officers to the
FTO program. Such incentives could include not only
greater monetary inducements, but non-monetary
incentives such as priority to receive new
types of training (annual and in-service, local
and national).
While the policy for selection of FTOs states that
an officers' disciplinary record should be
one factor in selection, many officers we
talked to reported that officers with less than stellar
disciplinary records were being selected as FTOs. This
may result from the absence, discussed above, of
centrally located, complete disciplinary histories
for district commanders to consult in making
their selections. We recommend that any CPD officer
who has a significant disciplinary history or who has received
a significant neer of citizen complaints (other than those
which were determined to be unfounded) be ineligible for
the FTO program.
We also understand that district commanders have
no authority to remove an officer they have
concerns about from serving as an FTO, but
can only refuse to assign that officer a recruit.
We recommend that district commanders be given this authority
and that selection to serve as an FTO be made for a limited
term (subject to reappointment if the district commander
believes that it is warranted).
The training staff at the academy should be enlisted
to provide feedback to the FTOs. For example,
designated sergeants from the training academy
should have a role both in the selection of
FTOs and in evaluating whether a particular FTO is retained
after a certain period of time. That role would include
providing input into the evaluations of FTOs.
Finally there should be a mechanism for recruits
to provide anonymous evaluations of their
FTOs. This will aid the CPD in better training
and evaluation of its FTOs.
CPD should form additional units to review and audit
training.
To ensure that lesson plans are consistent with department
policy, we recommend that the CPD institute a curriculum
review or curriculum development unit within
the training academy. In addition to core
academy staff, the unit should include field personnel
that represent a wide cross-section of the organization,
including CPD command staff (at all levels), and lawyers
from the City Solicitor's office. Moreover, we recommend
that the academy create an audit committee to ensure
that mandated objectives, and only mandated
objectives and approved lesson plans, are
taught by instructors, and that what is being taught
at the academy comports with CPD policy.
The CPD should have more exposure to the policies,
practices and procedures of other police departments.
The CPD management seems to have had limited exposure
to the practices of other police departments.
Greater exposure would provide the CPD with
access to new ideas and innovations. It would
also provide a valuable mechanism for re-evaluation of its
policies and practices in light of those used by
other departments. This exposure could be
achieved in many ways. For example, more CPD
officers could be sent to a greater number and variety
of law enforcement conferences. The CPD could also ask
outside agencies to review and evaluate its policies
and procedures.
In conclusion, we appreciate the cooperation we
have received from City and CPD officials
and look forward to continued discussion about
the issues raised by this letter.
Sincerely,
Steven H. Rosenbaum
1 We understand that as a result of feedback from
our police practices experts, the CPD is going
to change the canine policy to prohibit deployment
of canines in crowd control situations. |