Assessing the Las Cruces Police Department:
A Review of Community Perceptions and
Police Operations and Procedures
A Report Submitted to:
The City of Las Cruces
By:
Dr. Craig D. Uchida
Lt. Mike Wells
Ms. Shellie E. Solomon
With the Assistance of
Arturo Venegas
Don Mort
Russ Norris
Robin Olsen
Corina Putt
Nicole Rainey
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
August 2009
Assessing the Las Cruces Police Department:
A Review of Community Perceptions and
Police Operations and Procedures
Table of Contents
Executive Summary …………………………………………………. .iii
Section 1: Introduction and Background …………………………….1
Section 2: Community Perceptions of Police ………………………...6
Section 3: Police Operations ………………………………………….15
Section 4: Examining Police Processes and Practices ………………28
Section 5: Findings and Recommendations …………………………42
References ……………………………………………………………...47
Appendices …………………………………………………………….48
ii
Assessing the Las Cruces Police Department:
A Review of Community Perceptions and
Police Operations and Procedures
By
Craig D. Uchida
Mike Wells
Shellie E. Solomon
With the assistance of:
Arturo Venegas
Don Mort
Russ Norris
Robin Olsen
Corina Putt
Nicole Rainey
Executive Summary
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc. (JSS), a Washington, DC-based consulting firm specializing in
criminal justice and law enforcement issues, was the recipient of a contract from the City of Las
Cruces to undertake an assessment of the Las Cruces Police Department.
Specific Issues
JSS was asked to examine the following issues as part of its assessment:
 Evaluate use-of-force incidents, including supervision, tactics, and subsequent
investigations
 Assess internal police investigations
 Track community satisfaction with the police department
 Explore the department’s exposure to litigation and develop procedures to learn from past
lawsuits
 Identify best practices that will help police leaders develop and implement management
strategies that promote accountability at all levels
 Based upon the results of the assessment, develop and present a final report that will
provide definitive insight into whether a community oversight agency is needed and, if
so, provide a recommended methodology for establishing such an agency, its purpose,
objectives and authorities.
From March through April 2009, staff and consultants with JSS conducted 58 interviews of city
officials, residents, business people, and police; received 292 Internet surveys from residents;
iii
received 38 police officer surveys; went on ride-alongs with police; convened three ‘town
meetings’; and reviewed policies and procedures of the police department.
.
Findings: Use of Excessive Force Incidents
Citizens filed 42 complaints with 75 allegations of excessive use of force against the Las Cruces
Police Department over a three-year period (2006-2008). The LCPD data indicate that the
number of complaints has declined from 2006 to 2008. Nonetheless, none of the complaints for
use of force in Las Cruces were sustained. This leads us to believe that citizens are no longer
filing complaints because they fear that “nothing will be done.” This is in contrast to the
national average, where 8-10 percent of complaints for use of force are sustained. The number
of complaints for use of force is high and the lack of sustained complaints is surprising.
Recommendation 1. The police department must provide information regarding complaints,
allegations, and dispositions about use of force and other behavior on a regular basis to the
citizens of Las Cruces. The department must be transparent and open regarding these data and
information in order to re-gain the trust of the community. (See the recommendations below
regarding the Police Auditor).
Recommendation 2. The police department should make full use of its Early Intervention
System by reviewing reports and data about complaints regularly, by identifying, counseling, retraining, and/or disciplining officers who have multiple complaints, and reporting the findings to
the community regularly. [In its response to our draft report, the LCPD indicated that it was
using software to monitor employees on Performance Improvement Plans. This process began in
July 2009. JSS did not have an opportunity to review the new software and recommends that the
Police Auditor (discussed below) conduct a thorough review of the software and process.]
Recommendation 3. The police department should revise its use of force policy, adopt a stateof-the-art continuum of force model, discontinue training in the use of the Reactive Control
Model, and institute an immediate and comprehensive department-wide training on the new
policy and model, Further, the Executives of Las Cruces, including elected officials, the City
Manager, the City Attorney and the Police Chief, should formally advise the New Mexico Law
Enforcement Academy of Las Cruces’ intent to institute a Use of Force Policy that exceeds the
requirements of the Reactive Control Model and encourage the change in the requirements for
use of the Reactive Control Model for the State.
Finding: Internal Police Investigations
Recommendation 4. The police department should put together a Use of Force Review Board
that reviews all use of force incidents and makes a determination if the use of force was within
department policy. Board members typically include, at a minimum: a command level manager,
a supervisor, a training manager, and a use of force instructor. Results should be communicated
within the department and to the public.
Finding: Community Satisfaction with Police
iv
Residents in Las Cruces have mixed emotions about the police. On one hand, residents are
angry, frustrated, and upset with the way in which police officers treat them and the way in
which complaints are reviewed by the police. On the other hand, residents strongly support the
police and point to the lower crime rates, the friendly demeanor of officers, and the danger that
officers face. Within the department, officers see the same emotions from citizens. In addition,
officers note that interaction with the community could be better and suggest that more
communication would be helpful.
Recommendation 5. The police department must improve its relationship with the community
by developing a strategy for re-instating community-oriented policing. Among other things, this
means re-engaging the public through regular meetings, discussions, and focus groups, and
providing information routinely. Problem-oriented policing projects should be implemented and
taken seriously. A strategic plan should be developed that considers organizational changes in
deployment, beat management, targeted enforcement, and customer service. The department
should make a top-to-bottom commitment to community policing and its tenets.
Police Department’s Exposure to Litigation
The City and the police department have been faced with a number of law suits filed by residents
over the past few years. From 2000 to 2008, 26 lawsuits/claims were filed and $596,100 was
paid out in settlements since 2000. The City Attorney reports that of the 26 lawsuits/claims, 9
were settled, 3 were dismissed, 8 are pending and 6 claims were settled without a lawsuit.
One of the major concerns for the city is to determine whether a “pattern or practice” of police
misconduct has occurred across these law suits.
Recommendation 6. Review the lawsuits to determine whether a “pattern or practice” of
misconduct has occurred. (See the discussion below regarding the Police Auditor).
Findings: Best Practices to Promote Accountability for Management
Recommendation 7. Improve leadership and management throughout the police department.
Supervision and accountability appear to be inconsistent throughout the department. This
applies not only to disciplinary matters, but also to general supervision in the field and case
investigation reviews.
Recommendation 8. The police department should enact a report review process that is
rigorous and that places an emphasis on completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of the reports
written by patrol officers.
Recommendation 9. At the Training Academy, courses in search and seizure, crime prevention
and fear reduction, uses of force (legal issues), and report writing should all be expanded and
qualitatively improved.
v
Recommendation 10. Officers and Supervisors should receive regular, annual legal update
training, particularly in search and seizure.
Recommendation 11. Officers and Supervisors should receive additional training in report
writing. Supervisors should receive training on reviewing reports.
Recommendation 12. A “training needs assessment” should be conducted annually and
coordinated with the training bureau, PSU, sergeants, and command staff.
Recommendation 13. Officers should receive training during roll calls or briefings. We also
believe that current departmental policy should be changed to indicate that briefing training will
occur, rather than leaving it to the discretion of the supervisors.
Finding: Is a Community Oversight Agency Needed in Las Cruces?
Based upon our assessment and review of best practices we do not believe that a community
oversight agency or civilian review board would remedy the problems that currently exist in the
Las Cruces Police Department. Instead, we recommend the adoption of the “Police Auditor”
Model.
We found a number of problems and deficiencies within the Las Cruces Police Department that
cannot be remedied by a civilian review agency, if it is only investigating citizen complaints.
Recommendation 14. The City of Las Cruces should appoint a Police Auditor through the
passage of a municipal statute to review policies and procedures for the purpose of changing the
direction of the police department, preventing future misconduct, and lessening the potential for
liability.
Police Auditor Model
Police departments in the United States have adopted the Police Auditor Model because of
political compromise, lawsuits, or a consent decree issued by the US Department of Justice. The
focus of the police auditor is “organizational change” rather than the sole function of
investigating of individual complaints. This is not to say that complaints are not examined, but
the emphasis for the auditor is broader. Police auditors have two unique capabilities. First, they
are full-time government officials with the authority to probe a department’s policies and
procedures and second, as permanent entities they can follow up on issues and determine
whether prior recommendations for change have been implemented.
There are five basic functions of the auditor: 1) audit the complaint process; 2) audit police
operations; 3) review policies; 4) engage in community outreach; and 5) create greater openness
to police departments.
A small number of police departments in the United States have adopted the Police Auditor
Model because of political compromise, lawsuits, or a consent decree issued by the US
Department of Justice. The focus of the police auditor is organizational change rather than an
vi
investigation of individual complaints. This is not to say that complaints are not examined, but
the emphasis for the auditor is broader. Police auditors have two unique capabilities. First, they
are full-time government officials with the authority to probe a department’s policies and
procedures and second, as permanent entities they can follow up on issues and determine
whether prior recommendations for change have been implemented.
The formal basis of authority for police auditors varies by jurisdiction. In some cities the
position or entity was created by municipal ordinance, in others there is a contract, and in others
it is part of the terms of a consent decree.
There are five basic functions of the auditor: 1) audit the complaint process; 2) audit police
operations; 3) review policies; 4) engage in community outreach; and 5) create greater openness
to police departments.
Audit the complaint process. The auditor serves as a monitor over the police department’s
citizen complaint process. In Las Cruces the auditor should review the roles and functions of the
Chief, PSU and supervisor and make changes as needed. Definitions of complaints, allegations,
incidents and disciplinary action must be clarified. Forms should be changed and training of
police officers regarding the process itself should be undertaken. Lawsuits should be reviewed
to determine whether a “pattern or practice” exists regarding use of force by the police.
Audit police operations. In this area, the police auditor has the greatest potential for increasing
police accountability. In Las Cruces changes should be made in report writing, responses to calls
for service, implementation of community policing principles, and in problem-oriented policing
capabilities. Disciplinary systems should be made more transparent, consistent, and fair.
Review policies. Audits of the complaint process and police operations lead to new policies. In
many jurisdictions the ability to change the policies rests with the police chief, so the role of the
auditor would be to recommend policy changes. In Las Cruces, a thorough review of the use of
the force policy should be undertaken.
Engage in community outreach. The police auditor would meet with community organizations
to provide information about filing complaints, to listen to problems with the police, and to
bridge the gap that exists between the police and the community.
Create greater openness. One of the major problems with police departments is their historic
closed and secretive nature. The police auditor can overcome this problem through published
reports, documents, analyses, and discussions on a regular basis. By adopting a philosophy of
transparency, the auditor can create and implement an aura of openness to the public.
The police auditor must have a thorough understanding of law enforcement and bureaucracy. An
individual or team of people with appropriate skills can serve within the scope of the auditor
position. In some jurisdictions, consulting firms with a team of people fulfill the
abovementioned tasks.
vii
Section 1: Introduction and Background
Introduction
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc. (JSS), a Washington, DC-based consulting firm specializing in
criminal justice and law enforcement issues, received a contract from the City of Las Cruces to
undertake an assessment of the Las Cruces Police Department.
The City desired information about the police department’s relationship with the community and
a report to gain insight into the police department’s programs and practices to determine if there
is a need for a community oversight agency.
More specifically, the City requested that JSS:






Evaluate use-of-force incidents, including supervision, tactics, and subsequent
investigations
Assess internal police investigations
Track community satisfaction with the police department
Explore the department’s exposure to litigation and develop procedures to learn
from past lawsuits
Identify best practices that will help police leaders develop and implement
management strategies that promote accountability at all levels
Based upon the results of the assessment, develop and present a final report that
will provide definitive insight into whether a community oversight agency is
needed and, if so, provide a recommended methodology for establishing such an
agency, its purpose, objectives and authorities.
During a two-month period from March through April 2009, staff and consultants with JSS
conducted interviews, and surveys, observed officers on ride-alongs, convened three ‘town
meetings’, and reviewed policies and procedures of the police department. This report provides
details about community satisfaction toward the police, assesses the policies and practices of use
of force in the department, critiques the department’s current conditions and delivery of services,
and gives recommendations about enhancing and improving the services of the department.
On June 22, 2009 JSS presented its preliminary findings to the City Council and to residents in
attendance at the meetings. JSS also received feedback from the City Attorney and the Las
Cruces Police Department. The City Attorney clarified the civil suits and dollar amounts paid
through these suits. From July through the first week in August the Las Cruces Police
Department, a city official, and JSS staff conferred via conference call to obtain feedback and
clarification from the chief, deputy chiefs and other police personnel. We have included the Las
Cruces Police Department’s response to some of the issues that we reported in May 2009. We
have also made changes as a result of the department’s clarifications.
Background
Las Cruces is a city of approximately 91,000 people and is 77 square miles in size. It is the
second largest city in the state and is one of the fastest growing cities in New Mexico. Its police
department consists of approximately 177 sworn officers and 75 non-sworn personnel. In 2008
the Department reported 4,905 Part 1 crimes, an increase of four percent from 2007. Part 1
crimes consist of homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, auto theft, theft, and
arson. The city had four homicides in 2008.
The City of Las Cruces is governed by a City Council and Mayor. The City Manager works for
the City Council, and is considered the CEO of the city, handling daily operations. There are six
City Councilors and one Mayor, all elected by the community. Each councilor represents one
district. In November 2007, three new councilors were elected.
Description of Approach and Methods
To achieve the goals of the study, JSS took a three-pronged approach: 1) Determine community
attitudes toward the police and their practices; 2) Examine police administration and processes;
and 3) Assess current conditions and delivery of services.
Phase 1. Determine community attitudes toward police and their practices
A critical part of this study is to examine the community’s perceptions and attitudes about the
department and its delivery of police services. We interviewed residents and business people
from Las Cruces to hear their viewpoints, including complaints and praise. We held three town
hall meetings with residents and business owners and asked them about their relationship with
the police department. We developed and implemented an on-line community survey that
allowed input from a broad sampling of citizens to answer critical questions about the police.
Lastly, we conducted telephone interviews with people who have called the police to determine
how they were treated and their satisfaction with services.
Phase 2. Examining Police Administration and Processes
During Phase 2, we identified policies and processes now in place within the police department.
We looked for perceived and actual policies and procedures that related to the following:





Citizen complaints, the review process, disciplinary action, time of review;
Use of force incidents, reviews, disciplinary action;
Internal police investigations;
Accountability at all levels; and
Performance criteria
In this phase we also looked at best practices to seek answers to questions such as the following:
What opportunities exist to innovate or adopt/adapt peer “best practices” for improving
community participation and support? What are the potential barriers to transferring new
practices to the Department and how receptive are staff members to change?
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 2
Phase 3. Assessing Current Conditions and Delivery of Services
During this part of the study we examined the way in which police deliver services to the
community, focusing on issues that arose during the community interviews and town hall
meetings. We examined how much time is devoted to proactive, self-initiated policing by
patrol officers. We focused on issues related to partnerships with the community, problemoriented policing, and ways in which the department has changed to accommodate these
practices.
Methods
To accomplish these phases and tasks we collected both quantitative and qualitative data,
including:
 Individual interviews with all City Councilors, City officials, and criminal justice
officials (n=13)
 Individual interviews with residents (n= 17 )
 Individual interviews with 28 police personnel, including: executives (n=3), lieutenants,
(n=7), sergeants (n= 8), and line officers, (n= 7), and civilian employees (n=3).
 Police officer survey (n=38)
 Three town hall meetings with residents, businesspeople, and police (n=54+25+50=129)
 On-line community survey (n=292)
 Telephone interviews with people who have called the police (n=50)
 Observations of police functions as they are performed by supervisors, officers,
investigators, and staff
 Conference calls with Las Cruces Police Department personnel
 Review of police policies and procedures
 Review of civilian review and other external boards
 Review of police practices of comparable police agencies
 Review of US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division cases and consent decrees
 Review of research literature
Interviews
The purpose of interviews of City Councilors and city officials was to obtain background
information regarding the issues involving the police and the public. For each person, we
asked a series of open-ended questions (see Appendix 1). These interviews provided us with
the context for the study, as Councilors and officials discussed the issues surrounding the
relationship between the police and the community, the growth of the city since the 1980s,
and changes in the political and electoral landscape of the city and state.
We also asked the officials to provide us with names of specific individuals who would be
willing to share their experiences with us. These led to interviews with residents and
businesspeople. In addition, residents and officials came forward requesting interviews via
telephone call or email to the city or directly to JSS, which we granted.
For the interviews with residents and businesspeople, we were specifically interested in
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 3
hearing concerns about how the police deliver services to the community, whether specific
incidents occurred in the past that still have the community concerned or upset with the police
department, and whether oversight systems (accountability) were currently in place for the
police department.
Police Interviews
We interviewed 28 police employees, including the chief, deputy chiefs, lieutenants, sergeants,
line officers, and civilians. These interviews provided information about the department’s
policies and practices and culture. Areas of inquiry included issues such as community
interaction, supervision, calls for service demand, accountability, problem solving, proactive
versus reactive policing in the city, and organizational change. As with the interviews with
residents, we asked open-ended questions to gather information from police personnel.
Surveys
We developed an on-line, internet-based community survey to measure attitudes of a broader
audience of Las Cruces residents. The survey was uploaded onto the City of Las Cruces’
website and was available to residents for a three-week period (April 6-24, 2009). The survey
questions are in Appendix 2. While not a scientific survey, the responses gave residents an
opportunity to weigh-in on the issues and provided JSS with additional perspectives about the
police and the community
We hoped to conduct 50 telephone interviews with people who initiated contact with the police.
The police department provided us with a random sample of incident reports from 2008 that
provided the name, telephone number, type of incident, and brief narrative of the incidents. We
were interested in determining the person’s perspective of the police. Specific questions
included: how long did it take for the police to respond? How did the police act toward you?
How satisfied were you with police services? (See Appendix 3). Unfortunately of the 50 police
reports, we could only reach 12 residents to complete the survey. Sixteen telephone numbers
were disconnected, three did not wish to speak to us, and 12 police reports lacked phone numbers
or the number was illegible. Seven individuals could not be reached after numerous calls.
Because of the small number of respondents, the results are not valid or reportable.
To measure attitudes of the police toward the public and to obtain officers’ views of the
internal mechanisms of the department, we conducted an officer survey. During three roll
calls (morning, evening, and swing shifts), we distributed and collected the surveys. Thirtyeight officers provided responses (Appendix 4).
Town Hall Meetings
To obtain input from residents and businesspeople we conducted three town hall meetings on
April 3 and 4, 2009. The meetings were held at City Hall in District 1, an elementary school in
District 6, and Club Fusion in District 4. A total of 129 people participated in these three
meetings. During the meetings we asked a series of questions similar to those on the community
survey to elicit responses from the attendees.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 4
Observations
The purpose of observation (ride-alongs) was to assess the way in which officers work on
the streets. These observations provide insights into workloads, standard processes, staff
interactions, interdepartmental interactions, and department-community interactions. We
observed officers and sergeants during ride-alongs.
Policies and procedures review
We conducted a review of the Las Cruces Policed Department’s operational policies,
procedures, and practices. This review helped identify where “best practices” could improve
community-police relations.
Citizen complaints
We examined the Professional Standards Unit’s (PSU) system for addressing civilian
complaints and allegations against police officers. We looked at each step in the process and
analyzed data provided by PSU over a three-year period (2006-2008). In addition, some
residents of Las Cruces who made allegations of wrongful police behavior provided us with
their case files and information for our review.
Other information
We relied on research literature, discussions with use of force experts, 1 US Department of Justice
court cases and consent decrees, websites, and our experience with police agencies of similar
size (population and number of sworn) for other information.
Appendices are attached that provide the LCPD response to the draft report of JSS, references,
survey instruments, and websites.
1
Dr. Uchida conferred with Dr. Geoff Alpert, Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of
South Carolina who is the national expert on use of force by police. Dr. Alpert has published four books and over
50 journal articles on use of force. He is one of the consultants used by the National Institute of Justice, US
Department of Justice for its recent studies of the use of the Taser. Dr. Uchida also conferred with Dr. John Morgan,
currently the Deputy Director of the Office of Science and Technology at the National Institute of Justice who
currently oversees the Use of Force Working Group.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 5
Section 2: Community Perceptions of Police
Overview
Justice & Security Strategies engaged in a broad process for soliciting views from Las Cruces
residents. Multiple methods were used to reach as many residents as possible and they included:
individual interviews (in-person and telephone), Internet survey participants, Town Hall
Meetings, and a crime victim survey.
Interviews
Las Cruces City officials provided JSS with names of individuals for in-person and telephone
interviews. Other individuals came forward voluntarily through emails or telephone calls to the
city or directly to JSS. These individuals represented a wide range of the community, including
business owners, community association leaders, persons representing seniors, disabled, and
education, court officials, persons representing themselves as “watchdogs for the community,”
and parents.
We conducted nine telephone interviews and eight in-person interviews. On average the
interviews took about 45 minutes each. We asked general questions that elicited opinions on the
effectiveness of the department in dealing with crime, explanations of personal experiences with
police officers and the department, opinions of the relationship between the department and
community, and whether there was a need for an oversight board.
Findings
A majority of the citizens interviewed said they felt the department was effective in dealing with
overall crime in the community. However, that same majority either said they felt that a police
review board might be beneficial, or they did not have an opinion on it one way or another. A
few of the residents said they feel that part of the problem is the new residents moving into Las
Cruces, and their expectations of a certain level of service.
There were mixed opinions on the professionalism of police officers. Some had very good
experiences, while others felt their contact was very unprofessional and they received no help
from the police officers. Several said the police physically mistreated them and were unethical.
Others said police need to be nicer to people, describing the police as rude and discourteous.
Most complaints centered on how officers spoke and treated the public. Several people said the
police department is still an “old boys club” and needs to become more professional. One citizen
said the police do not work with the community enough. He said that it took a year to set up a
neighborhood watch meeting with the police because no one from the department responded and
when they did, they gave an excuse about staffing shortages. Other citizens said top police
leadership needs to retire.
A number of individuals told us about their interactions with the police and provided
documentation about the incident, including police reports, letters, court papers, newspaper
articles, art work, photos, and other material. After talking with each person, we read through
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 6
the files carefully. The police-citizen encounters that they described raise important questions
about appropriate use of force, review processes, and accountability. However, it should be
noted that we did not conduct a formal investigation of any event. We did not interview the
police who were involved in the encounter nor did we interview any of the witnesses who
observed the events. As a result, we cannot reach conclusions about the appropriateness or
inappropriateness of police actions in these cases.
One parent described the death of her son and said the police were not very sympathetic towards
her loss. She added she was also disappointed in the quality of the investigation and reports in
her child’s death. JSS read all of the police reports that were given to us by the parent. There
were many grammatical errors in the reports. One report had the word “(inaudible)” typed in
mid-sentence, referring to the typist’s in ability to hear or understand what the officer had said
when he taped the report. None of the reports had a supervisor’s signature on them to indicate
his approval.
Another citizen said he feels the police have targeted his family for many years. He described
one arrest of one of his family members as an “over-reaction” by having more than 30 police
officers at his home. He said his son was arrested and then released, and then arrested the same
day by another officer for another charge. After approximately two years of contesting the
charges, all the charges were dropped by the District Attorney’s Office the day before the trial
was supposed to begin. He feels that internal investigations are not handled appropriately, and is
now working with the State Department of Public Safety in pursuing changes in laws of
reporting complaints.
Another resident described an incident she was involved in several years ago with the police. She
was arrested for causing a disturbance in a government building. She told police she was
disabled, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a back injury. She said police
paid no attention to her injury and placed her on the ground and handcuffed her hands behind her
back, which aggravated her injuries. She was treated at the hospital, released and brought to jail,
where she stayed for two days. After two days in jail, a judge released her until trial. At trial, a
judge found her guilty. In doing so, however, he told the police that she should have never been
arrested, and that the police should have handled it in a different manner. The judge placed her
on six months probation.
On the last day of her probation, she was stopped for running a red light. She told the officer she
was disabled and suffered PTSD and might exhibit unusual behaviors. She disputed the red light
violation with the officer and the officer arrested her for refusal to sign a citation. She said she
had not refused to sign the citation – she was arguing with the officer about the light being red.
The incident was tape recorded by the officer, but not originally put into evidence. When she
went to court, the judge ordered the tape from the officer. After hearing the tape, the judge
found her not guilty.
She filed a complaint with LCPD over the incident, however nothing was found to be wrong
with the officer’s actions. She feels the police are too harsh with the community, and do not act
in a professional manner. She added that in her opinion the Chief must leave.
In another interview, a former police officer from the East Coast talked about his perspectives on
the Las Cruces Police Department. He has lived in Las Cruces for 20 years and said that there
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 7
are “system problems in the department – crime reports are not written and officers do not
respond to ‘nuisance calls’”. He thought that the community lacks trust in the police and some
are fearful of retaliation by the police. He said that people in his neighborhood will not call the
police because nothing would be done. When he has called the police about parking problems in
his neighborhood, the police response was “we don’t handle third party complaints.” He thought
that “cops make excuses for why not.” Lastly, he felt that there was no discipline in the
department, no professionalism, and there “was a lack of respect as a result.”
Another interviewee, born and raised in Las Cruces, told us that he was a victim of police
brutality. He read a statement about his incident with the police. He indicated that the police
came to his home after they received a call saying that he might be suicidal. He said that 16
officers surrounded his home in the early evening, virtually forced him out of his residence,
grabbed him, took him down, broke his glasses, and roughed him up during the course of the
arrest. He was arrested for resisting an officer, taken to the hospital and then released at 3 a.m.
Later the charges were dropped and he filed a complaint against the officer for excessive force.
Eventually, he received a letter from the police department that said that the ‘use of force was
appropriate’ and that no disciplinary action would be taken against the officer. In this case,
while the man’s story was compelling, it was difficult to determine whether the officer engaged
in excessive force.
Internet Survey Participants
In an effort to maximize opportunities for community input, an on-line survey was developed
and placed on the City of Las Cruces Website. On-line participants were asked the same basic
questions as those used during the town hall meetings. The on-line survey results went directly
to JSS. The survey was on the City of Las Cruces’ website from April 6 to 24, 2009.
The survey contained 10 questions about the police department, along with four user profile
questions. (See Appendix 3).
JSS received 292 survey responses. The survey is not a scientific sample, i.e. participants were
not selected through a scientific process and may not represent the residents of Las Cruces as a
whole. The findings from the survey are likely to be biased because those who self-selected to
participate most likely have a distinct view, either pro or con, of the Las Cruces Police
Department. This view may have motivated them to invest time to participate in the survey
whereas other citizens did not. However, because the number of respondents was large, the
survey does provide interesting and useful information. In addition, 130 respondents requested
copies of the final report.
Of the 292 respondents, we observed that a group of 88 respondents were from one city agency.
Those responses were markedly similar to each other and different from those of the other 204
respondents. We analyzed the data from the two groups separately and refer to them as the Large
Sample and the City Agency Sample.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 8
Characteristics of the Large Sample Respondents
Almost half (49 percent) of this group identified themselves as Caucasian and 41 percent as
Hispanic. Six percent were between the ages of 18 and 24 years old, 18 percent between the
ages of 25-34, 28 percent between 35 and 44, 25 percent between the ages of 45 and 54, 14
percent between the ages of 55 and 64, and 9 percent over 65 years old.
Almost half of this group (48 percent) lived in Las Cruces more than 20 years. Fifteen percent
lived in Las Cruces 1 to 3 years, 19 percent 4-10 years, and 18 percent lived in Las Cruces for
11-20 years. District Five had the most respondents with 24 percent; Districts 3 and 6 each had
approximately 15 percent of respondents; and Districts 2 and 4 had approximately 10 percent of
respondents. Sixteen percent did not report a district.
When asked about satisfaction with the quality of services provided by the police department, 63
percent of the Large Sample indicated that they were satisfied. JSS has conducted similar citizen
surveys using scientific methods and found that approximately 80 percent of citizens were
satisfied with police in Miami and Fort Lauderdale. Other cities conduct satisfaction surveys
annually and also have higher satisfaction rates. For example, 86 percent of citizens report being
satisfied with the quality of police services in Colorado Springs. 2
Along the same line of questioning, the majority, 64 percent and 62 percent respectively,
responded that they agreed that “on the whole, police officers are cordial and friendly” and that
“on the whole, the community supports the police.”
When asked about police work, over two-thirds of respondents (68 percent) agreed that officers
respond to calls in a timely manner. A slim majority agreed that they see police patrolling their
neighborhood on a normal day (53 percent).
Looking at police community relationship issues, a slim majority (51 and 53 percent,
respectively) agreed that they felt that the police department communicates effectively with the
community and that residents trust police enough to work together effectively on neighborhood
issues. Likewise, 52 percent felt that the process for investigating complaints within the police
department is fair to all parties.
Fifty-six percent felt that community policing is part of the department’s organizational
philosophy and is regularly practiced.
In answer to a primary question of the study, 53 percent felt that the citizens of Las Cruces and
the police department would benefit from a civilian review or oversight board. Over one-third
(35 percent) strongly agreed with this statement.
2
JSS conduct these surveys at the request of the City of Miami Police Department in 2000 and the majority of the
data are confidential. The Fort Lauderdale Report can be found at www.jssinc.org under publications. The City of
Colorado data are located at http://www.springsgov.com/units/budget/2009/20-Police.pdf within the City of
Colorado’s budget on page 20-5 under police performance.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 9
Characteristics of the City Agency Sample
Thirty-five percent of the 88 respondents identified themselves as Caucasian and 51 percent as
Hispanic. Five percent were between the ages of 18 and 24 years old, 17 percent between the
ages of 25-34, 42 percent between 35 and 44, 28 percent between the ages of 45 and 54, 7
percent between the ages of 55 and 64. None reported being over 65 years old.
Over half of respondents (52 percent) lived in Las Cruces more than 20 years. Six percent lived
in Las Cruces 1 to 3 years, 14 percent 4-10 years, and 28 percent lived in Las Cruces for 11-20
years. For the 88 respondents, District 6 had the most respondents from a council district with
28 percent. District 2 had 19 percent, Districts 3 and 5 each had approximately 13 percent of
respondents, District 4 had 9 percent, and District 1 had 8 percent of respondents. Ten percent
did not report a district.
Members of the City Agency sample had a much different view of the police than the Large
Sample. Eighty-four percent of the 88 respondents indicated that they were satisfied with police
services. Similarly, 84 percent and 80 percent respectively, responded that they agreed that “on
the whole, police officers are cordial and friendly” and that “on the whole, the community
supports the police.”
When asked about police work, approximately 80 percent agreed that officers respond to calls in
a timely manner and that they see police patrolling their neighborhood on a normal day.
Seventy percent agreed that they felt that the police department communicates effectively with
the community and 74 percent felt that residents trust police enough to work together effectively
on neighborhood issues. Similarly, 79 percent felt that the process for investigating complaints
within the police department is fair to all parties.
Seventy percent felt that community policing is part of the department’s organizational
philosophy and is regularly practiced.
In answer to a primary question of the study, unlike the Large Sample, only 24 percent felt that
the citizens of Las Cruces and the police department would benefit from a civilian review or
oversight board. Half of the group strongly disagreed with this statement.
Town Hall Meetings
In order to provide the community the opportunity to offer input into the assessment of the Las
Cruces Police Department, three community meetings were conducted. Several methods were
used to advertise the meetings, including newspaper announcements, public service
announcements, and the City’s Internet Web Page.
Three community meetings were held. The first took place on Friday, April 3, 2009 from 2:00 –
4:00 p.m. at City Hall. The other two were held on Saturday, April 4, 2009 from 10:00 a.m. to
noon at an elementary school, and from 2:30 – 4:30 p.m. at Club Fusion. Each meeting was held
in a different District within the city.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 10
Findings
A total of 122 individuals, including 53 women and 69 men, participated in the three town hall
meetings. Seven individuals attended more than one town hall meeting. Twenty-four
participants identified themselves as from District 5, followed by 15 from District 1, 13 from
District 6, 12 from District 2, eight from District 4, and four from District 4.
About 50 residents indicated that they had lived in Las Cruces for over 20 years, with over 20 for
11-20 years. Eighteen reported living in Las Cruces for less than 10 years.
Seventy participants indicated that they knew a police officer, 53 indicated that they saw police
patrolling on a given day and approximately 45 indicated that they had called the police, with 24
of these individuals reporting that the police responded in a timely manner. About 50 attendees
reported that police were cordial and friendly but 32 disagreed. About 50 felt that the
community supported the police generally.
The tone of each meeting was very civil and respectful and each included a crowd with a healthy
mix of opinions on police community relation issues. Issues of police communications skills,
police follow-through on cases, trust of police, and the concept of civilian review boards were
discussed at length.
With respect to police communications we heard comments such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“Police officer came to my door and was very polite.”
“Some are friendly, some are not.”
“I appreciate the officers – they are well trained and think of what we expect them to get
into in terms of situations – don’t thrown them under a bus.”
“Police, when they are not needed are very cordial, but when needed most, they are
almost rude.”
“Good police department, but they need to be more respectful”
“Don’t think there is any community between police and the public.”
“Police don’t take time to listen”
“Younger officers are not properly trained.”
With respect to the way police handle and follow-through on cases, we heard:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“One officer agreed to help with teens drinking and raided the place that had the drugs.”
“One officer was good.”
“Patrol officers conduct appropriate investigations but detectives refuse to followthrough.”
Within investigations “women are sometimes treated worse.”
“Nothing was done on my case that involved a hate crime, a federal offense.”
Police were too aggressive with what should have been a civil matter.
“Very disheartening to see officers waiting for traffic speeders when traffic is backed up.
Shouldn’t they focus on drugs and more serious matters?”
Records Department does not keep evidence correctly.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 11
•
•
Police should be more proactive in solving problems. Traffic violations mean more than
just a bunch of speeders in the town; perhaps the speed limits are too low and police
should work with traffic engineers.
“Police reports are slow and have a lot of things omitted.”
With respect to trust and community support of police, we heard:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“I worked with them through several incidents. I knew officers had my back and trusted
them. But there is always a bad apple in a group.”
“Trust? We are evenly split in community.”
“50 percent are for police and 50% are against. The problem is adversarial polls with
this effort. Many believe that this would be a bogus report. Perception is reality.
Supporting police doesn’t mean supporting behavior.”
“Police have to trust us. They work for us.”
“We need law enforcement to feel safe. Little thing of attitude [of police officers] getting
out of hand.”
“Trust is a two way street. Police have to trust the public and be able to accept
constructive criticisms.”
“I realize that it [policing] is a very difficult job but they have a higher level of
responsibility because they can use life and death force. They have a problem when
people don’t show respect for authority but it is hard to respect when the person feels
screwed and needs empathy.”
“A lot of people are afraid to talk because they think they will be pulled over and other
think it’s a waste of time because nothing gets done.”
“Trust? I agree with problems identified. We need a protocol for police reports because
the police throw away notes.”
“If you’re [JSS] here – there’s an issue – obviously something is going on.”
“If you ask for a police [officer] to provide id, they get mad.”
“The blue brotherhood is strong – family and myself have lost all faith in police.”
With respect to the concept of a civilian review board, we heard:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“Fundamental right to know how police behave.”
“See both sides of the issue. We need to come to a consensus. We all want to live and
work where it is safe. We are not here [at the town hall meeting] for spite but we want
accountability and to treat certain people different.
“We need checks and balances. The board wouldn’t have authority to fire.”
Reputation of the City goes down, insurance goes up, forgetting that people have issues.
“As a practical matter, I don’t understand why the City Council doesn’t want to form one.
We are paying out lots of dollars for lawsuits and that doesn’t seem to bother them. Fire
habitually bad ones as a practical matter.”
“Put a three-year sunset to see if it [civilian review board] has merit or not. If it sunsets
out, we can decide. It’s a chance to study the problem more.”
“Do we want a review board out of revenge? Sharp knife can cut in both directions –
help police as much as citizens.”
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“The board would recommend disciplinary action – listen to complaints and do
something about it.”
“It [civilian review board] would have problems with rubber stamping.”
“We care and love police officers – we want to be able to help.”
“I am very leery about creating another level of bureaucracy. We need a finite time for
implementing recommendations. What are the next steps and measurable outcomes that
are needed?”
“Tell us more about what a civilian review board is.”
“Number of approaches. What the function of the advisory board? Substitute for the
French guillotine? City government is an octopus with many arms. Advisory board is
seen as a positive step for public to go with a complaint and work with police to get a
better academy. It all depends on the approach to the problem.”
“Two sides to every story. It can be used to educate. We are not here to lynch. Get a
positive review board to educate all officials.”
“Need police to have society...We have a good police department but sometimes it won’t
work right. Occasionally people that should not be there are there. Our greatest need is
to TRUST them. Maybe some means of oversight would be a way of increasing the
trust.”
“Who’s going to trust a civilian review board? Police get due process but we don’t trust
who appoints the board.”
“Police should be evaluated every six months.”
“Review board would get matters resolved.
For certain things the Department does do an impartial review, but for others, they sweep
the case under the rug.”
“What is the PD hoping to achieve? What is the goal? What will be the cooperation
sought?”
“What is the role of the City Council? Aren’t they the oversight?”
As the comments demonstrate, while the town hall participants had mixed views, much of the
support was tentative, criticisms were harsh, desire for more accountability strong, and
consensus about options for accountability was absent, though support for some type of review
seems prevalent.
Crime Victim Survey
In an effort to obtain input from community members about the level of service they received
from the police department, JSS asked the police department to provide us with 50 random
names of crime victims during 2008. We asked for names of victims of burglary, car theft,
vandalism, robbery, and assault.
Findings
Unfortunately, out of the 50 police reports, we could only reach 12 residents to complete the
survey. Sixteen telephone numbers were disconnected, three did not wish to speak to us, and 12
police reports lacked phone numbers or the number was illegible. Seven individuals could not be
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 13
reached after numerous calls. Because of the small number of respondents, the results are not
valid or reportable.
Summary
Overall the residents of Las Cruces have strong views of the police, whether for or against, pro
or con. In our individual interviews and from participants in the town hall meetings, people were
emotional about their encounters with the police. Some were angry, frustrated, and cynical.
Others were more positive, yet defensive and at times argumentative about the police. Clearly,
feelings run strong about police behavior, depending upon the treatment that the residents
received from the police.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 14
Section 3: Police Operations
Overview
What are the major activities of the Las Cruces Police Department? How does the department
operate? How does the department communicate its intentions to its officers and the public?
How does the department account for its actions through supervision? To answer these questions
we looked at traditional activities (crimes known to police and calls for service) and qualitative
indicators for communication, supervision, and accountability.
In assessing a department’s quality of service delivery, we looked to the Las Cruces Police
Department’s mission, vision, and philosophy for guidance. On its website the department
indicates that its mission is to “enhance the quality of life in our city by working in partnership
with the community. We will do this by upholding constitutional rights, enforcing the law,
preserving the peace, reducing fear and providing a safe environment.” The department’s vision
is to set “standards of excellence in law enforcement through integrity, innovation and training”
and its philosophy is stated as “community policing is the key component of a partnership we
build with our citizens. We strive to provide service with respect, integrity and dedication.”
How well does the Las Cruces Police Department follow its mission, vision, and philosophy of
community policing? We focused our attention on three major tenets of community policing community interaction and engagement, problem solving, and organizational adaptation.
Traditional Law Enforcement Measures
Two basic measures of law enforcement have been cited by researchers, policymakers, and
police chiefs for decades – 1) crimes known to police and 2) calls for service. While these
measures are not entirely adequate to assess a department’s overall operations, they have become
a staple for the public and police to use as benchmarks.
Crimes Known to Las Cruces Police, 1985 to 2007
The Las Cruces Police Department, like 17,000 other police agencies in the United States,
provides data on a voluntary basis to the FBI on an annual basis. These data are on-line and in
hard-copy format through the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the US Department of Justice, the
Uniform Crime Reports of the FBI, and the New Mexico Department of Public Safety (NM
DPS).
Each year the LCPD sends data to the NM DPS which in turn sends the data to the FBI. Data
include the number of homicides, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults (violent crime), and
burglaries, larceny-thefts, and motor vehicle thefts (property crimes). Violent crime and
property crime are often referred to as “Part I Crimes” by law enforcement. Part II crimes are
also reported (for arrests only) and they include crimes like forgery, fraud, simple assaults, drugs,
weapons, prostitution, gambling, drunkenness, vandalism, stolen property, and ten others.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 15
Over the 22-year period of 1985-2007 the City of Las Cruces followed crime trends that are
similar to other cities in the United States. Figure 1 shows that from 1985 to 1995 the rates of
violent crimes increased constantly to a high of 996 violent crimes per 100,000 in 1995. The
following year, 1996, saw the number and rate of violent crimes start to decline. Violent crime
has fluctuated since 2002, with an uptick in 2006 but a downturn in 2007. Robberies and
aggravated assaults are the two main crime types that were committed during this time period.
The number of homicides per year range from 0 to 8 during this 22-year period.
Figure 2 shows the rates of property crime from 1985 to 2007. These numbers include
burglaries, larcenies, and motor vehicle theft. The rate of property crimes were the highest in
1989, stayed relatively stable for about ten years, and then began to decrease in 2001. In 2006
property crime rates were at an all-time low – 4,661 property crimes per 100,000.
The reductions in violence and property crimes can and should be attributed in part to the police
department. While there are on-going debates in criminology about who should accept blame for
high crime rates and credit for low crime rates, it is our belief that police have an effect on crime.
Visibility, interaction with residents, special units, and proactive and reactive activities all play a
part in crime reduction.
Figure 1. Violent Crime Rates
Violent Crime Rates in Las Cruces, NM 1985-2007
1200
1000
Rates as per 100,000
800
600
400
200
0
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Rates are the number of reported offenses per 100,000 population
Las Cruces Police Dept, New Mexico 2007 - Because of changes in the state/local agency's reporting practices, figures are not comparable
Sources: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 16
Figure 2. Property Crime Rates
Property Crime Rates in Las Cruces, NM 1985-2007
12000
10000
Rates as per 100,000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Rates are the number of reported offenses per 100,000 population
Las Cruces Police Dept, New Mexico 2007 - Because of changes in the state/local agency's reporting practices, figures are not comparable
Sources: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data
Calls For Service
Responding to calls for service and patrolling districts and neighborhoods have been a basic part
of police work since the patrol car and two-way radio were introduced to police departments in
the 1930s and 1940s. At its inception, responding to calls for service (and doing so quickly) was
viewed as a ‘professional’ way of doing business – that doing so served the public and led to
crime reduction. Since that time, however, researchers, police executives, and policy makers
have questioned some of the basic premises of police responding to calls for service. Studies in
the 1970s found that randomly patrolling an area of a city does not deter crime (Kelling, et al,
1974) nor does responding rapidly to calls for service necessarily result in the apprehension of
offenders (Spelman and Brown, 1984).
Today, police strategists recognize that simply reacting to calls for service limits the ability of
law enforcement to control crime and maintain order and distances the police from the
community. Police on patrol cannot see enough to control crime effectively -- they do not know
how to intervene to improve the quality of life in the community. The reactive strategy used
during the professional era of the 1960s and 1970s no longer is effective in dealing with complex
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 17
problems of the 21st century. As a result, other strategies have been developed and used
successfully to increase community interaction, problem solving, and crime reduction.
In our interviews with Las Cruces police officers they claimed that they were constantly
responding to calls for service. They said that they “go from call to call to call” during their
shifts and do not have time for community policing or problem solving activities. They also said
that they are responding to calls that are unnecessary or could be handled through other
mechanisms. These included: “cold calls” – incidents of vandalism, theft, burglaries, where the
perpetrator has fled the scene and the likelihood of apprehension is small because there are no
leads or evidence; and “false alarms” – burglar alarms that go off at businesses and residences
that prove to be false.
We found, however, that while patrol officers are being dispatched to calls regularly, the data
show that they and other units are also engaging in “police-initiated” activities.
We reviewed calls for service data provided by the police department. In 2008 the department
had 157,422 calls for service. Further examination of that figure however revealed that those
were not all “citizen-generated” calls for service that required an officer to respond. That
number is the grand total of “events” that the regional dispatch center –MVRDA documented as
“dispatch-related events”. This is an important distinction and should not be taken lightly, as
calls for service are used as an indicator of police work and citizen demand.
Included within the 157,422 calls for service are “police-initiated” activities. For example, if an
officer had a phone call pending or was out of service making a phone call, that event would be
assigned a call for service number. It also means that police acted on incidents that occurred
while they were on patrol. For example, they might have witnessed a traffic violation and then
initiated a traffic stop. Or a particular unit decided to take a proactive approach to a specific
crime problem. These police-initiated calls should be separated from citizen-initiated calls to
show police-inspired work versus call-demand from citizens.
The total calls for service include events involving those for animal control and code
enforcement activities, as they fall within the responsibilities of the police department. However,
these events should be separated from citizen and police initiated calls as they are separate and
distinct functions from patrol officers.
We reviewed three separate months of calls for service data for 2008 – February, May, and
October (Figure 3). Unfortunately, we were not able to obtain “response time” data for the three
categories of calls from the department, nor from MVRDA. That is, we are unable to report on
the time that it took for officers to respond to a call and how much time was spent on the call
itself. In the tables below we enumerate the top ten calls for service for three separate months.
Traffic stops are the highest, followed by code enforcement and animal related calls. In addition,
responding to alarms, suspicious persons, vehicles, and circumstances are consistently reported
each month.
Figure 3 shows the top 10 police related and code enforcement related calls for service for
February, May, and October 2008:
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 18
Figure 3. February 2008 Calls for Service
Type of Call
Traffic Stops
Code Enforcement/Animal
Control
Alarms
Suspicious Persons
Suspicious Vehicle
911 hang-ups
Non-Injury Traffic Collision
Information Report
Supplemental Report
Suspicious Circumstances
Domestic in Progress
Number of Calls
1, 977
848
513
402
371
317
275
266
240
202
201
May 2008 Calls for Service
Type of Call
Traffic Stops
Code Enforcement/Animal Control
Alarms
Suspicious Person
Suspicious Circumstance
Supplemental Report
Suspicious Vehicle
Information Report
Domestic Violence
Non-Injury Traffic Collision
Warrant
Number of Calls
1,694
926
534
394
308
305
304
286
282
220
204
October 2008 Calls for Service
Type of Call
Traffic Stops
Code Enforcement/Animal Control
Alarms
Disturbances
Traffic Collisions
Suspicious Circumstance
Suspicious Person
Theft
Suspicious Vehicle
Welfare Check
Vandalism
Number of Calls
1,728
1,392
639
618
480
405
372
204
178
127
126
Of the 157,422 calls for service, officers and call takers wrote reports for 32,868 incidents. We
learned that three call takers in the “Front Desk” unit wrote 3,115 reports in 2008, 3 thus police
3
The Front Desk unit, comprised of three non-sworn employees, work from 7:00 a.m. – 9:30 p.m., Monday,
Thursday, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. –Tuesday and Wednesday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and
Sunday. They sit at the front entrance of the police department and greet citizens as they enter. They are given
report taking calls by dispatchers at MVRDA, the call taking organization that distributes calls throughout the area.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 19
officers wrote 29,753 reports or an average of 303 reports per officer per year. Based on these
numbers we estimate that patrol officers, on average, write 1.53 reports per shift. 4
Findings
Police officers spend a great deal of time on calls that appear to be officer-initiated (traffic in
particular) rather than going from “call to call to call,” as they indicated in interviews. This
means that they have “discretionary time” to deal with problems within specific areas. It appears
that traffic enforcement is one of those priorities. These are laudable activities, if they are the
major problems in the city and are part of an overall strategy. However, it was not apparent from
our interviews that an overall strategy exists for dealing with major problems. It may be that
some lieutenants, sergeants, and officers are acting on their own to remedy different problems in
different areas in the city. This is speculative on our part, since we did not have the time to
examine this issue more deeply.
The total number of “calls for service” the department is using in its annual reports may be
misleading. A review of the annual report shows a three-year comparison of calls for service and
indicates that calls have risen 8 percent in those three years.
A more in-depth examination should be undertaken to determine the increases in police-initiated
calls versus code enforcement and animal control and other calls. While code enforcement and
animal control are responsibilities of the police department, these employees do not have the
same law enforcement authority as regular officers and as such their workload, authority, and
responsibility are different from patrol officers. The department needs to separate animal control
and code enforcement from officer initiated calls and citizen-initiated calls in future reports and
when using calls for service as a baseline for law enforcement activities. On the three - month
CFS review we conducted, there were approximately 1,000 more calls per month by including
the animal control and code enforcement calls.
Further research is necessary to determine the difference between officer-generated events and
citizen-generated events. This type of information would be useful in determining appropriate
staffing and deployment levels for present day and future needs. Without these data, the
department cannot accurately measure how much discretionary time officers have on each shift,
and what service level they are able to deliver to the community.
The department should also analyze response times for calls for service to have an accurate
measure of the time it takes for officers to appear at a scene and how long they spend at a call.
These measures assist the department and the city in making important policy decisions about
how to maximize the use of officers’ time. The amount of crime and disorder and the policing
style that a department chooses and that the community expects all have an impact on the
demands on an officer’s time. An officer’s discretionary time should be studied. What is an
4
We base this estimate on the following assumptions: Out of 177 sworn officers, about 98 officers work on patrol.
So, each officer could write about 303 reports per year (29,753 divided by 98 = 303). We estimate that over a oneyear period, officers work an average of 1,980 hours or 198 10-hour days/shifts. Thus, 303 reports divided by 198
days = 1.53 reports/day. This is a rough estimate, as it may be omitting other variables.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 20
officer doing when he/she is not on a call? When discretionary time is appropriately directed,
usually a positive impact on crime and neighborhood problems occurs and overall calls for
service begin to decrease.
Views from Line Officers
In an effort to gather patrol officer input, JSS conducted an officer survey with three patrol
squads. Thirty-eight surveys were completed during a dayshift, swing shift and graveyard
briefing. Respondents averaged 9.5 years of service, with a minimum of less than a year and a
maximum of 27 years of service. (See Appendix 5).
Police Management
The first question was about the department moving in the right direction. Fifty-five percent of
the respondents felt the department was moving in the right direction, while 42 percent disagreed
and felt the organization was not going in the right direction. One person had no response.
When asked if top department management has a good understanding of what the work is like of
the rank and file officer, 50 percent said they did not, while 50 percent said they did.
On the issue of rank and file officers being kept well informed of management’s policies and
plans, almost 45 percent said they were not, while 53 percent felt they were. One person had no
comment on the issue.
Asked if top leaders have made the department’s priorities clear, almost 53 percent said no,
while 47 percent said they felt department priorities were clear.
Discipline and Citizen Complaints
Almost 66 percent of the respondents said they felt the process for investigating citizen
complaints was fair to those accused. Twenty-nine percent disagreed and felt it was not fair to
those being accused, while two people had no comment on the issue.
When asked if discipline was applied in a consistent manner throughout the department, 71
percent felt it was not. Another 26 percent felt it was applied consistently, and one person had
no opinion on the issue.
Community
Sixty-six percent of the respondents said they felt the department communicates effectively with
the public. Almost 34 percent said they felt the department does not communicate effectively
with the public.
On the issue of community policing being part of the department’s organizational philosophy,
and regularly practiced, 69 percent agreed with the statement, while 29 percent disagreed with
the statement. Two people had no opinion on the issue.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 21
On the topic of community support, almost 50 percent said they felt on the whole, the
community does support them, while 45 percent of the respondents felt the community does not
support them. One person had no comment.
With regard to the police department benefiting from a civilian review board, 13 percent said
they felt it would, while 87 percent felt the department would not benefit from such a board.
Following its Mission and Philosophy
As mentioned above, the Las Cruces Police Department emphasizes “enhancing the quality of
life” of the city’s residents as its mission and following community-oriented policing as its
philosophy. As part of our study, we examined the implementation of community policing
within the department as part of police operations. 5
In general, community policing includes three major components – community interaction and
engagement, problem-oriented policing, and organizational adaptability or change.
Community Interaction and Engagement. From the extensive literature on community
policing, we know that it is founded on the premise that police must first develop respect, trust,
and support with the community (interaction). Second, police must then build upon this
foundation through a series of active partnerships (engagement) with the community. This is
clearly the most important facet of community policing. If trust and support are non-existent,
then there is no “community” policing. To measure this component, we ask: are officers,
supervisors, commanders, and civilians working with the community? Have they gained their
trust and respect? Do active partnerships exist with the community?
To a large extent, community interaction and engagement calls for police to become fully
immersed in the culture, structure, and activities of the communities they serve. They must
provide information to the community continually, not just in an ad hoc manner. The role of the
police in the community places emphasis on helping the community establish and/or maintain
social order by assisting in alleviating social problems that may lead to crime. How engaged is
LCPD in order maintenance? Does the department routinely provide information to the
community? Is there really a working partnership between LCPD and the community?
Problem-oriented policing or problem solving. Herman Goldstein first called attention to
problem solving as an alternative to traditional law enforcement strategies in 1979. He saw that
officers went from call to call to call, never delving into a situation long enough to deal with its
root causes or stopping long enough to figure out a long term solution. The SARA model has
become the standard for departments to follow. Basically this involves scanning the problem,
5
It should be noted here that the JSS team was comprised of national experts in community oriented policing. While
at the US Department of Justice, Dr. Craig D. Uchida was one of seven individuals at the Department who first
established the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office). As Assistant Director of Grants
Administration, Dr. Uchida was responsible for an annual budget of $1.3 billion, for hiring 100,000 community
policing officers and for implementing community policing nationally. Ms. Shellie E. Solomon was the budget
officer and supervisor at the COPS Office. Lt. Mike Wells was the program director in community policing within
the Concord (CA) Police Department, Sgt. Russ Norris trains officers in California on problem solving and
community policing, and Chief Don Mort of Dixon, CA and Chief Arturo Venegas of Sacramento, CA implemented
community policing throughout their agencies.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 22
analyzing the depths of the problem, responding with appropriate solutions conducive to a longterm resolution, and assessment of the problem solving strategy (Goldstein, 1990).
Tailoring solutions to specific community problems is a crucial component of problem solving
strategies. Does problem solving take place in LCPD? Do officers follow the SARA model? Do
first line supervisors’ support and demand problem solving as the way to do business?
Organizational Adaptation. In order for an organization to engage and interact with the
community and to problem-solve, the police culture, attitudes, and structure need to be reexamined. There are a number of ways in which organizational change can occur. These include
improving leadership and management; changing the organizational culture; modifying
organizational structures; enhancing research and planning; and re-engineering an assortment of
traditional areas like policies and procedures, and call management strategies and policies. How
much change has occurred? How have officers, supervisors, executives, and civilians adapted to
the changes? These are the basic standards that we use to measure the extent of organizational
change and community policing in Las Cruces. We now turn to our findings regarding these
issues.
Findings: Community Interaction and Engagement
In the police department, we interviewed the Chief and two Deputy Chiefs, all 7 Lieutenants, 8
Sergeants, 7 Officers, and 3 civilian employees. We conducted 38 patrol officer surveys, and
participated in three patrol ride-alongs.
From our interviews, observations, and surveys of police department personnel, we found that
the department as a whole lacks the level of community interaction and engagement that it needs
to develop trust, respect, and support from the community.
Community interaction – meetings with associations, neighborhood groups, community activists,
and business groups -- is minimal throughout the agency. Public events and public forums are
rarely held by the department. Many employees stated that “promoting the department” or
explaining things to the public about police incidents were not done. This is especially true
when the case involves a police department employee. One employee made the comment, “A
sergeant recently drove intoxicated and left the scene of an accident - I’m glad it made it to the
paper. It needs to be investigated.” Another employee stated, “The no comment philosophy has
hurt the department in community relations.”
Employees from the rank of lieutenant to line officers were interviewed about community
interaction. Their responses were mixed – most felt that overall the relationship with the
community was good – not great. Many felt that the department needed to do a better job on
working with the community. Specific comments included:
 “The citizens are disconnected from what the police department does.”
 “The majority of citizens support LCPD but they are silent. The vocal minority is
heard again and again but they do not represent the feelings of the community.”
 “Overall the community/police relationship is good. However, the department
doesn’t reach out as much as we could.”
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 23
 “Officers need to take more time to talk and explain to people what they are doing.
Most officers feel they don’t have enough time –going from call to call.”
 “I think overall it is OK, however the community needs to know more about the
police department.”
 “LCPD Mobile Ops Command sends mixed messages to the community. Community
outreach combined with strong enforcement tactics doesn’t work – we need to change
the approach.”
 “Shouldn’t push public away from us, we need to work with them.”
 “The community doesn’t call, they go direct to city hall.”
The lack of community interaction and engagement is also evident in its crime prevention and
neighborhood watch approach. Currently there is no crime prevention bureau or personnel
assigned to conduct crime prevention or to attend neighborhood watch meetings on a regular
basis. This duty is given to a detective, as an “extra” assignment. Many police employees
interviewed admitted that the department needs to start participating in neighborhood meetings
again. Police employees gave many reasons for why it was not being done –such as: “the
officers do not like to go to these meetings; some officers are lazy; we are too busy going from
call to call to attend a meeting”.
The department does have a full time non-sworn, public information officer, however it appears
his primary focus is to issue press releases on matters of public interest. Last year, in 2008, 375
press releases were issued. The police department does have a home page on the City website,
however upon reviewing it, we found it to be not very user friendly. It was not very informative
and did not tell the user much about the Las Cruces Police Department, or how to find
information.
On ride-alongs we found the officers to be friendly and professional with the public. All the
officers we rode with said that the volume of calls that they are responding to impacts their
ability to relate with the community. Officers said they are going from call to call, and feel that
they do not have time to talk with residents about problems in their neighborhoods.
One outreach program is called Mobile Operations Command (MOC). A police Recreational
Vehicle is parked in a neighborhood for several weeks. The intent is to serve as a mobile field
office to perform two roles -- directed enforcement and community outreach/access. From
comments of several employees, it appears the community appreciates the presence of the MOC,
but the department has received at least a few complaints of the appearance of a “military-like
takeover” of the neighborhood. Officers distribute crime prevention information, but also search
for wanted persons in the area, gather intelligence and information, and conduct directed
enforcement on a variety of violations that might be occurring in the area.
Also under the jurisdiction of the police department is the Code Enforcement Unit. The unit is
responsible for enforcing all city codes, such as graffiti, weed abatement, and enforcement of
handicap parking. The unit’s outreach includes: neighborhood pride zones, cleanup fairs, and
assisting the police with MOC. Neighborhood Pride Zone is a program where code enforcement
officers go into a 2-3 block area in the community for one week. They have trash dumpsters that
they deliver into area for residents, along with tools that residents can borrow to work on their
houses. This service is apparently very popular with the community.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 24
The police chief and some members of the police department disagree with the JSS findings
related to community policing. They believe that they have instituted and continue to implement
community policing activities in the city. The LCPD’s official position and additional
information about its community policing activities are in Appendix 1.
Findings: Problem Solving
Problem solving is another element described in the literature as a fundamental component of
community policing. In interviews, we asked: does problem solving take place in LCPD? Do
patrol officers engage in problem oriented policing in their districts?
From interviews and observations of police personnel, it appears that problem oriented policing
occurs on a very limited basis in the patrol bureau by the average patrol officer. It appears most
of the true problem solving occurs in the Targeting Neighborhood Threats Unit (TNT).
Reasons for the lack of problem-oriented policing varied. The most common answers we
received from employees were: “we are too busy going from call to call.” Supervisors added
that most officers are just “call takers and get burnt out.” Another supervisor said: “We don’t do
community policing anymore. We are reactive now and just stomp out fires. We didn’t have the
desire to do community policing anymore. The COPS grant ended and so did our community
policing.”
In the patrol briefing room we observed a “POP” (problem oriented policing) board that listed a
number of problem solving activities. It had 10 items listed on it, dating back to August 2008.
There was very little information written about the problem, other than location and times.
When we asked one supervisor about the board, his comment was “the POP board is a joke.”
We asked several supervisors about how much discretionary time officers have to do problem
solving. For a ten-hour swing shift we were told officers might have 2 hours of discretionary
time. One supervisor told us most officers’ average 4-5 reports per night per shift.
A swing shift supervisor actually showed us statistics from 2008 for a swing shift. It showed the
average officer writing 22 reports per month. Similarly, a graveyard supervisor showed us
statistics from 2008 for a graveyard shift. It showed officers writing only 21 reports per month.
Both of these report totals would average to less than two reports per night per officer, for a onemonth period.
We asked a patrol officer to describe to us what officers would do if there was a problem house,
(such as a suspected drug house) in their district. The officer said they would try and work the
problem by doing extra patrol of the house. If that didn’t work, they could fill out a “POP” form
and ask for help from the other district officers, and from the TNT Unit (Targeting
Neighborhood Threats Unit).
The TNT unit is a specialized unit dealing with problems in the community. They assist patrol
and other units within the police department. A lieutenant commands it and he oversees a
sergeant and four officers. During interviews with TNT personnel, we observed a “Solution
Oriented Policing” form, which is computerized and available throughout the department. The
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 25
form has basic categories of: 1) Threat Description, 2) Proposed Solution, 3) Action Taken, and
4) Results.
As a result of our draft report, the LCPD reported that it has been engaged in 34 problem-solving
projects of which 13 have been completed, with the other 21 still in various stages of completion
(See Appendix 1). JSS did not review the projects or written material about them projects and as
a result cannot comment about their substance.
Findings: Organizational Adaptation
From our time spent at the department conducting interviews and making observations, it does
not appear Las Cruces Police Department has made the fundamental changes to support an
environment of community interaction and engagement and problem solving.
Organizationally, community policing is at a standstill and no changes have occurred in the last
five years. We heard that community policing was abandoned because of budget cuts, but in
many departments across the country, resources are not always necessary for community
policing to flourish.
Some officers are more than willing to re-engage in community policing activities, but have been
stifled in their attempts to do so. This was reinforced through the many comments we received
from all levels of the organization that there is no real community engagement and problem
solving occurring. We found that employees who spoke to us were very candid and direct about
this matter.
Another example of the lack of adapting community policing into the organizational culture is
the lack of mention of community policing in the Performance Appraisal for Uniform Services
Division. We reviewed performance criteria and there was no mention about problem solving or
community interaction and engagement as it related to community-policing practices.
The final example that supports our finding is the lack of re-engineering of an assortment of
traditional policies and procedures that exist, which could begin organizational change. Policies
such as how calls are received and handled, district configuration, priority of calls, and several
others have not been examined. This area of policies and procedures will be discussed further in
the section dealing with Examining Police Procedures and Practices.
Findings: Communication within the Organization
From our observations and interviews of police personnel, a consistent flow of communication
within the department is lacking. The most frequent comment we heard was that there is no
communication coming down from the Chief and Deputy Chiefs’ Offices.
(In contrast to our interviews, in our survey of 38 police officers, over half (53 percent) thought
they were kept well informed of management’s policies and plans, while 45 percent felt they
were not. One person had no comment on the issue.)
Many people we talked to said they have no idea what direction the department is headed, as
they never hear anything from top leadership in regards to vision and strategic planning. One
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 26
police employee described communication within the department as “good going uphill, terrible
coming down.” Another employee described the current administration as having the “no
comment philosophy.”
When we asked police officers if top leaders had made the department’s priorities clear, almost
53 percent said no, while forty-seven percent said they felt department priorities were clear.
Staff meetings for Lieutenants and Civilian Managers are supposed to be held every two weeks.
Numerous employees described the meetings as unstructured and not useful. Many said it is rare
when decisions are made in those meetings about organizational issues. Most of the time items
are discussed and then tabled until a later date, if at all. This lack of decision-making causes
frustration with attendees.
There are no minutes taken at the meetings, so recall and perspective of the discussions held
varies amongst attendees. This creates a problem, when managers brief their employees on what
occurred, and the recall is different amongst managers. There are no staff meetings for Sergeants.
Numerous employees also commented about how the lack of communication in employee
discipline matters has created confusion, difficulty, and rumors within the department. Managers
and supervisors realize information on discipline matters have to be limited because of personnel
rules. However all told us that the “no comment and do not discuss at all” order that has been
issued from either the Chief’s Office or Deputy Chief’s Office on numerous occasions, does
more harm than good and just starts rumors. They added that it is not good for organizational
morale.
Findings: Supervision and Accountability
From our many interviews and observations, supervision and accountability appear to be
inconsistent throughout the department. This applies not only to disciplinary matters, but also to
general supervision in the field and case investigation reviews.
When we asked about the inconsistencies, we were told there are several reasons. Some
managers and supervisors felt there are too many administrative duties for sergeants that keep
them inside the office, instead of being out in the field. Others said it is the lack of training for
sergeants on proper supervision. And others felt some supervisors just do not hold people
accountable.
The policies and procedures we reviewed are directly related to this area, and highlight the
importance of re-engineering department policies and procedures to increase accountability and
supervision. Areas such as use of force and report reviews are critical elements of supervision
and accountability. This area will be discussed further in the next section.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 27
Section 4: Examining Police Processes and Practices
In examining the effectiveness of a police department and its personnel, we must look at the
policies that govern their functions and roles. We identify those policies, practices, and
processes now in place; the effectiveness of their use; and related opportunities for personnel to
become more efficient and effective. We look for perceived and actual policies and procedures
that would impact service delivery to the community, create possible liability issues, and time
management problems. For this examination process we interviewed police personnel, reviewed
data and reviewed actual LCPD policies. In this section we describe policies governing the
investigation of complaints, use of force review, report review, and training.
The Complaint Process: Investigations
The investigations of complaints are handled as administrative investigations by the Professional
Standards Unit (PSU). Complaints are categorized into two types: Internal and External.
Internal Investigations (II) are generated for a variety of reasons and are generally initiated
within the department. This type of investigation may occur when there is an internal allegation
related to misconduct or operational actions of employees on or off duty. Internal Investigations
may be derived from a concluded criminal investigation or from some other source within the
agency.
Generally, unless serious or complex in nature, these operational concerns are investigated by the
employee’s chain of command and then forwarded to PSU for tracking and filing. The PSU is
responsible for conducting Internal Investigations of a serious nature.
External Investigations (EI) are categorized by two separate methods: Formal or Informal.
These investigations are generated when a citizen makes an allegation of misconduct of a serious
or non-serious nature, or nonperformance of duty is filed against an employee of the Department.
Examples of this type of investigation would include allegations such as excessive force, illegal
search and seizure, false arrest, civil rights violations, quality of service, professionalism,
attitude, disparate treatment or unresponsiveness to the community.
Category 1 (Formal)
The Professional Standards Unit will investigate External Investigations (EI-C1) that
requires extensive follow up. This may include complaints involving three or more nondepartmental witnesses, complaints that are pending civil litigation, or other complaints
as directed by the Chief of Police or the PSU Commander.
Category 2 (Informal)
Category 2 External Investigations (EI-C2) involves allegations of a non-serious nature
where the citizen elects not to pursue a formal investigative process. The citizen may
simply request notification be made to the supervisor for informational purposes only.
The complaint will be classified as an EI-C2 and closed within the PSU. These
complaints are not tracked.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 28
The department currently uses a tracking system called “IA Professional”. It is commercially
purchased software and is used by many agencies in the United States. It was implemented by
LCPD approximately three years ago. It has the capability of tracking and analyzing numerous
types of policies and incidents, and producing numerous reports. The system also has an “Early
Intervention System” (EIS). EIS was implemented within the last year.
The EIS was established to provide a systematic review of complaints or other incidents received
or generated by the Department. The EIS is administered by the Professional Standards Unit
(PSU) and is designed to highlight tendencies in complaints and other incidents. An alert for
supervisory review will be generated by the EIS for those officers and other employees who
meet internally established thresholds for the number of complaints received, officer involved
shootings, failure to appear, uses of force, vehicle pursuits, tort claims, and driving complaints.
The alert will be sent to the officer’s chain of command and will include the officer’s name and
the reason the officer was identified. The officer’s commander is supposed to review similar
incidents involving the officer within the previous twelve-month period. The officer’s
commander or supervisor is then supposed to generate a report to PSU detailing the results of the
review and any action taken. Such action can include no action taken, verbal counseling,
remedial training, or a “fitness for duty” evaluation.
Types of Complaints and Their Findings
Counting Complaints and Allegations
The Las Cruces Police Department provided JSS with the number of citizen complaints and
allegations against individual officers over a three-year period -- January 1, 2006- December 31,
2008.
For each complaint, a citizen may claim that one or more officers were involved in the incident;
thus each complaint includes at least one allegation and perhaps more, depending upon the
incident.
Figure 4. Civilian Complaints and Allegations Against LCPD Officers, 2006-2008
Type of
Number of
Number of
Dispositions of
Complaint
Complaints
Allegations
Allegations
Discourtesy/Rudeness
74
100
Excessive Force
42
75
Unsatisfactory
27
49
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Exonerated: 27
Not Sustained: 19
Sustained: 15
Unfounded: 32
Inactivated: 2
Officed: 1
No Data Entered: 4
Exonerated: 51
Not Sustained: 5
Sustained: 0
Unfounded: 18
No Dispo provided: 1
Exonerated: 22
Not Sustained: 12
Page 29
Performance
Procedural – Code of
Conduct
?
Property/Evidence
Mishandling
?
34
22
?
Search & Seizure
17
Treatment of
Prisoners
?
6
Totals
?
303
Sustained: 5
Unfounded: 9
Officed: 1
Exonerated: 4
Not Sustained: 5
Sustained: 15
Unfounded: 8
Inactivated: 1
No Finding: 1
Not Sustained: 4
Sustained: 6
Unfounded: 9
Officed: 1
Office Investigation: 2
Exonerated: 4
Not Sustained: 0
Sustained: 5
Unfounded: 2
Officed: 2
Office Investigation: 1
No Data Entered: 3
Exonerated: 1
Sustained: 4
Unfounded: 1
Definitions of findings
The police department provided the following definitions -1. Exonerated: Personnel’s conduct was lawful, justified and proper.
2. Not sustained: Insufficient evidence exists to clearly prove or disprove the allegation.
3. Sustained: conduct alleged apparently occurred and amounts to misconduct.
4. Unfounded: Act alleged apparently did not occur.
5. Office Investigated: Complainant failed to cooperate with the investigation and there is
not enough evidence available to draw a fair conclusion and apply a finding.
Findings
From the data provided by the LCPD we know that 303 allegations were made against LCPD
officers over a three-year period.
Of the allegations, nearly one-third (100) are for discourtesy and rudeness, one-quarter (75) are
for excessive force, 16 percent for unsatisfactory performance, 11 percent for code of conduct,
seven percent for mishandling evidence or property, nearly six percent for search and seizure
problems, and two percent for treatment of prisoners.
Over 16 percent of the total number of allegations were sustained (n=50). Of these, 4 of 6
allegations of treatment of prisoners were sustained, five of 17 search and seizure complaints
were sustained, six of 22 mishandling of evidence, 15 of 34 codes of conduct, and 5 of 49 for
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 30
unsatisfactory performance, 15 of 100 for rudeness. It should be noted that no complaints for use
of excessive force were sustained.
Excessive Force Complaints, Allegations, and Officers
Of particular interest to this study is the number of complaints made against the Las Cruces
Police Department for excessive force. During the three-year period of 2006 to 2008, 42
complaints were filed against the police department for excessive force involving 63 officers
with 75 allegations. Figure 5 shows the numbers as reported by the LCPD.
Figure 5. Excessive Force Complaints, Allegations, and Officers, 2006-2008
Year
Number of
Number of
Number of officers
Complaints
Allegations
involved in
allegations
2006
21
37
29
2007
14
24
20
2008
7
14
14
Total
42
75
63
The LCPD indicates that in 2006, 21 complaints were filed, involving 29 officers with 37
allegations. LCPD reports that an officer could be involved in multiple complaints, thus there is
not a one-to-one match between the number of allegations and officers, with the exception of
2008 when 14 officers were alleged to be involved in seven complaints.
In 2002, the national average for cities with 100-249 sworn officers is 7 complaints per year per
department for use of force incidents. 6
When we standardize these numbers based on a per 100 full-time sworn officer basis, the rate for
Las Cruces is as follows: for 2006, 11.8 use of force complaints per 100 officers; for 2007, 7.9
complaints per 100 officers and for 2008, 3.9 complaints per 100 officers (Figure 5).
Nationally, the rate is 6.6 per 100 officers (all policing agencies) and 4.2 complaints per 100 fulltime sworn officers for agencies with 100-249 officers. In 2006 and 2007, rates of complaints
per officers in Las Cruces were higher than the national average for complaints of excessive
force per year when compared to departments of similar size. In 2008, the number of complaints
declined substantially from the two previous years. The police department attributes the decline
to training and closer monitoring of officer behavior. Another possible reason for the decline,
voiced by citizens’ who participated in the town hall meetings is the belief among citizens that
“nothing would be done” if a complaint was filed.
6
See Hickman, M.J. (2006), “Citizen Complaints about Police Use of Force,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of
Justice Programs, US Department of Justice. The data were compiled in 2002 and are based on 798 police
departments, including 496 municipal agencies, 32 county police, 221 sheriffs’ offices, and 49 state police
departments.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 31
Figure 6. Comparison of Use of Force Complaints per 100 officers
Agency
Year(s)
Rates of Use of Force
All police agencies (n=796)
2002
6.6 per 100 officers
Agencies w/100-249 officers
2002
4.2 per 100 officers
Las Cruces, 177 officers
2006
11.8 per 100 officers
Las Cruces, 177 officers
2007
7.9 per 100 officers
Las Cruces, 180 officers
2008
3.9 per 100 officers
Because the national data were reported for 2002, we made telephone calls to police departments
of similar size as Las Cruces to obtain more recent numbers of use of force complaints for the
last two years. We called six agencies in California and Texas and received statistics from five –
Berkeley, Concord, Richmond, Fairfield, and Odessa (TX).
In 2007, Las Cruces was lower than Berkeley in terms of rate per 100 officers, but higher than
Concord, Fairfield and Richmond. In 2008 Las Cruces matched Concord but was lower than
Berkeley, Richmond, and Fairfield. Figure 7 shows the number of use of force complaints in
other jurisdictions for 2007 and 2008. 7
Figure 7. Use of Force Complaints in Other Jurisdictions, 2007-2008
Police Agency
Population # of
# of use of
# of use of
sworn
force
force
officers
complaints in complaints in
2007 and rate 2008 and rate
per 100
per 100
officers
officers
8
Berkeley, CA
101,000
168
21;
18;
12.5 per 100
10.7 per 100
9
Concord, CA
122,000
154
7;
6;
4.5 per 100
3.9 per 100
10
Richmond, CA
102,471
161
11;
12;
6.8 per 100
7.4 per 100
11
Fairfield, CA
106,000
127
7;
19;
5.5 per 100
15.0 per 100
12
Odessa, TX
95,839
145
N/A
4;
2.8 per 100
7
These findings differ from those in the draft report as the LCPD clarified its definitions of complaints and
allegations and provided JSS with more accurate information.
8
Telephone conversation between Mike Wells and a Berkeley PD sergeant, May 13, 2009.
9
Telephone conversation between Mike Wells and Concord’s Internal Affairs, May 20, 2009.
10
Telephone conversation between Mike Wells and Internal Affairs officer, May 12, 2009.
11
Telephone conversation between Mike Wells and Internal Affairs officer, May 18, 2009.
12
Telephone conversation between Don Mort and Internal Affairs officer, May 15, 2009.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 32
Dispositions of Allegations of Use of Force
In Figure 4 above, the LCPD reported the dispositions of allegations of use of force over the
three year period of 2006-2008. Of the 75 allegations, 51 or 68 percent were exonerated; 5 (6.7
percent) were not sustained; 18 (24 percent) were unfounded; one did not have a disposition and
no allegations were sustained.
We anticipated that about 8-10 percent of the complaints or allegations would be sustained, as
these are the national averages. There may be a number of reasons for this, including frivolous
complaints by civilians, but the department needs to explain its reasons. 13 This is a critical issue
for the citizens of Las Cruces, as they do not receive information regarding dispositions that
would explain what happened and why.
Employees Involved in All Types of Complaints
A further examination of External Investigations for January 1, 2006 – December 31, 2008 was
completed for the following categories. This involves all types of investigations, not just use of
force.
External Complaint Investigations – Per Employee (all types of complaints)
Out of 244 employees (sworn and non-sworn) during this three-year period:
 137 employees had no complaints
 47 employees had 1 complaint
 28 employees had 2 complaints
 19 employees had 3 complaints
 7 employees had 4 complaints
 4 employees had 5 complaints
 1 employee had 6 complaints
 1 employee had 9 complaints
External Complaint Investigations Per Unit (all types of complaints)
 Patrol Shift A – Graveyard: 33
 Patrol Shift B – Dayshift: 23
 Patrol Shift C – Swingshift: 41
 Traffic – 25
 School Resource Officers: 5
 TNT: 5
 K-9: 5
External Complaint Investigations By Police District (all types of complaints)
 District 1- 10
 District 2 - 30
 District 3 - 19
 District 4 - 38
 District 5 - 17
13
We understand the need for confidentiality of personnel records within police agencies, but providing reasons for
its decisions need not be specific to an individual case.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 33
 District 6 - 13
The data regarding external complaint investigations should be another concern for the police
department. The US Department of Justice uses a standard of three or more complaints over a
three-year period 14 as a measuring stick for review of that officer’s behavior. In Las Cruces, 32
police officers have three or more complaints of misconduct over a three-year period, including
one with nine complaints. Whether or not the complaints are not serious or unfounded, these
officers should be reviewed and monitored by supervisors and executives.
Lastly, it is not clear whether officers received any disciplinary action as a result of these
complaints. If they did receive disciplinary action were the punishments meted out fairly and
consistently? This type of information is not only important to the residents of Las Cruces, but
also important to police officers who need to know that they are being treated fairly.
Role of Supervisors
First-line supervisors (sergeants) are the ‘linch-pin’ in the review of officer behavior because
they are the group with the most interaction with officers on the street. Ideally, the first-line
supervisor is the one who should identify problems early on and be able to act on those
problems.
From interviews of police personnel and examination of policies, it appears there is
inconsistency in the way supervisors investigate and resolve the “Informal-Internal and External
Investigations” of officers. It appears that supervisors can take minor complaints, investigate
them, take action, and then close them out, without PSU ever knowing about it. This has an
impact on progressive discipline -- PSU may not have all information on an officer regarding
complaints because of the lack of follow-through by the supervisor. This affects investigations
and discipline against an officer later on – if there is no record of past misdeeds, then a higher
level of discipline cannot be meted out. A single path for PSU cases needs to be established by
policy and followed.
There were many comments from police personnel about lack of accountability and lack of
consistent application of discipline. In our interviews, many employees said it depends on
“whom you know in the department, dictates the discipline you receive.” Adding to the problem
is the lack of information being returned to PSU Unit by supervisors about what action and
intervention was taken on an investigation or an Early Intervention alert.
The Las Cruces Police Department should be applauded for its Early Intervention System as it is
a system that is “state-of-the-art”. That is, it is a good mechanism to identify potential problem
behaviors and deficiencies in officers’ performance. If used consistently and appropriately, Las
Cruces police executives and supervisors have an accountability tool that can rectify problematic
behavior quickly and effectively. 15
14
See the consent decree, United States of America v. City of Steubenville, OH et al., (1997), pages 14-15 in
Appendix 5.
15
See S. Walker, et al., (2005). Supervision and Intervention within Early Intervention Systems: A Guide for Law
Enforcement Chief Executives. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum and US Department of Justice,
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 34
Use of Force Review
A review of the department’s use of force policy (#255), states that all uses of force must be
reported to an on duty supervisor within a reasonable amount of time and a “Subject Resistance
Form” (SRF) is required in every use of force incident. Like most police departments across the
country, in Las Cruces, “compliant handcuffing” and/or “a firm grip” are not considered uses of
force for the purposes of the use of force policy.
Supervisors review each SRF for accuracy and ensure timely submission. According to policy,
supervisors reviewing a SRF “shall attempt to determine if the use of force was within policy and
objectively reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances.” If the supervisor feels the
force used was appropriate, the form is submitted to the Professional Standards Unit (PSU).
If there is a question about the reasonableness of the use of force, an indication of a potential
weakness in some departmental policy, a question about the effectiveness of a technique, or an
indication of some training deficiency, the reviewing supervisor shall request that the Defensive
Tactics Unit review the incident and send the request to the PSU unit.
The Chief of Police or Defensive Tactics Unit Head determines how the SRF will be reviewed
(individual assignment, group assignment, or committee) and by whom. The Defensive Tactics
Unit Head has 30 days from date of receipt to ensure completion of the review and the return of
the SRF with a findings report to the Professional Standards Unit. The use of force review
consists of the examination of police reports, SRFs, and any other available documentation.
The findings report submitted by the Defensive Tactics Unit should contain the following:
1. Determination if the use of force was within policy.
2. Training suggestions or other recommendations (if applicable).
3. Identify any policy weaknesses (if applicable).
4. Identify any additional information needed to complete a comprehensive review (if
applicable).
Adding to the use of force policy issues is the use of force model that LCPD uses. It is an
antiquated use of force model called the “Reactive Control Model”. According to department
personnel, the model is copyrighted, apparently preventing the LCPD from making major
changes to it. Whether copyrighted or not, however, the LCPD should adopt the “continuum of
force” model promulgated by the US Department of Justice, International Association of Chiefs
of Police, Commission on Law Enforcement Accreditation, and Police Executive Research
Forum. This model calls for officers to use force when reasonable and necessary and to the
extent possible, “use an escalating scale of options and not employ more forceful means unless it
is determined that a lower level of force would not be, or has not been adequate.” Generally,
departments’ continuum of force include: verbal commands, use of hands, chemical agents,
baton or other impact weapon, canine, less-than-lethal projectiles, and deadly force. 16
16
See United States Department of Justice, 2001, Principles for Promoting Police Integrity: Examples of Promising
Police Practices and Policies. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, page 4.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 35
In response to the JSS draft report issued in June 2009, the LCPD clarified its use of force policy
in the following manner:
“According to a transcript of the September 2007 podcast interview with John
Bostain, Senior Use of Force Instructor at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center (FLETC) in Brunswick, Georgia, force continuum training for federal
agents has been discontinued. Instead, FLETC has replaced it with more legal
training which focuses on the Constitutional standard of “objective
reasonableness” as set forth by the 1989 United States Supreme Court case
Graham v. Connor. According to the Court, police officers may use the amount
of force that is objectively reasonable to control subjects during a lawful seizure.
Objective reasonableness is based upon the totality of circumstances known to the
officer at the moment force was used.
LCPD agrees with Mr. Bostain’s philosophy of training officers to abide by the
Court standard of objective reasonableness without the use of a continuum. We
also agree that subjective standards and other limitations are inherent in any force
continuum model. Therefore, we conclude that changing to a “continuum of force
model” would not be in the best interest of the department.
In May 2008, responding to suggestions from our Defensive Tactics Unit, the
department changed its use of force policy to more accurately reflect the Court
standard. We did this by removing all language referring to the Reactive Control
Model (RCM), a force continuum in use by the department for several years.
However, because of its endorsement and strict certification requirements
imposed by the New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy, the RCM is still being
taught in our basic law enforcement officer training program.”
JSS agrees with the standard of ‘objective reasonableness’ within use of force policies, as this is
the national standard that should be followed. The question at hand is how to follow the standard.
We agree that the Reactive Control Model should be discontinued, but for different reasons.
First, the model itself has not been updated for a number of years and is not the current standard
for the use of force continuum. Second, if the model is copyrighted (as we were told by LCPD
personnel), then it does not allow the department flexibility in making adjustments or revisions
to it and ‘locks in’ the department to a rigid set of guidelines. For example, the standards
regarding the use of Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs or Taser) are changing and the
department needs the flexibility to adapt to those changes. Because the department has
discontinued the use of the RCM, it should also discontinue all training on it as well. The LCPD
should proactively seek to change the requirements imposed by the New Mexico Law
Enforcement Academy rather than follow an inappropriate model and create confusion among
police officers.
JSS disagrees with Mr. Bostain’s philosophy regarding the discontinuation of the “the continuum
of force” model in policy and training. His philosophy runs counter to the philosophy of major
police organizations in the nation, including the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a
membership organization of progressive police executives from departments throughout the
nation. It also runs counter to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the US
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 36
Department of Justice which considers the continuum a best practice in law enforcement. 17 One
of the leading authorities in the nation on use of force and use of deadly force, Professor
Geoffrey Alpert, has developed the “force factor” analytic tool, an adaptation of the use of force
continuum, which allows measurement of the frequency of use of excessive force. It should also
be noted that the various continuums that are used are not in conflict with the standard of
objectives reasonableness; in fact, they assist police in identifying the circumstances of a
situation and provide structure and guidance about when to use force or deadly force. Basically,
a use of force continuum “translates the abstract concept of the minimum amount of force
necessary into practical terms that a police officer can readily understand” (Walker, 2005).
Findings
It appears that a single supervisor is responsible for the initial review of a use of force by an
officer. The supervisor reviews only the “Subject Resistance Form” -- the actual incident report
is not reviewed per current practice. Even if the supervisor wanted to review the report, it would
not be available because it has not been typed and entered into the system.
The policy states that “supervisors reviewing a SRF shall attempt to determine if the use of force
was within policy and objectively reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances.” We
question the ability of one person to effectively review a use of force, when that person is
reviewing a form only, and not the entire police report.
Best practices in professional policing employ use of force boards that review all use of force
incidents and makes a determination if the use of force was within department policy. Board
members typically include, at a minimum: a command level manager, a supervisor, a training
manager, and a use of force instructor. Also, unless extenuating circumstances exist, a
supervisor should respond to all field incidents in which a member of the department used force.
This is not stated in the current policy.
Report Review
When a police officer responds to a call for service or initiates a response to an incident, a report
may be generated by that officer. Currently, all police reports are phoned into a records bureau
transcriber who types up the report for the officer. Priority reports (homicide, serious assaults,
robberies, domestic violence incidents, etc.) are typed within 24 hours. All other reports are
typed within 48-72 hours. Transcribers do not work on the weekends. Once a report is typed,
officers are supposed to review their reports in the computer system, make any necessary
corrections, and then send it back to the transcriber for the final version. Officers can also make
corrections themselves and then re-submit the report as a final version.
Prior to completion of the report, draft reports can be, and are released to the public or courts as
official documents. This has caused problems for both victims and other agencies in the criminal
justice system, as there are still errors in the reports, and sometimes two different versions of the
same report exist –the draft and a final copy. The record management system also does an
17
See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/law-enforcement/use-of-force/continuum.htm and in the Appendix.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 37
automatic “mass approval” of all reports on the 15th of every month, whether or not the officer
has fixed the errors, or supervisor has approved it.
More importantly, these reports are not systematically reviewed by supervisors. Nor does an
approval process exist within the organization. An officer will complete and submit a report
without supervisory approval. At one time, reports were reviewed by a supervisor, but that
process was discontinued because of a “backlog” of reports. Apparently, sergeants complained
that they could not review all the reports, so a policy decision was made to discontinue
supervisor approval.
Many police supervisors and managers said there should be a report review process in place.
They added that the lack of a report review policy is impacting the quality and delivery of
services to the community and the criminal justice system. We reviewed several reports, noting
many grammatical and typographical errors in them. We also saw documents that raised major
concerns. For example, one police report was about a crime involving a correctional officer as
the suspect, with juveniles at his home who were so intoxicated that one had to be taken to the
hospital. Another juvenile was a runaway from the City of Albuquerque. The officer wrote
“professional courtesy” as the reason why the correctional officer was not arrested or given a
citation. Instead, the juveniles were cited for being minors in possession of alcohol. It appeared
that no supervisor responded to the scene and that the police report itself was not reviewed by a
supervisor.
In our interviews with two court officials, they raised serious concerns about the quality of police
reports that were brought into their courtrooms. They also indicated that officers were not
prepared for trial, some officers failed to show up for trials, some officers filed untimely
continuance requests, and had defective or insufficient complaints.
In other reports brought to us by residents, the police transcriber could not understand what was
said on the recorder and typed ‘inaudible’ in key areas of the report, making it difficult to
determine what had happened.
Findings
Best practices in professional policing include a report review process. This practice impacts: 1)
the community on the delivery of services they are receiving, 2) the criminal justice system in
the ability to prosecute cases, 3) the risk management of the City of Las Cruces, and 4)
accountability throughout the department. This is a critical issue that must be addressed.
Training
We interviewed department personnel and reviewed Academy Training, In-Service Training, and
Briefing Training for issues that were relevant and within the scope of this study. The following
is an overview of our findings.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 38
Academy Training
LCPD operates its police academy, under the authority and accreditation of the New Mexico
Department of Public Safety. The academy is approximately 1000 hours, or six months, with
recruits attending 10-hour days, four days a week. The department conducts one academy class
per year.
Certified police officers transferring from another New Mexico police agency are not required to
attend the Las Cruces Police Department Academy, but are required to successfully complete the
Departmental Field Training and Evaluation Program.
Police officers certified in states other than New Mexico who seek employment as a lateral
officer are required to obtain a New Mexico certification within twelve months of hire and
successfully complete the Departmental Field Training and Evaluation Program. During a review
of Academy curriculum, the following topics and hours of interest were noted:







Community Policing – 14 hours, which meet state mandates
Search and Seizure –15 hours, meeting state mandates
Crime Prevention and Fear Reduction – 2 hours, which exceeds state mandates by
½ hour
Use of Force Legal Issues/Continuum and Judgment Issues – 16 hours, exceeding
state mandates by 2 hours
Report Writing -15 hours – exceeding state mandates by ½ hour.
Cultural Diversity – 16 hours –exceeding state mandates by 13 hours
Mechanics of Arrest/Control and Restraint – 89 hours –exceeding state mandates
by 21 hours
Findings
The State of New Mexico mandates 751 hours of instruction in various topics. LCPD academy
provides 916 hours of instruction in those mandated courses, plus another 70 hours in agency
specific topics.
Upon the initial review of academy content and hours, it appears that certain blocks of
instruction need to be upgraded and more time spent on instruction. Courses in search and
seizure, crime prevention and fear reduction, uses of force - legal issues, and report writing
should all be expanded and qualitatively improved. These topics have all been recognized in this
study as impacting police service delivery.
In-Service Training
Officers are mandated by State law to receive a minimum of 40 hours of in-service training every
two years. Within the 40 hours, officers must receive the following minimums:




Four hours in safe pursuit driving
One hour in domestic abuse incident training
Two hours in detection, investigation and reporting of hate crimes
Eight hours in DWI field sobriety testing
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 39


Four hours in ensuring child safety
Four hours in approved firearms training
The remaining 17 hours may be in “maintenance or advanced” areas of training. LCPD meets
the State mandated in-service requirement by putting on their own training with in-house
personnel and by sending officers to regional training sites.
According to academy personnel, last year (2008), the department added 4 hours of “verbal
judo” communication training to be given as refresher training every two years. Every year, ten
hours of refresher training is given in Defensive Tactics and Arrest/Control.
Findings
In reviewing the last three years (2006-2008) of in-service training, the following topics were not
observed as being offered:
 Community policing and problem-solving training
 Legal updates on search and seizure issues
 Effective communication skills training (4 hours of verbal judo every year was
implemented starting in 2008)
 Updates on report writing
 Case investigation updates for the patrol officer
 Neighborhood Watch Training
All of the above topics have been identified so far in this study as impacting the delivery of
police services to the community.
One area of deficiency that is of concern is that of legal update training. Currently there is no
legal update or search and seizure training given to department personnel. Several department
employees told us that this is a serious issue, and is visible in police actions and reports. Court
officials also expressed concern on the quality of cases and testimony by some LCPD Officers,
specifically in search and seizure cases. We were told top leadership does not want anyone
within the department to teach the topic and the department cannot obtain the assistance of other
criminal justice agencies to teach it, so no update occurs.
Another area, which should be addressed, is report writing. From our observation, there is an
urgent need to provide a refresher course in report writing. Supervisors should receive training
on reviewing reports as well.
A “training needs assessment” should be conducted annually and coordinated with the training
bureau, PSU, sergeants, and command staff. Those issues identified as problem areas, patterns,
or liability issues could dictate the yearly in-service training curriculum. It is our
recommendation that a training committee be established, that would design the yearly in-service
curriculum.
Briefing Training
“Briefing training” is any type of training that could be given during the 20-30 minute briefing or
roll call session at the start of each shift. Department policy #135 outlines that supervisors are
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 40
responsible for identifying training needs for officers. It further states that supervisors should
conduct briefing training to address those needs as appropriate.
Findings
From our observation and interviews, there is a deficiency in briefing training. Numerous
personnel told us that briefing training is very seldom provided. For most roll calls, there is a
20-30 minute period that could be used for training. Topics that could be covered in this setting
should follow the recommendations that we outline in this report. We also believe that current
departmental policy should be changed to indicate that briefing training will occur, rather than
leaving it to the discretion of the supervisors. The training bureau and supervisors need to be
held accountable to provide that training.
Best practices in policing mandates that training in various topics occur at regular intervals. The
lack of training impacts the delivery of professional policing to the community. It places the city
in a position of liability, and it impacts other criminal justice disciplines, such as the city
attorney, district attorney, and the courts.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 41
Section 5: Findings and Recommendations
In our review of the Las Cruces Police Department we found a number of problems that have an
important impact on the relationship with the community and the community’s perspective of the
police. In this section of the report, we provide recommendations to remedy the concerns.
Specific Issues
JSS was asked to examine the following issues as part of its assessment:
 Evaluate use-of-force incidents, including supervision, tactics, and subsequent
investigations
 Assess internal police investigations
 Track community satisfaction with the police department
 Explore the department’s exposure to litigation and develop procedures to learn from past
lawsuits
 Identify best practices that will help police leaders develop and implement management
strategies that promote accountability at all levels
 Based upon the results of the assessment, develop and present a final report that will
provide definitive insight into whether a community oversight agency is needed and, if
so, provide a recommended methodology for establishing such an agency, its purpose,
objectives and authorities.
Use of Excessive Force Incidents
Citizens filed 42 complaints with 75 allegations of use of excessive force against the Las Cruces
Police Department over a three-year period (2006-2008). The LCPD data indicate that the
number of complaints has declined from 2006 to 2008. Nonetheless, none of the complaints for
use of force in Las Cruces were sustained. This leads us to believe that citizens are no longer
filing complaints because they fear that “nothing will be done.” This is in contrast to the
national average, where 8-10 percent of complaints for use of force are sustained. The number
of complaints for use of force is high and the lack of sustained complaints is surprising.
Recommendation 1. The police department must provide information regarding complaints,
allegations, and dispositions about use of force and other behavior on a regular basis to the
citizens of Las Cruces. The department must be transparent and open regarding these data and
information in order to re-gain the trust of the community. (See the recommendations below
regarding the Police Auditor).
Recommendation 2. The police department should make full use of its Early Intervention
System by reviewing reports and data about complaints regularly, by identifying, counseling, retraining, and/or disciplining officers who have multiple complaints, and reporting the findings to
the community regularly. [In its response to our draft report, the LCPD indicated that it was
using software to monitor employees on Performance Improvement Plans. This process began in
July 2009. JSS did not have an opportunity to review the new software and recommends that the
Police Auditor conduct a thorough review of the software and process.]
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 42
Recommendation 3. The police department should revise its use of force policy, adopt a stateof-the-art continuum of force model, discontinue training in the use of the Reactive Control
Model, and institute an immediate and comprehensive department-wide training on the new
policy and model, Further the Executives of Las Cruces, including elected officials, the City
Manager, the City Attorney and the Police Chief, should formally advise the New Mexico Law
Enforcement Academy of Las Cruces’ intent to institute a Use of Force Policy that exceeds the
requirements of the Reactive Control Model and encourage the change in the requirements for
use of the Reactive Control Model for the State.
Internal Police Investigations
Recommendation 4. The police department should put together a Use of Force Review Board
that reviews all use of force incidents and makes a determination if the use of force was within
department policy. Board members typically include, at a minimum: a command level manager,
a supervisor, a training manager, and a use of force instructor. Results should be communicated
within the department and to the public.
Community Satisfaction with Police
Residents in Las Cruces have mixed emotions about the police. On one hand, residents are
angry, frustrated, and upset with the way in which police officers treat them and the way in
which complaints are reviewed by the police. On the other hand, residents strongly support the
police and point to the lower crime rates, the friendly demeanor of officers, and the danger that
officers face. Within the department, officers see the same emotions from citizens. In addition,
officers note that interaction with the community could be better and suggest that more
communication would be helpful.
Recommendation 5. The police department must improve its relationship with the community
by developing a strategy for re-instating community-oriented policing. Among other things, this
means re-engaging the public through regular meetings, discussions, and focus groups, and
providing information routinely. Problem-oriented policing projects should be implemented and
taken seriously. A strategic plan should be developed that considers organizational changes in
deployment, beat management, targeted enforcement, and customer service. The department
should make a top-to-bottom commitment to community policing and its tenets.
Police Department’s Exposure to Litigation
The City and the police department have been faced with a number of law suits filed by residents
over the past few years. From 2000 to 2008, 26 lawsuits/claims were filed and $596,100 was
paid out in settlements since 2000. The City Attorney reports that of the 26 lawsuits/claims, 9
were settled, 3 were dismissed, 8 are pending and 6 claims were settled without a lawsuit.
One of the major concerns for the city is to determine whether a “pattern or practice” of police
misconduct has occurred across these law suits.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 43
Recommendation 6. Review the lawsuits to determine whether a “pattern or practice” of
misconduct has occurred. (See the discussion below regarding the Police Auditor).
Best Practices to Promote Accountability for Management
Recommendation 7. Improve leadership and management throughout the police department.
Supervision and accountability appear to be inconsistent throughout the department. This
applies not only to disciplinary matters, but also to general supervision in the field and case
investigation reviews.
Recommendation 8. The police department should enact a report review process that is
rigorous and that places an emphasis on completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of the reports
written by patrol officers.
Recommendation 9. At the Training Academy, courses in search and seizure, crime prevention
and fear reduction, uses of force (legal issues), and report writing should all be expanded and
qualitatively improved.
Recommendation 10. Officers and Supervisors should receive regular, annual legal update
training, particularly in search and seizure.
Recommendation 11. Officers and Supervisors should receive additional training in report
writing. Supervisors should receive training on reviewing reports.
Recommendation 12. A “training needs assessment” should be conducted annually and
coordinated with the training bureau, PSU, sergeants, and command staff.
Recommendation 13. Officers should receive training during roll calls or briefings. We also
believe that current departmental policy should be changed to indicate that briefing training will
occur, rather than leaving it to the discretion of the supervisors.
Is a Community Oversight Agency Needed in Las Cruces?
Based upon our assessment and review of best practices we do not believe that a community
oversight agency would remedy the problems that currently exist in the Las Cruces Police
Department. Instead, we recommend the adoption of the “Police Auditor” Model. We discuss
our rationale below.
Civilian Review Boards
Historically, a civilian review board is viewed as an independent agency that would investigate
citizen complaints against the police. The inherent principle behind civilian review boards is the
assumption that police cannot police themselves because of self-interest and the strength of the
police subculture. Second, it is believed than an external citizen oversight agency that is staffed
by non-police will be more independent, fair, and thorough than an internal police review of
citizen complaints.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 44
Since the 1970s, civilian review boards have been viewed as the panacea for problems with the
police. Unfortunately, they have not worked out as planned. Samuel Walker, one of the leading
experts on police accountability and police oversight, indicates that civilian review agencies have
not lived up to their promise. A major problem is the lack of authority to accomplish their
objectives. Walker (2005: 37) notes that review boards lack the power to conduct independent
investigations because they lack appropriate staffing, resources, and political support, that there
is disinterest by police management, and that there is usually “staunch opposition from the local
police union.”
More importantly, if residents and communities seek a reduction in police misconduct and longterm improvements and changes, then civilian review boards are not necessarily the answer. In
agencies with civilian review boards, their outcomes do not differ much from internal police
investigations. That is, civilian review agencies do not sustain a higher rate of complaints than
internal police reviews. This is not surprising given that most civilian complaints are often “he
said/she said” incidents or “swearing contests” where there are no independent witnesses or
evidence to support either side.
We found a number of problems and deficiencies within the Las Cruces Police Department that
cannot be remedied by a civilian review agency, if it is only investigating citizen complaints.
Recommendation 14. The City of Las Cruces should appoint a Police Auditor through the
passage of a municipal statute to review policies and procedures for the purpose of changing the
direction of the police department, preventing future misconduct, and lessening the potential for
liability.
Police Auditor Model
A small number of police departments in the United States have adopted the Police Auditor
Model because of political compromise, lawsuits, or a consent decree issued by the US
Department of Justice. The focus of the police auditor is organizational change rather than an
investigation of individual complaints. This is not to say that complaints are not examined, but
the emphasis for the auditor is broader. Police auditors have two unique capabilities. First, they
are full-time government officials with the authority to probe a department’s policies and
procedures and second, as permanent entities they can follow up on issues and determine
whether prior recommendations for change have been implemented.
The formal basis of authority for police auditors varies by jurisdiction. In some cities the
position or entity was created by municipal ordinance, in others there is a contract, and in others
it is part of the terms of a consent decree.
There are five basic functions of the auditor: 1) audit the complaint process; 2) audit police
operations; 3) review policies; 4) engage in community outreach; and 5) create greater openness
to police departments.
Audit the complaint process. The auditor serves as a monitor over the police department’s
citizen complaint process. In Las Cruces the auditor should review the roles and functions of the
Chief, PSU and supervisor and make changes as needed. Definitions of complaints, allegations,
incidents and disciplinary action must be clarified. Forms should be changed and training of
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 45
police officers regarding the process itself should be undertaken. Lawsuits should be reviewed
to determine whether a “pattern or practice” exists regarding use of force by the police.
Audit police operations. In this area, the police auditor has the greatest potential for increasing
police accountability. In Las Cruces changes should be made in report writing, responses to calls
for service, implementation of community policing principles, and in problem-oriented policing
capabilities. Disciplinary systems should be made more transparent, consistent, and fair.
Review policies. Audits of the complaint process and police operations lead to new policies. In
many jurisdictions the ability to change the policies rests with the police chief, so the role of the
auditor would be to recommend policy changes. In Las Cruces, a thorough review of the use of
the force policy should be undertaken.
Engage in community outreach. The police auditor would meet with community organizations
to provide information about filing complaints, to listen to problems with the police, and to
bridge the gap that exists between the police and the community.
Create greater openness. One of the major problems with police departments is their historic
closed and secretive nature. The police auditor can overcome this problem through published
reports, documents, analyses, and discussions on a regular basis. By adopting a philosophy of
transparency, the auditor can create and implement an aura of openness to the public.
The police auditor must have a thorough understanding of law enforcement and bureaucracy. An
individual or team of people with appropriate skills can serve within the scope of the auditor
position. In some jurisdictions, consulting firms with a team of people fulfill the
abovementioned tasks.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 46
References
Fridell, Lorie A. 2010. “Use of Force Policy, Policy Enforcement, and Training,” in Roger G.
Dunham and Geoffrey P. Alpert, editors, Critical Issues in Policing, Contemporary Readings, 6th
Edition. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Goldstein, H. 1990. Problem-Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hickman, M. J. 2006. Citizen Complaints about Police Use of Force. Washington, DC: Bureau
of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.
Kelling, G., Pate, A.M., Wycoff, M. (1972). The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment.
Washington, DC: The Police Foundation.
Spelman, W. and Brown, D. 1984. Responding to the Police. Washington, DC: The Police
Executive Research Forum.
United States of America v. Steubenville, OH et al. (September 3, 1997). Consent Decree.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2001. Principles for Promoting Police Integrity. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office. Available at: www.ncjrs.org, NCJ 186189.
Walker, S. 2003. Early Intervention Systems for Law Enforcement Agencies: A Planning and
Management Guide. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Available at
www.cops.usdoj.gov and www.ncjrs.org, NCJ 201245.
Walker, S. 2005. The New World of Police Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Additional Resources
For more information about use of force see Bureau of Justice Statistics: Use of Force by Police
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ufbponld.htm; Police Use of Force Websites from the
Michigan State University Libraries http://www.lib.msu.edu/harris23/crimjust/force.htm
For more information about the Civil Rights Division, Special Litigations Unit, US Department
of Justice go to: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/ and for publications, including consent decrees,
and lawsuits go to:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/findsettle.php#Law%20Enforcement%20Misconduct%20Findings
%20Letters
For more information about crime statistics, law enforcement statistics, and other material on
policing, see: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2009. Data on-line. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs
For more information about community-oriented policing and problem-oriented policing, see:
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 47
Appendix 1: LCPD Response to the JSS Draft Report
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 48
From March through April 2009, Justice and Security Strategies, Inc. (JSS) conducted a
paid assessment of the Las Cruces Police Department (LCPD). A confidential draft of
the JSS final report has been submitted to the City of Las Cruces for review and
consideration.
As with any organization, particularly one as large and complex as the Las Cruces Police
Department, leadership and management challenges will always exist. LCPD agrees that
several recommendations presented in the JSS report are valid; therefore it is our intent to
use this information as a framework to pursue our goals of continuous improvement and
quality service.
LCPD has noted several issues for clarification and consideration before the final JSS
report is released, the most important of which are outlined in this report. These issues
involve JSS recommendations 1, 2 and 3 as they pertain to the number and rate of use of
force complaints and other behavior, the implementation and use of the Early
Intervention System, and the proposed change in use of force policy to include the
“continuum of force model”.
1
The Las Cruces Police Department continues to make concerted efforts to reduce the
number of use of force complaints and other types of behavior. For instance, as part of
an intensified training strategy implemented under current LCPD Administration, the
department has conducted yearly defensive tactics and use of force training for sworn
personnel since 2005. Verbal Judo training was provided to 131 sworn personnel in
2008. Overall expenditures to address advanced or specialized training needs have also
increased significantly from $231,000 in 2007 to $349,000 in 2008.
The IA Pro software package implemented in 2006 has provided a useful accountability
tool for management because of its ability to analyze various incident types and generate
informative reports. Additionally, a state-of-the-art Early Intervention System has been
developed to alert supervisors of potential problems involving their subordinates.
Encouraging evidence of organizational improvement as a result of these enhancements
is revealed in the following charts.
Figure 1
Total Complaints Compared to Total Calls for
Service
200
100
157
145
137
150
Total Complaints
67
41
50
43
Total CFS x 1000
0
2006
2007
2008
Year
Total calls for service are increasing while total complaints are stabilizing.
Notes: “Calls for Service” represents the total number of computer aided dispatch (CAD) events
generated by the dispatch center. A CAD event is generated for every request for police service or
any officer-initiated contact or enforcement activity reported to the dispatch center (i.e. traffic stop,
suspicious person, public assist etc.). Animal Control and Codes Enforcement activities are included
in the total.
“Total Complaints” denotes total formal complaint investigations originating from external sources.
2
Figure 2
Excessive Force Complaints Compared to Total
Complaints
80
67
60
Excessive Force
Complaints
43
41
40
Total Complaints
21
14
20
7
0
2006
2007
2008
Year
Excessive Force Complaints are decreasing while total complaints are stabilizing.
Note: “Excessive Force Complaints” signifies total formal excessive force complaint investigations
originating from external sources.
Figure 3
Excessive Force Complaints Compared to Total
Calls For Service
200
157
145
137
150
Excessive Force
Complaints
100
50
CFS x 1000
21
14
7
0
2006
2007
2008
Year
Excessive Force Complaints are decreasing while Total Calls for Service are increasing.
Trends are divergent over time.
3
Figure 4
Excessive Force Complaints Compared to Total
Arrests
80
74.71
71.94
74.64
60
Excessive Force
Complaints
40
Total Arrests x 100
21
14
20
7
0
2006
2007
2008
Year
Excessive Force Complaints are decreasing while Total Arrests are stabilizing.
Note: “Total Arrests” signifies total number of adults arrested and juveniles detained.
Figure 5
Discourtesy/Rudeness Complaints Compared to
Total Complaints
80
67
60
43
41
40
29
28
17
20
Discourtesy/Rudeness
Complaints
Total Complaints
0
2006
2007
2008
Year
After a decline in 2007, Discourtesy/Rudeness complaints rose in 2008 to the 2006 level.
After a significant decline of total complaints in 2007, Total Complaints remained stable
in 2008.
Note: “Discourtesy/Rudeness Complaints” signifies total formal discourtesy/rudeness complaint
investigations originating from external sources.
4
Figure 6
Unsatisfactory Performance Complaints Compared to
Total Complaints
80
67
60
43
41
40
20
Unsatisfactory
Performance Complaints
Total Complaints
17
6
4
2007
2008
0
2006
Year
Total Complaints for Unsatisfactory Performance have declined significantly over time.
Total Complaints for Unsatisfactory Performance are decreasing while Total Complaints
are stabilizing.
Total Complaints for Unsatisfactory Performance are decreasing while Total Calls for
Service are increasing (see figure 1). Trends are divergent over time.
Note: “Unsatisfactory Performance Complaints” signifies total formal unsatisfactory performance
complaint investigations originating from external sources.
5
The number of LCPD use of force complaints have declined dramatically over the past
three years. In 2006 there were 21 excessive force complaints, 14 in 2007 and 7 in 2008.
(See figures 2 and 3).
The LCPD use of force complaint rate per 100 officers was recently compared to rates
from California agencies of similar size including Berkeley, Richmond, Fairfield, and
Concord. Odessa, Texas was also included in the comparison.
In 2007, the rate of excessive force complaints per 100 officers at LCPD was 7.9
(14 complaints per year divided by 177 full-time sworn multiplied by 100 = 7.9).
In 2007, the rate of excessive force complaints per 100 officers at LCPD (7.9) was lower
than the 2007 rate at Berkeley, CA (12.5).
In 2008, the rate of excessive force complaints per 100 officers at LCPD was 3.9
(7 complaints per year divided by 180 full-time sworn multiplied by 100 = 3.9).
In 2008, the rate of excessive force complaints per 100 officers at LCPD (3.9) was lower
than the 2008 rates at Berkeley, CA (10.7), Richmond, CA (7.4), and Fairfield, CA
(15.0). The rate was equal to Concord, CA (3.9).
Of all agencies compared in this study, only Odessa, TX (2.8) had a lower rate in 2008.
LCPD generally assigns one complaint investigation per incident. Essentially, one
complaint filed with the department may result in separate allegations brought against
more than one officer. If, for example, a suspect is arrested by two officers and later files
a complaint alleging excessive force, the incident is numbered and investigated as one
complaint involving excessive force allegations against two officers. Figure 7 below
illustrates this relationship as it pertains to excessive force complaints received from 2006
through 2008.
6
Figure 7
EXCESSIVE FORCE 2006
Complaint
# Allegations per
Investigations
Complaint
2006EIC1-002
2006EIC1-004
2006EIC1-005
2006EIC1-007
2006EIC1-010
2006EIC1-014
2006EIC1-015
2006EIC1-018
2006EIC1-019
2006EIC1-021
2006EIC1-026
2006EIC1-027
2006EIC1-028
2006EIC1-034
2006EIC1-035
2006EIC1-039
2006EIC1-044
2006EIC1-056
2006EIC1-065
2007EIC1-001
2007EIC1-003
TOTAL 21
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
5
4
2
37
EXCESSIVE FORCE 2007
Complaint
# Allegations per
Investigations
Complaint
2007EIC1-004
1
2007EIC1-011
1
2007EIC1-012
1
2007EIC1-014
2
2007EIC1-017
3
2007EIC1-020
3
2007EIC1-022
1
2007EIC1-023
2
2007EIC1-025
1
2007EIC1-026
1
2007EIC1-029
3
2007EIC1-032
1
2007EIC1-040
1
2007EIC1-046
3
TOTAL 14
24
EXCESSIVE FORCE 2008
Complaint
# Allegations per
Investigations
Complaint
2008EIC1-001
2
2008EIC1-006
1
2008EIC1-012
4
2008EIC1-014
2
2008EIC1-021
1
2008EIC1-024
3
2008EIC1-027
1
TOTAL 7
14
In 2006 there were 37 allegations of
excessive force involving 29 officers, 24
allegations involving 20 officers in 2007,
and 14 allegations involving 14 officers
in 2008.
7
LCPD employs a liberal use of force self-reporting policy to help ensure reasonable force
responses by the Department. In addition to standard incident reporting procedures, a
Subject Resistance Form (SRF) is required for each use of force contact. A reportable
use of force contact occurs whenever an officer takes physical action to control a subject
beyond the use of compliant handcuffing or a firm grip. The SRF is reviewed by
supervisory personnel and has recently been converted to a paperless report.
Figure 8
Excessive Force Complaints Compared to Total
Use of Force Contacts
250
215
200
175
170
Excessive Force
Complaints
150
Total Use of Force
Contacts
100
50
21
14
7
0
2006
2007
2008
Year
Excessive Force Complaints are decreasing while Total Use of Force Contacts are
increasing. Trends are divergent over time.
Total Use of Force Contacts are increasing while Total Calls for Service are increasing
(see figure 3).
8
In April 2009, LCPD provided Blue Team software training to supervisors and uniformed
officers. Blue Team works in conjunction with IA Pro to facilitate the gathering of field
data and information exchange. The training included segments on use of force selfreporting and access to the Early Intervention System Dashboard. As a result, use of
force contact information is now entered directly into the IA Pro database by the
reporting officer and forwarded electronically up the chain of command for review. The
Early Intervention (EI) Dashboard is available to all supervisors for quick access to
certain IA Pro data involving their subordinates (see figures 9 and 10).
Figure 9
Name
EI Dashboard Illustration
Driving
External External
Complaint Invest
Invest
(DC)
(EI-C1) (EI-C2)
Failure Internal
Use
Vehicle Vehicle Overall
Investigation of
to
accident pursuit Threshold
Appear (II)
force
Administrative Services - Professional Standards
OFFICER
X
OFFICER
Y
Figure 10
IA Pro Data available through the EI Dashboard
OFFICER Y
Assigned to:
Administrative Services - Professional Standards
Badge #
L000
Gender
Race
Incident Type
# of Incidents
User Name (PSN)
L000
Threshold
Driving Complaint (DC)
0
3 incidents within 12 months
External Invest (EI-C1)
0
3 incidents within 12 months
External Invest (EI-C2)
0
2 incidents within 12 months
Failure to Appear
0
3 incidents within 12 months
Internal Investigation (II)
0
2 incidents within 12 months
Use of force (self-reporting)
0
12 incidents within 12 months
Vehicle accident
1
3 incidents within 24 months
Vehicle pursuit
1
3 incidents within 12 months
Overall threshold
2
24 incidents within 12 months
Using the capabilities of IA Pro, LCPD has developed a procedure to monitor those
employees on Performance Improvement Plans. A procedure has also been created to
allow tracking of disciplinary action taken as a result of supervisory observations in the
field. Both processes were implemented in July 2009.
9
According to a transcript of the September 2007 podcast interview with John Bostain,
Senior Use of Force Instructor at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)
in Brunswick, Georgia, force continuum training for federal agents has been
discontinued. Instead, FLETC has replaced it with more legal training which focuses on
the Constitutional standard of “objective reasonableness” as set forth by the 1989 United
States Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor. According to the Court, police officers
may use the amount of force that is objectively reasonable to control subjects during a
lawful seizure. Objective reasonableness is based upon the totality of circumstances
known to the officer at the moment force was used.
LCPD agrees with Mr. Bostain’s philosophy of training officers to abide by the Court
standard of objective reasonableness without the use of a continuum. We also agree that
subjective standards and other limitations are inherent in any force continuum model.
Therefore, we conclude that changing to a “continuum of force model” would not be in
the best interest of the department.
In May 2008, responding to suggestions from our Defensive Tactics Unit, the department
changed its use of force policy to more accurately reflect the Court standard. We did this
by removing all language referring to the Reactive Control Model (RCM), a force
continuum in use by the department for several years. However, because of its
endorsement and strict certification requirements imposed by the New Mexico Law
Enforcement Academy, the RCM is still being taught in our basic law enforcement
officer training program.
10
COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING:

Re-build trust:
Positive interaction with the community
Targeting Neighborhood Threats Unit (TNT) created in 2003. TNT
works closely with the community to solve quality of life issues
within our neighborhoods. A primary focus is P.O.P. project
initiation and completion through patrol officer support/assistance.
Gang Task Force Unit was formed to suppress criminal gang activity,
investigate gang-related crimes, and gather intelligence on known
and suspected gang members. The Gang Task Force Unit duties
include street-level narcotics enforcement, weapons enforcement,
criminal investigation, and special operations. The Gang Task
Force Unit’s primary objective is to improve the quality of life of
all citizens adversely affected by gang activity.
Operation Weed & Seed created in 1999 to prevent, control, and reduce
violent crime, drug abuse, and gang activity in designated highcrime neighborhoods. The A. Fielder Memorial Safe Haven
conducts two summer camps with law enforcement as team leaders
mentoring youth. A substation for law enforcement is located
inside the Safe Haven to decentralize and personalize police
services.
Officers have direct contact with individuals, neighborhood
association meetings and block parties.
Mobile Operation Center (MOC) Mission:
Citizens are encouraged to visit officers at the Mobile Operations
Center during the hours of operation to build partnerships and
maximize communication.
Traffic enforcement coupled with bicycle patrol is utilized to
enhance detection of burglaries.
Crime Prevention resources are utilized in conjunction with the
Ident-a-child program which allows our officers to gather critical
information for parents.
Codes Enforcement and Animal control officers were utilized to
educate the community to attain compliance with city ordinances
through education, cooperation, and enforcement.
3/4/09 -3/6/09 Solano Dr./El Paseo and Idaho/Farney
3/25/09-3/27/09 Young Park area
4/10/09-4/11/09 Mesilla Valley Mall- Seat belt enforcement in
surrounding area
Bike Patrol and / or Foot Patrol
Engage district officers in permanent districts
Two officers actively interact with the community while on Bike
Patrol or Foot Patrol at the Las Cruces Farmers' and Crafts Market
on Wednesday and Saturday mornings in the Downtown area.
Neighborhood Enforcement Team (NET) 2004-2009 A team of
uniformed police officers address community concerns and
complaints of traffic related safety issues.
Team members work to reduce vehicle crashes and promote
neighborhood safety as well as school zone safety through a
combination of enforcement and education. Citizens can request
additional traffic enforcement or speed trailers by contacting a
Neighborhood Enforcement Team officer or supervisor.
Date
Target Area
Citations
1/ 4/09 -1/10/09
1/11/09 -1/17/09
1/18/09 -1/24/09
1/31/09
2/ 1/09 - 2/ 07/09
2/ 8/09 - 2/14/09
2/15/09 -2/21/09
2/22/09 -2/28/09
3/ 1/09 – 3/ 7/09
3/ 8/09 – 3/14/09
2/22/09 -2/28/09
3/ 1/09 – 3/ 7/09
14
9
9
3
6
19
9
1
6
14
1
6
31
20
22
6
21
33
39
3
14
31
3
14
Speed Surveys
Eight speed surveys have been conducted by traffic officers in
2009. Community meetings are held with law enforcement in
conjunction with traffic engineering to strategize and diagnose
underlying traffic safety hazards that may affect the community.
Door Hanger Burglary Deterrent (Bilingual)
Knock and talks are conducted by district officers to interact with
citizens, homeowners, business persons, etc. Door hangers are
utilized as a resource to educate the public with prevention
strategies and referral services. This strategy is to challenge and
empower citizens to participate in identifying and/or prioritizing
problems, developing both short and long term solutions.
2/23/09 Crescent/Farney
2/24/09 Lookout Ridge/Clearview
2/25/09 850 Holly
3/27/09 Delta/Klein
6/26/09 Foothills Residential area
31 Door Hangers, 21 contacts
35 Door Hangers, 16 contacts
36 Door Hangers, 19 contacts
28 Door Hangers, 11 contacts
49 Door Hangers, 32 contacts
2009 POP Projects
34 POP Projects have been initiated by officers; of those 13 have
been completed and closed. The remaining 21 projects are still
active. Officers are working to develop awareness of community
needs through problem solving activities.
The focus is on solving immediate problems, collaborating with
the community on short and long term efforts to prevent problems
and enhance the quality of life.
Las Cruces Police
Department
GENERAL ORDERS
VOLUME 2
FIELD OPERATIONS VOLUME
Revised: May 5, 2008
255
255 USE OF FORCE
Issued: 5/13/2005
USE OF FORCE
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this policy is to guide Departmental personnel in the
application of force during the course of their duties. The provisions of this
policy apply to both juveniles and adults.
POLICY
It is the policy of the Las Cruces Police Department that personnel shall use
only that force which is reasonably necessary to protect the sanctity of
human life, preserve and protect individual liberties, and to affect lawful
objectives. All personnel will act in good faith when using force during the
course of their official duties and all uses of force must be objectively
reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances. Justification for the
use of force is limited to what is reasonably known or perceived by the
officer at the time. Facts discovered after the event, no matter how
compelling, cannot be used in later determinations of whether the use of
force is justified.
Commissioned personnel may use force to prevent a crime from being
committed, to prevent injury, to apprehend and to defend themselves or other
persons from unlawful attack, or threats of attack, and under all other
circumstances where the use of force is reasonably necessary to accomplish
the law enforcement action.
255.01
DEFINITIONS
Bodily Harm – An injury to a person that is not likely to cause death or
great bodily harm to the person, but does cause painful temporary
disfigurement or temporary loss or impairment of the functions of any
member or organ of the person’s body.
Deadly Force – Any use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
Great Bodily Harm – Any bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of
death, causes serious permanent disfigurement, or results in long-term loss or
impairment of the functioning of any bodily member or organ.
1
Las Cruces Police
Department
GENERAL ORDERS
VOLUME 2
FIELD OPERATIONS VOLUME
Revised: May 5, 2008
255 USE OF FORCE
Issued: 5/13/2005
Less Lethal Tools – Tools designed to incapacitate individuals without
causing death or great bodily harm. Authorized tools intended for use by
commissioned Departmental personnel in non-deadly force encounters
include departmentally approved:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Taser
Bean Bag Rounds
Rubber Pellet Rounds
Wooden Baton Rounds
Pepper ball
Baton
Oleoresin Capsicum Spray (O/C)
Non-Deadly Force – Any use of force not likely to cause death or great
bodily harm.
Reasonable Belief – Facts and circumstances known to the officer at the
time, which would cause another reasonable and prudent officer to act or
think in a similar way under similar circumstances.
Use of Force – any action taken by an officer in excess of compliant
handcuffing or a firm grip that has a potential for causing bodily harm to
another.
255.02
APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to all personnel authorized to carry less lethal tools and /
or lethal weapons while acting under color of law.
255.03
USE OF NON-DEADLY FORCE
A.
Where force is warranted, officers should assess the situation to
determine which technique, tool or weapon will reasonably serve to deescalate the situation and safely bring it under control. Personnel will
use only the amount of force that is reasonably necessary to overcome
the resistance, establish control / custody of an individual and/or to
defend oneself or another.
2
Las Cruces Police
Department
GENERAL ORDERS
VOLUME 2
FIELD OPERATIONS VOLUME
Revised: May 5, 2008
255.04
255 USE OF FORCE
Issued: 5/13/2005
B.
Personnel are permitted to use those techniques and less lethal tools with
which they are trained and qualified to use by the Department to
overcome resistance, establish control / custody of an individual, and / or
to defend oneself or another.
C.
All personnel are expected to consider Department approved response
options ranging from verbal persuasion and empty hands control
techniques, to the use of less lethal tools including, but not limited to,
chemical agents, taser and baton.
D.
When a confrontation suddenly escalates, personnel may use any means
or device at hand to defend oneself as long as the force used is reasonable
and necessary given the circumstances. In such cases, any means or
devices used may be considered weapons of opportunity.
E.
Personnel assigned to carry any less lethal tool or who may be required
to use any technique during the course of their duties, shall be properly
trained in the implementation and deployment of such options prior to
assignment.
USE OF DEADLY FORCE
A.
Authorized weapons intended for use by Departmental personnel in
deadly force encounters include departmental approved and / or issued
sidearms, rifles, shotguns, and any other tool or weapon approved by the
Chief of Police or his / her designee.
Personnel assigned to carry any firearm shall be properly trained and
qualified in its use prior to assignment.
1. A firearm is discharged to stop the action.
B.
2. To ensure maximum stopping effectiveness and minimal
danger to non-participants, officers are generally instructed to
shoot at “center of mass” when discharging a firearm.
Officers are authorized to use deadly force, by any means, in order to:
1. Protect the officer or others from what is reasonably believed
to be an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.
3
Las Cruces Police
Department
GENERAL ORDERS
VOLUME 2
FIELD OPERATIONS VOLUME
Revised: May 5, 2008
255 USE OF FORCE
Issued: 5/13/2005
2. Prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to have
committed a felony, but only when:
a. There is probable cause to believe the suspect poses an
imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the
officer or others.
C.
Warning shots are prohibited.
D.
When practical, verbal warning should be given prior to the use of deadly
force.
E.
Personnel should not discharge a firearm at or from a moving vehicle
unless it is necessary to protect oneself or another from what is
reasonably believed to be an imminent threat of death or great bodily
harm.
F. Other means and devices available to personnel in a deadly force situation
may be used to protect oneself or another, provided that such use is
reasonable and necessary. The following means and devices may be
considered weapons of opportunity, and include, but are not limited to, a
vehicle, knife, flashlight, clipboard, writing instruments etc., when such
weapons of opportunity are used in a manner likely to cause death or great
bodily harm.
255.05
REPORTING AND REVIEW OF USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS
A. The purpose of reporting and review of use of force incidents is to
maintain Departmental integrity by addressing the following areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ensure reasonable use of force by Departmental personnel.
Ensure training effectiveness.
Ensure policy effectiveness.
Identify equipment in need of upgrade or replacement.
Identify personnel in need of additional training.
B. The Chief of Police or his / her designee may direct an administrative
investigation to examine possible inappropriate uses of force by
Departmental personnel.
4
Las Cruces Police
Department
GENERAL ORDERS
VOLUME 2
FIELD OPERATIONS VOLUME
Revised: May 5, 2008
255 USE OF FORCE
Issued: 5/13/2005
C. All uses of force must be reported to an on duty supervisor within a
reasonable amount of time and a Subject Resistance Form (SRF) is
required in every use of force incident. A separate SRF shall be
completed and submitted for each person on whom the force was used.
Compliant handcuffing and / or a firm grip are not considered uses of
force for the purposes of this policy.
D. Supervisors shall review each SRF for accuracy and ensure timely
submission. Supervisors reviewing a SRF shall attempt to determine if the
use of force was within policy and objectively reasonable considering the
totality of the circumstances. Consideration must be given to the severity
of the crime at issue, whether the subject poses an imminent threat to the
safety of the officer or others, and whether the subject is resisting arrest.
This must be considered from the perspective of a reasonable officer on
the scene rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.
Upon supervisory review, if it becomes apparent that the use of force
reported is clearly unreasonable and that the involved officer presents a
danger to himself, other officers, or the community, immediate steps will
be taken to prevent any harm from occurring.
If there is a question about the reasonableness of the use of force, an
indication of a potential weakness in some Departmental policy, a
question about the effectiveness of a technique, or an indication of some
training deficiency, the reviewing supervisor shall request that the
Defensive Tactics Unit review the incident.
All completed and reviewed SRFs will be submitted to the Professional
Standards Unit.
E. Any SRF for which a review has been requested will be processed by the
Professional Standards Unit and forwarded to the Defensive Tactics Unit
Head for review.
The Chief of Police or Defensive Tactics Unit Head will determine how
the SRF will be reviewed (individual assignment, group assignment, or
committee) and by whom. The Defensive Tactics Unit Head will have 30
days from date of receipt to ensure completion of the review and the return
of the SRF with a findings report to the Professional Standards Unit.
5
Las Cruces Police
Department
GENERAL ORDERS
VOLUME 2
FIELD OPERATIONS VOLUME
Revised: May 5, 2008
255 USE OF FORCE
Issued: 5/13/2005
A use of force review will consist of the examination of police reports,
SRFs, and any other available documentation.
The findings report submitted by the Defensive Tactics Unit will contain
the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Determination if the use of force was within policy.
Training suggestions or other recommendations (if applicable).
Identify any policy weaknesses (if applicable).
Identify any additional information needed to complete a
comprehensive review (if applicable).
Should the Defensive Tactics Unit be unable to reach a determination after
reviewing the available documentation, a findings report will be submitted
indicating this and an administrative investigation may be initiated.
6
Appendix 2: Interview Questions
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 49
City Official Interview
1. Name: ________________________________________
2. How long have you been on working in your present position? ___
3. How long have you lived in Las Cruces?
4. What district do you live in?
5. How safe is your neighborhood?
6. Are you concerned with how the police deliver services to the community?
7. What incident(s) have occurred in the past that still has the community concerned or upset with
their police department?
8. What oversight is there currently in place for the police department?
9. What do you do in dealing with issues that arise?
10. Is there a problem with accountability in the police department?
11. Who in your district should we talk to about the performance of the police department? Please
give us up to 5 names.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 50
Appendix 3: Internet Resident Survey
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 51
Las Cruces Citizens’ Survey
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc. (JSS) is a consulting firm specializing in criminal justice issues and
public policy. The City of Las Cruces has contracted with JSS to assess the police department’s
relationship with the community. JSS is conducting an objective and independent study in three phases –
1) Determining Community Attitudes toward Police and their Practices, 2) Assessing Current Conditions
and the Delivery of Services, and 3) Examining Police Administration and Processes.
This survey is intended to obtain perceptions and opinions of Las Cruces residents about the Las Cruces
Police Department. All survey responses are confidential. Thank you for taking the time to complete this
survey.
For the questions below, please place a check mark in the box that best fits your view.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Agree
4
Strongly
Agree
1. I am satisfied with the quality of services
provided by the police department.
2. Residents do not trust police enough to
work together effectively on neighborhood
issues.
3. The citizens of Las Cruces and the police
department would benefit from a civilian
review or oversight board.
4. On a normal day, I will see police
patrolling in my neighborhood.
5. The process for investigating complaints
within the police department is fair to all
parties.
6. The police department communicates
effectively with the community.
7. Community policing is part of the
department’s organizational philosophy
and is regularly practiced.
8. On the whole, the community supports the
police.
9. Police officers respond to calls for service
in a timely manner
10. On the whole, police officers are cordial
and friendly
Please circle the answer that best fits:
I identify myself as: 1. Caucasian 2. African American 3. Hispanic
6. Mixed race and ethnicity
My age is:
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
I live in Council District:
I have lived in Las Cruces:
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
1
2
1-3 years
3
4
4-10 years
4. Asian 5. Native American
5
6
11-20 years
more than 20 years
Page 52
Appendix 4: Victim Interview Questions
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 53
Justice & Security Strategies
City of Las Cruces Victim/Complainant Telephone Survey
April/May 2009
Telephone number: ___________________________ # of attempts 1 2 3 4 5
Date(s) of Call(s) 1 ________ 2 _______ 3 _______ 4_______ 5 ________
Interviewer __________________________________
(Attach the incident form to this survey)
Opening Script
Hello. We are conducting a study of the Las Cruces Police Department for the City of Las Cruces.
My name is ________ and I work for Justice & Security Strategies, Inc. We are conducting an
objective and independent study of the police and the community. I would like to speak with
____________________________________ (person listed on the incident form)
If necessary -[We have been asked by the city council to assess the police department’s relationship with the
community. The Council seeks an assessment that will result in a report that includes
recommendations for fostering and improving relations with the public.]
If really necessary – our contact in the City is Assistant City Manager Robert Garza. He can be reached
at (575) 541-2271 to verify our work.
I would like to ask your opinions about the incident that occurred on _______, when you called the
police.
Do you recall that incident? (wait for yes/ no/ maybe)
(If no, thank the person and hang up)
(If yes,) -- (write comments stated by the person on the sides as appropriate but don’t engage in a
conversation.)
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 54
I want to ask you a few questions about your interactions with the police during this incident. Your
participation is completely voluntary and you do not need to respond to any questions you don't wish
to. This survey will take 10 to 12 minutes. May I continue?
(If yes)
Let me begin by asking…
1) Do you recall how long it took an officer with the Las Cruces Police Department to respond
to your call? Was it ..
a. Less than 5 minutes
b. 6 -15 minutes
c. 16 minutes to an hour
d. over an hour
e. over two hours
f. over four hours
g. over eight hours
h. never responded
i. don’t recall
2) Do you recall how many Las Cruces police officers responded to your call?
a. None
b. One
c. Two
d. Three
e. Four or more
f. Don’t recall
Please respond to the following statements with one of five answers… strongly disagree,
disagree, neither agree or disagree, agree, strongly agree,
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither
Disagree
nor Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
3) The police
responded to
my call in a
timely
manner.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 55
4)
Upon arriving, how did the police officer(s) act toward you?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither
Disagree
nor Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
The officer acted
in a professional
manner
He was Rude
He was Well
Trained
He was
Disrespectful
He was
Knowledgeable
He was Helpful:
He was willing to
assist you
5) Did the police officer write a report?
Yes
No
Don’t Know
6) How long was the police officer at your residence or place of business?
a. Less than 15 minutes
b. Less than an hour
c. Less than two hours
d. All day?
e. Don’t recall
7)
Yes
Did a detective(s) follow-up on the investigation of your call?
No
Don’t Know
8) How would you rate the Police Officers on being able to help you resolve your issue/need?
Would you say…
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 56
Excellent
Very Good
Fair
Poor
Don’t
Know/ no
response
9) How satisfied were you with the level of service you received?
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
1
2
Satisfied
3
Somewhat
satisfied
Very
Satisfied
4
5
10) Have you ever called the police before this incident?
Yes
No
Don’t Know
11) On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 represents "Very Dissatisfied" and 5 represents "Very Satisfied,"
how would you rate your level of overall satisfaction with the Las Cruces Police
Department?
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
1
2
Satisfied
3
Somewhat
satisfied
Very
Satisfied
4
5
12) In what Council District do you live in? Is it District 1 2 3 4 5 6
13) How long have you lived in Las Cruces?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
less than a year
1-3 years
4-10 years
11-20 years
more than 20 years
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 57
Appendix 5: Police Officer Survey
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 58
Las Cruces Police Officer Survey
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc. (JSS) is a consulting firm specializing in criminal justice issues and
public policy. The City of Las Cruces has contracted with JSS to assess the police department’s
relationship with the community. JSS is conducting an objective and independent study in three phases –
1) Determining Community Attitudes toward Police and their Practices, 2) Assessing Current Conditions
and the Delivery of Services, and 3) Examining Police Administration and Processes.
This survey is intended to obtain perceptions and opinions of Las Cruces Police Officers with respect to
organizational effectiveness and philosophy, and of the relationship with the community. All survey
responses are confidential. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.
For the questions below, please place a check mark in the box that best fits your view.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Agree
4
Strongly
Agree
1. The police department is moving in the
right direction.
2. Top department management has a
good understanding of what the work
of the rank-and-file police officer is
like.
3. The police department would benefit
from a civilian review or oversight
board.
4. Rank and file officers are kept wellinformed of management’s policies and
plans.
5. The process for investigating
complaints within the police
department is fair to those accused.
6. The police department communicates
effectively with the community.
7. Community policing is part of the
department’s organizational philosophy
and is regularly practiced.
8. Top leaders have made the
department’s priorities clear.
9. On the whole, the community supports
the police.
10. Discipline is applied in a consistent
manner throughout the department.
Circle your assignment:
Patrol
CID
Special Unit
Circle your shift:
Days
Swing
Evening Graveyard
How many years have you served in the Las Cruces Police Department? ____
Thank you again for completing this survey.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 59
Appendix 6: Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 60
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc. and Project Consultants
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc. is a minority-owned business that specializes in crime and
public policy issues, with an emphasis on law enforcement. The Majority Owner and President is
Dr. Craig D. Uchida; the minority Owner and CEO is Shellie E. Solomon. Headquarters for JSS,
Inc. is located in Silver Spring, Maryland; a suburb of Washington, D.C. Our second office is
located in Aventura, Florida. Our third office is located in Clayton, California and served as the
base of operations for this project.
JSS has assisted more than 35 police agencies across the country. The larger departments include
Austin, Baltimore, Colorado Springs, Dallas, Fairfax County (VA), Honolulu, Jersey City,
Kansas City (MO), Miami, Minneapolis, Newark, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, San Francisco,
Seattle, and Washington, DC. Medium-size departments include Concord (CA), Fort Lauderdale
(FL), Inglewood (CA), Little Rock, Redlands (CA), and Salt Lake City. Small departments
include Hoover (AL), Spartanburg (SC), and Westwood (MA).
Within these agencies, we have conducted management studies, assessments, evaluations of
community policing, evaluations of school-based programs, studies of narcotics enforcement
(methamphetamine), technology-based evaluations (records management systems and 311), and
provided technical assistance and training. We have studied every facet of policing from
management to operations to technology.
Internationally, JSS worked with George Mason University on a large-scale project to assist in
the organizational transformation of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS). From June
2005 through October 2008, JSS staff was involved in revising the entire training system for the
TTPS, including the creation of a new recruit-training curriculum, the implementation of a fieldtraining program, and the development of an in-service training component.
The JSS contract team assembled for this project offer experience and expertise in assessment
and implementation of organizational change, policing operations and administration
(particularly community-based and problem-solving policing), training and evaluation (including
use of force and professional standards), and research and planning for public agencies. Three of
our six members worked at the Concord, CA Police Department, which is approximately the
same size as Las Cruces Police Department.
Dr. Craig D. Uchida, President of JSS, Inc., was project director and responsible for the
administration of the contract. Dr. Uchida has a number of skills directly related to the issues at
hand. As a researcher he has studied use of force and other controversies related to police work.
As a policymaker he was among the first employees designated by the Attorney General to
operate the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office). Dr. Uchida
assisted in the development of the management strategy for hiring 100,000 police officers and
spending over $1.3 billion annually. Dr. Uchida was the Assistant Director for Grants
Administration and responsible for all grant programs and for overseeing nearly 150 employees.
Ms. Shellie E. Solomon is the CEO of Justice & Security Strategies. She assisted in facilitating
all of the town hall community meetings, survey analysis, and report contributions. Ms.
Solomon works out of the JSS South Florida office, where she works closely with clients in law
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 61
enforcement and social services. Currently, she is the on-site project director for the Children of
Inmates Service Network funded by the Children’s Trust and is the project director for Project
Safe Neighborhoods in South Florida and the U.S. Virgin Islands (funded by the US Department
of Justice).
Ms. Solomon served as the on-site project manager for the Austin Police Department 3-1-1
Technical Assistance Guide and the evaluation. She was the principal researcher and author of
both publications. Ms. Solomon also directed community-policing efforts for JSS, including the
Fort Lauderdale Community Policing Demonstration Center Evaluation and the 1998 and 1999
Miami Police Department School-Based Partnership Evaluations.
Ms. Solomon is the former Deputy Budget Director for the U.S. Census Bureau and Senior
Manager at the Justice Department. She has more than 15 years of experience in operations and
management, budgets, strategic planning, criminal justice evaluation, and appropriate
technology. She oversaw the budget for Census 2000 and managed an annual budget of $1.3
billion for the COPS Office Grants Division for four years.
Chief Arturo Venegas (ret.) assisted on the community meetings, interviews and report
recommendations. Chief Venegas was the Chief of Police of Sacramento, California from
January 1993 through February 2003. He instituted the community oriented policing philosophy
and implemented numerous problem oriented policing strategies. During the difficult economic
times of the ‘90s, he led the department through a number of major financial reductions and
helped define new funding sources for police and other city programs while maintaining a
community service and problem solving orientation.
From August 1, 2006, through February 15, 2008, under an exclusive work contract with the
Camden County, NJ, Prosecutor’s Office and the New Jersey Attorney General, Chief Venegas
became the Supersession Executive (similar to Police Director) over the Camden Police
Department. His duties encompassed the day-to-day leadership oversight of the department that
was under the direct control of the New Jersey Attorney General.
Lt. Mike Wells (ret.) was principal investigator. He directed day-to-day project activities and
coordinated all administrative and study matters with City and Department executives. He led the
contract team in conducting interviews, research and observations. Mr. Wells is a Senior
Facilitator and Training Coordinator with Justice & Security Strategies, Inc. He joined JSS in
October 2005, after retiring as a police lieutenant from the Concord (CA) Police Department,
where he spent a 30-year career.
During his career with the Concord Police Department, Mr. Wells served in many positions,
including patrol, investigations, field training, and administration. He also taught use of force
and crimes in progress in the department and at a regional police academy. His last assignment
was a District Commander. In that assignment he was responsible for delivering police services
to a geographical district, and working with that community and police officers on impacting
crime and quality of life issues. He was instrumental in advancing community policing and
community oriented government in the City of Concord.
Chief Don Mort assisted with interviews of personnel, examined policies and procedures from
the Las Cruces Police Department, made observations and contributed to the final report.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 62
Chief Mort is a 27-year law enforcement officer currently employed with the City of Dixon,
California, as their Chief of Police. In his tenure with the City of Dixon Chief Mort has been
successful in implementing geographic-based neighborhood policing programs, and developed a
five year strategic plan aimed at enhancing provided services and staffing for the City of Dixon.
Chief Mort began his career in 1982 as a patrol officer with the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid
Transit Police Department. In 1986, Chief Mort joined the City of Concord Police Department
where he held a variety of assignments including: Operations Commander, Training Manager,
Professional Standards Supervisor, Filed Training Manager, Patrol Sergeant, Investigations, and
K-9 Officer. In his last assignment, Chief Mort was the Southern District Police Commander
where he was responsible for coordinating police services and other City resources to deal with
that area's problems and issues. Chief Mort joined Justice & Security Strategies as a consultant
in 2007.
Sergeant Russ Norris assisted in interviews of personnel within the department, conducted
observations, and contributed to the final report. Sergeant Russ Norris is a 16-year sworn officer
with the City of Concord Police Department in Concord, CA. Mr. Norris spent 2 years working
in patrol before he was assigned to the position of School Resource Officer. There, he taught
gang-diversion classes, investigated school crime, and operated a recreation center for teenagers.
Mr. Norris was then assigned to the Special Enforcement Team where he focused enforcement
efforts on street gangs and drug users.
Mr. Norris became a Field Training Officer and trained new officers until he was transferred to a
Gang Investigator position. There, he created a high-intensity gang diversion and intervention
program. As a sergeant, he was in charge of the Training Bureau for three years, where he
assisted in the review of use of force incidents. Sergeant Norris is currently in charge of the
Special Enforcement Team, dealing with street crime, gangs, and drugs.
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 63
Appendix 7: Information from the US Department of Justice
Justice & Security Strategies, Inc.
Page 64
Skip to content
En Español
Main Page
Division Overview
Section Sites
FOIA
Press Releases
Frequently Asked
Questions
Special Topics
Cases & Briefs
Recruitment &
Employment
Contact Us
Go to the
Department of Justice
Privacy Act Statement
Search Civil Rights
Hints...
Feedback Form
ADDRESSING POLICE
MISCONDUCT
LAWS ENFORCED BY THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
The vast majority of the law enforcement officers in this country
perform their very difficult jobs with respect for their communities
and in compliance with the law. Even so, there are incidents in
which this is not the case. This document outlines the laws
enforced by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) that
address police misconduct and explains how you can file a
complaint with DOJ if you believe that your rights have been
violated.
Federal laws that address police misconduct include both criminal
and civil statutes. These laws cover the actions of State, county,
and local officers, including those who work in prisons and jails. In
addition, several laws also apply to Federal law enforcement
officers. The laws protect all persons in the United States (citizens
and non-citizens).
Each law DOJ enforces is briefly discussed below. In DOJ
investigations, whether criminal or civil, the person whose rights
have been reportedly violated is referred to as a victim and often is
an important witness. DOJ generally will inform the victim of the
results of the investigation, but we do not act as the victim's lawyer
and cannot give legal advice as a private attorney could.
The various offices within DOJ that are responsible for enforcing
the laws discussed in this document coordinate their investigation
and enforcement efforts where appropriate. For example, a
complaint received by one office may be referred to another if
necessary to address the allegations. In addition, more than one
office may investigate the same complaint if the allegations raise
issues covered by more than one statute.
What is the difference between criminal and civil cases?
Criminal and civil laws are different. Criminal cases usually are
investigated and handled separately from civil cases, even if they
concern the same incident. In a criminal case, DOJ brings a case
against the accused person; in a civil case, DOJ brings the case
(either through litigation or an administrative investigation) against
a governmental authority or law enforcement agency. In a criminal
case, the evidence must establish proof "beyond a reasonable
doubt," while in civil cases the proof need only satisfy the lower
standard of a "preponderance of the evidence." Finally, in criminal
cases, DOJ seeks to punish a wrongdoer for past misconduct
through imprisonment or other sanction. In civil cases, DOJ seeks
to correct a law enforcement agency's policies and practices that
fostered the misconduct and, where appropriate, may require
individual relief for the victim(s).
Federal Criminal Enforcement
It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law
willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any
right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18
U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). "Color of law" simply means that the person
doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental
agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts
"under color of law" even if he or she is exceeding his or her
rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered
by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional
false arrests, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a
loss of liberty to another. Enforcement of these provisions does not
require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive
existed.
What remedies are available under these laws?
Violations of these laws are punishable by fine and/or
imprisonment. There is no private right of action under these
statutes; in other words, these are not the legal provisions under
which you would file a lawsuit on your own.
Federal Civil Enforcement
"Police Misconduct Provision"
This law makes it unlawful for State or local law
enforcement officers to engage in a pattern or practice of
conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States. (42 U.S.C. §
14141). The types of conduct covered by this law can
include, among other things, excessive force,
discriminatory harassment, false arrests, coercive sexual
conduct, and unlawful stops, searches or arrests. In order
to be covered by this law, the misconduct must constitute
a "pattern or practice" -- it may not simply be an isolated
incident. The DOJ must be able to show in court that the
agency has an unlawful policy or that the incidents
constituted a pattern of unlawful conduct. However, unlike
the other civil laws discussed below, DOJ does not have
to show that discrimination has occurred in order to prove
a pattern or practice of misconduct.
What remedies are available under this law?
The remedies available under this law do not provide for
individual monetary relief for the victims of the misconduct.
Rather, they provide for injunctive relief, such as orders to
end the misconduct and changes in the agency's policies
and procedures that resulted in or allowed the misconduct.
There is no private right of action under this law; only DOJ
may file suit for violations of the Police Misconduct
Provision.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the "OJP Program Statute"
Together, these laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race,
color, national origin, sex, and religion by State and local law
enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from the
Department of Justice. (42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. and 42 U.S.C.
§ 3789d(c)). Currently, most persons are served by a law
enforcement agency that receives DOJ funds. These laws prohibit
both individual instances and patterns or practices of
discriminatory misconduct, i.e., treating a person differently
because of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion. The
misconduct covered by Title VI and the OJP (Office of Justice
Programs) Program Statute includes, for example, harassment or
use of racial slurs, unjustified arrests, discriminatory traffic stops,
coercive sexual conduct, retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ
or participating in the investigation, use of excessive force, or
refusal by the agency to respond to complaints alleging
discriminatory treatment by its officers.
What remedies are available under these laws?
DOJ may seek changes in the policies and procedures of the
agency to remedy violations of these laws and, if appropriate, also
seek individual remedial relief for the victim(s). Individuals also
have a private right of action under Title VI and under the OJP
Program Statute; in other words, you may file a lawsuit yourself
under these laws. However, you must first exhaust your
administrative remedies by filing a complaint with DOJ if you wish
to file in Federal Court under the OJP Program Statute.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 prohibit
discrimination against individuals with disabilities on the basis of
disability. (42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. § 794). These
laws protect all people with disabilities in the United States. An
individual is considered to have a "disability" if he or she has a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is
regarded as having such an impairment.
The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all
State and local government programs, services, and activities
regardless of whether they receive DOJ financial assistance; it also
protects people who are discriminated against because of their
association with a person with a disability. Section 504 prohibits
discrimination by State and local law enforcement agencies that
receive financial assistance from DOJ. Section 504 also prohibits
discrimination in programs and activities conducted by Federal
agencies, including law enforcement agencies.
These laws prohibit discriminatory treatment, including misconduct,
on the basis of disability in virtually all law enforcement services
and activities. These activities include, among others, interrogating
witnesses, providing emergency services, enforcing laws,
addressing citizen complaints, and arresting, booking, and holding
suspects. These laws also prohibit retaliation for filing a complaint
with DOJ or participating in the investigation.
What remedies are available under these laws?
If appropriate, DOJ may seek individual relief for the victim(s), in
addition to changes in the policies and procedures of the law
enforcement agency. Individuals have a private right of action
under both the ADA and Section 504; you may file a private lawsuit
for violations of these statutes. There is no requirement that you
exhaust your administrative remedies by filing a complaint with
DOJ first.
How to File a Complaint with DOJ
Criminal Enforcement
If you would like to file a complaint alleging a violation of the
criminal laws discussed above, you may contact the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is responsible for investigating
allegations of criminal deprivations of civil rights. You may also
contact the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) in your district.
The FBI and USAOs have offices in most major cities and have
publicly-listed phone numbers. In addition, you may send a written
complaint to:
Criminal Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 66018
Washington, D.C. 20035-6018
Civil Enforcement
If you would like to file a complaint alleging violations of the Police
Misconduct Statute, Title VI, or the OJP Program Statute, you may
send a written complaint to:
Coordination and Review Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 66560
Washington, D.C. 20035-6560
You may also call the Coordination and Review Section's toll-free
number for information and a complaint form, at (888) 848-5306
(voice and TDD).
If you would like to file a complaint alleging discrimination on the
basis of disability, you may send a written complaint to:
Disability Rights Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 66738
Washington, D.C. 20035-6738
You may also call the Disability Rights Section's toll-free ADA
Information Line at (800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383
(TDD).
How do I file a complaint about the conduct of a law
enforcement officer from a Federal agency?
If you believe that you are a victim of criminal misconduct by a
Federal law enforcement officer (such as the Immigration and
Naturalization Service; the FBI; the Customs Service; Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms; or the Border Patrol), you should follow
the procedures discussed above concerning how to file a
complaint alleging violations of the criminal laws we enforce. If you
believe that you have been subjected by a Federal law
enforcement officer to the type of misconduct discussed above
concerning "Federal Civil Enforcement," you may send a complaint
to the Coordination and Review Section, at the address listed
above. That office will forward your complaint to the appropriate
agency and office.
What information should I include in a complaint to DOJ?
Your complaint, whether alleging violations of criminal or civil laws
listed in this document, should include the following information:
• Your name, address, and telephone number(s).
• The name(s) of the law enforcement agency (or agencies)
involved.
• A description of the conduct you believe violates one of the laws
discussed above, with as many details as possible. You should
include: the dates and times of incident(s); any injuries sustained;
the name(s), or other identifying information, of the officer(s)
involved (if possible); and any other examples of similar
misconduct.
• The names and telephone numbers of witnesses who can
support your allegations.
• If you believe that the misconduct is based on your race, color,
national origin, sex, religion, or disability, please identify the basis
and explain what led you to believe that you were treated in a
discriminatory manner (i.e., differently from persons of another
race, sex, etc.).
Reproduction of this document is encouraged.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/polmis.php
Special Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division, US Department of
Justice
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/
Documents and Publications
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/findsettle.php#Law%20Enforcement%20Misconduct%20Findings
%20Letters
Investigative Findings -- letters notifying jurisdictions of the results of investigations
Complaints -- complaints filed in federal court initiating lawsuits
Briefs -- selected briefs filed in federal court
Settlements and Court Decisions --settlements resolving cases and decisions by federal courts in
litigation
Reports to Congress -- annual reports to Congress describing Section's CRIPA work
Speeches -- speeches by Section staff
Publications -- other documents and publications
Archives -- closed matters
Conduct of Law Enforcement Agencies
The Section's police misconduct authority is based on the police misconduct provision of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which authorizes the Attorney General to file
lawsuits seeking court orders to reform police departments engaging in a pattern or practice of
violating citizens' federal rights, as well as the anti-discrimination provisions of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which together
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex or national origin by police departments
receiving federal funds.
The Section has already obtained significant relief under its police misconduct authority. For
example, in 1997, the Section obtained two consent decrees to remedy systemic misconduct in
municipal police departments in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Steubenville, Ohio. The decrees
require the police departments to implement widespread reforms, including training, supervising, and
disciplining officers and implementing systems to receive, investigate, and respond to civilian
complaints of misconduct. The decrees have had a widespread impact and are being used as
models by other police departments. The Section also has used its police misconduct authority to
reform restraint practices in a Louisiana jail and to obtain systemic relief in juvenile correctional
facilities. The Section is investigating other systemic problems in law enforcement agencies,
including excessive force; false arrest; discriminatory harassment, stops, searches or arrests; and
retaliation against persons alleging misconduct.
Section staff investigate police departments by interviewing police officials and witnesses of alleged
wrongdoing, reviewing numerous records, and evaluating departmental practices. As with the
Section's CRIPA work, staff work with nationally renowned experts who assist with evaluating
investigative material and developing and monitoring remedies to address deficiencies.
The Special Litigation Section is an integral part of the Division's Police Misconduct Initiative, along
with representatives from various sections in the Division, the Office of Justice Programs, and the
FBI. This Initiative was created at the Attorney General's request to coordinate Department-wide
enforcement efforts to combat police misconduct. The Chief of the Special Litigation Section serves
as the Co-Chair for Civil Enforcement of the Initiative.
For further information, follow the links below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Law Enforcement Investigative Findings Letters
-- letters describing the results of
investigations of law enforcement agencies.
Law Enforcement Complaints -- lawsuits filed in law enforcement misconduct cases.
Conduct of Law Enforcement Briefs -- selected briefs filed in federal court
Law Enforcement Settlements -- settlements reached in law enforcement misconduct cases.
Principles for Promoting Police Integrity (PDF)-- examples of promising police practices and
policies
Addressing Police Misconduct brochure -- brochure describing efforts by various sections of
the Civil Rights Division directed at addressing misconduct by law enforcement agencies.
Pattern or Practice of Police Misconduct Program
Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies
Conduct of Law Enforcement Agencies Investigations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Re: Austin Police Department (12/23/08)
Re: Investigation of the Orange County Sheriff's Office, Orlando, Florida (08/20/08)
Re: Investigation of the Easton Police Department, Easton, Pennsylvania (11/26/07)
Re: Investigation of the Warren Police Department, Ohio (03/02/2006)
Re: United States Department of Justice Investigation of the Virgin Islands Police
Department (10/05/2005)
Re: Beacon Police Department (06/21/2005)
Re: Investigation of the Alabaster Police Department (11/09/2004)
Re: Investigation of the City of Bakersfield Police Department (04/12/2004)
Investigation of the Prince George's County Police Department, Prince George's
County, Maryland (01/22/04)
Investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police (06/19/03)
Investigation of the Portland, Maine Police Department (03/21/03)
Investigation of the Schenectady Police Department (New York) (03/19/03)
Investigation of the Miami Police Department (03/13/03)
Investigation of the Detroit Police Department (Michigan) (12/11/02)
District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (06/13/01)
Los Angeles Police Department (05/8/00)
Columbus, Ohio Police Department (07/21/98) (Closed 05/14/04)
Pittsburgh Police Department (01/17/97)
Conduct of Law Enforcement Agencies Complaints
•
•
•
•
United States v. City of Columbus, Ohio (12/21/99) (Closed 05/14/04)
United States v. New Jersey (12/22/99)
United States v. City of Pittsburgh (02/26/97)
United States v. City of Steubenville, Ohio (08/28/97)
Conduct of Law Enforcement Agencies Briefs
•
United States v. City of Columbus, Ohio (3/10/00) (Closed 05/14/04)
Conduct of Law Enforcement Agencies Settlements and Court Decisions
•
United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Police Department (03/23/09)
See also, Complaint
•
Re: Agreement to Conclude DOJ's Investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police's Use of
Deadly Force (02/12/04)
•
Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States and the City of Villa Rica, Georgia
(12/23/03)
•
Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States and the Village of Mt. Prospect,
Illinois (01/22/03)
•
United States of America v. City of Detroit, Michigan and the Detroit Police
Department (06/12/03)
•
Re: AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Between the United States Department
of Justice and the City of Buffalo, New York and the Buffalo Police Department, and the
Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (7/09/07)
Agreement Between the United States Department of Justice and Buffalo City Police
Department, Et al., (New York) (9/19/02)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Joint Amendment to the April 12, 2002 Memorandum of Agreement between the United
States Department of Justice and The City of Cincinnati, Ohio and The Cincinnati Police
Department (07/25/2006)
Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States Department of Justice and the City
of Cincinnati, Ohio and Cincinnati Police Department (4/12/02)
o See also, Summary of Memorandum of Agreement and the Technical Assistance
Letter
JOINT MODIFICATION NO. 4 TO JUNE 13, 2001 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Between the United States Department of Justice and the District of Columbia and the
District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (11/26/07)
JOINT MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO JUNE 13, 2001 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Between the United States Department of Justice and the District of Columbia and the
District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (09/30/02)
Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States Department of Justice and the
District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, June 13,
2001
o See also, Summary of Agreement and the Letter of Findings and Press Conference
United States v. City of Los Angeles (6/15/2001)
•
United States v. State of New Jersey (12/30/99)
•
United States v. City of Steubenville, Ohio (09/03/97)
En Español
Main Page
Division Overview
Section Sites
FOIA
Press Releases
Frequently Asked
Questions
Special Topics
Cases & Briefs
Recruitment &
Employment
Contact Us
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff
v.
CITY OF STEUBENVILLE, STEUBENVILLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, STEUBENVILLE CITY MANAGER, in his capacity as
Director of Public Safety, and STEUBENVILLE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, Defendants.
Go to the
Department of Justice
Privacy Act Statement
CONSENT DECREE
INTRODUCTION
Search Civil Rights
Hints...
Feedback Form
1. The United States brings this action to enforce Section 210401 of
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42
U.S.C. § 14141. The United States alleges that officers of the
Steubenville Police Department have engaged in a pattern or practice
of conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities
secured and protected by the Constitution and the laws of the United
States, and that the City of Steubenville, the Steubenville Police
Department, and the Steubenville City Manager (in his capacity as
Director of Public Safety) have caused and condoned this conduct
through inadequate policies and failure to train, monitor, supervise,
and discipline police officers, and to investigate alleged misconduct.
2. The defendants in this action are the City of Steubenville, a
municipality in the State of Ohio; the Steubenville Police Department
("SPD"), a law enforcement agency operated by the City of
Steubenville; the Steubenville City Manager, an employee of the City
of Steubenville who serves as the Director of Public Safety, and in
that capacity, oversees the SPD and other agencies operated for the
safety of persons in Steubenville; and the Steubenville Civil Service
Commission, an agency of the City of Steubenville with authority for
hiring and review authority for disciplining SPD officers. The
defendants are hereinafter referred to collectively as "the City."
3. The City denies the allegations advanced by the United States. The
City acknowledges that allegations have been advanced against the
City relating to the its management systems for police training,
misconduct investigations, supervision, and discipline. The City
denies such allegations. However, the parties agree that the manner
and means of avoiding such claims is to achieve and maintain good
practices and procedures for police management. The parties enter
into this Decree jointly and for the further purpose of avoiding the
risks and burdens of litigation.
4. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
and 1345. The United States is authorized to initiate this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141. Venue is proper in the Southern
District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
5. This Decree resolves all claims in the United States' Complaint
filed in this case, and all claims the United States may have under 42
U.S.C. § 14141 regarding a pattern or practice of racial discrimination
in law enforcement by the defendants.
6. This Decree is enforceable only by the parties. Nothing in this
Decree shall be construed to impair the right of any person or
organization to seek relief against the City for its conduct or the
conduct of its law enforcement officers. Nothing in this Decree is
intended to alter the collective bargaining agreement between the City
and the Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Steuben Lodge No. 1. Nothing
in this Decree alters the authority of police officers to effect arrests,
conduct searches or seizures, or otherwise fulfill their law
enforcement obligations to the people of the City of Steubenville.
7. This Decree shall constitute the entire integrated agreement of the
parties. No prior drafts or prior or contemporaneous communications,
oral or written, shall be relevant or admissible for purposes of
determining the meaning of any provisions herein in any litigation or
any other proceeding.
8. This Decree is binding upon the United States and on the City, by
and through their officials, agents, employees, and successors.
9. The City hereby affirms and acknowledges its obligation to
discourage activity by City law enforcement officers that deprives
persons of rights, privileges, and immunities secured and protected
by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
10. The City, by and through its officials, agents, employees, and
successors, is permanently enjoined from and shall not engage in a
pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers of the SPD
that deprives persons of rights, privileges, and immunities secured
and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
DEFINITIONS
11. The following definitions apply to this Decree:
a. "Complaint history" means a summary, with a narrative description
of the allegations, of all events that trigger Internal Affairs (or "IA")
investigation pursuant to this Decree, along with a summary of the
resulting investigation, disposition, and management responses.
b. "Counseling" means a meeting or meetings between an officer and
an Employee Assistance Program, substance abuse, or psychological
counselor, as the City determines appropriate for the circumstances.
c. The terms "document" and "record" include all "writings and
recordings" as defined by Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 1001(1).
d. "Field Training Officer" or "FTO" means an experienced police
officer whose responsibilities include providing on-the-job training and
supervision of probationary police officers, and continual training of all
police officers.
e. "Police officer" or "officer" means any law enforcement officer
employed by the SPD, including supervisors and senior supervisors.
f. "Serious injury" means any injury requiring or resulting in
professional medical care or treatment, or in death.
g. "Senior supervisors" means SPD captains and the Chief of Police.
h. "Supervisor" means a police officer with oversight responsibility for
other officers. The term encompasses sergeants and also senior
supervisors. In the event the SPD develops other ranks above
patrolmen, it will categorize each additional rank as a supervisor or
senior supervisor rank.
TRAINING
12. The City shall develop and implement a training policy for all SPD
officers. Prior to implementation, the policy must be reviewed by the
independent auditor (described in ¶¶ 82-83), and approved by the
United States. The policy shall incorporate the provisions of this
Decree set out below (¶¶ 13-20):
13. The City shall appoint a supervisor as training officer, and arrange
for the training officer to receive adequate training to enable him or
her to carry out the duties here specified.
a. The training officer shall design and administer an entry level
training program specifically tailored for SPD officers, to be provided
at the start of officers' tenure (following academy training). The
training program shall include systematic field training for all new
officers. The field training shall be by designated Field Training
Officers, and shall last at least 12 weeks. Field training shall include
both daily and monthly evaluations of the probationary officer's
performance. The results of these evaluations shall be reviewed by
the Chief of Police and made a key part of the decision to confirm a
new officer's appointment at the end of his or her probationary period.
b. The training officer shall design and administer an in-service
training program, in which each sworn officer must participate for at
least 40 hours each year.
c. The training officer shall design and administer a pre-promotion
training program for every member of the department who is
advancing in rank, at the start of the promoted officer's tenure in his
or her new rank.
d. The training officer shall design and administer annual supervisory
and leadership training, which shall be mandatory for all supervisors,
and shall include command accountability, integrity, and cultural
diversity.
14. Both entry and annual in-service training shall cover the following
areas, among others to be set out in the training policy:
a. Cultural diversity. This training shall be by qualified instructors, and
shall include, at a minimum, training on police interactions with
persons from different racial, ethnic, and religious groups, and
persons of the opposite sex. The City also shall provide training in
communications skills and avoiding improper racial, ethnic, and
sexual communications.
b. Uses of force, including verbal de-escalation techniques as an
alternative to the use of force and other tactics for avoidance of
confrontation. Such training also shall cover the proper application of
various types of force, as well as examples of situations that do not
require the use of force but may be mishandled, resulting in force
being used (for example, individuals verbally challenging an officer's
authority or asking for an officer's identifying information).
c. Integrity and ethics. This training shall cover the duties of
truthfulness and reporting misconduct by fellow officers, the
importance of avoiding misconduct, professionalism, and the duty to
cooperate in misconduct investigations.
d. Domestic violence response and investigation, including
community resources.
15. In addition, in-service training shall include annual sessions on
search and seizure law and methods and other relevant legal
developments. Other topics that shall be covered every two years (or
more frequently if needed) are hostage and barricade situations,
emotionally disturbed persons, persons with mental disabilities, and
vehicular pursuits.
16. After the City has adopted new policies and procedures in
compliance with this Decree, every SPD officer shall be trained in the
new policies and procedures, including use of force and use-of-force
reporting, and complaint procedures. In the first year after adoption of
the new policies, compliance training shall be at least 40 hours in
addition to the training discussed above in ¶¶ 11-15.
17. The City and the training officer shall monitor complaints of police
misconduct and other events specified in ¶ 65 as triggering an IA
investigation to gauge the effectiveness of training and to detect the
need for new or further training.
18. The City shall establish formal eligibility criteria for training
instructors and Field Training Officers based on their performance
evaluations and previous superior performance as police officers. The
City shall disqualify any instructor or FTO, or candidate for those
positions, with a poor disciplinary record or complaint history.
19. The City shall ensure that all training instructors and FTOs receive
adequate training to enable them to carry out their duties. Training
instructors and FTOs shall be required to maintain, and demonstrate
on a regular basis, their proficiency in their areas of instruction. The
City shall maintain current documentation of instructors' and FTOs'
proficiency and training. The City may use SPD officers as training
instructors only if they have been trained and are qualified to fulfill
such duties; the City also may use outside training officers, if they are
demonstrably qualified.
20. The City shall maintain records documenting all training of
officers. At a minimum, these records shall reflect officer's names, the
dates of the training, the reasons for any mandatory training
(including any IA file number or other related cross references), the
general subject matter of the training (including lesson plans where
available), and whether the training was completed satisfactorily.
USES OF FORCE
21. The City shall develop and implement use of force policies that
comply with applicable law and current professional standards. The
policies shall include provisions governing use of deadly force, other
uses of force, drawing of weapons, roadblocks, vehicular pursuits,
and hostage situations. The City also shall develop and implement
new policies on off-duty responsibilities and off-duty gun use. Prior to
implementation, the policies must be reviewed by the independent
auditor and approved by the United States.
22. The City shall develop, and require all officers to complete, a
written report each time: any type of force is used against an
individual; an officer engages in a vehicular pursuit; a firearm is
discharged by an officer, except at a firing range; a person in custody
receives a serious injury or has received a serious injury while being
taken into custody; and any officer is injured in the line of duty. Types
of force to be reported include, but are not limited to, body locks, joint
locks, mechanical restraints, pressure points, chokes or chokeholds,
takedowns, throws, striking weapons, kicks or strikes, chemical
weapons, electrical weapons, and lethal weapons (including drawing
of a gun and pointing it at a person). No report for use of force need
be filled out where force was limited to a firm grip and/or use of
handcuffs. Reports shall include, at minimum, the following
information: officer name and badge number; description of incident;
each specific type of force used; the effectiveness of each type of
force used; description of any injuries to either a civilian or officer, and
medical/hospital data; name, race and gender of the person against
whom force was used; names and contact information for all
witnesses; whether the individual against whom force was used was
arrested or cited, and if so, the charges; date, time, and location of
the incident; and the signatures of the officer and his immediate
supervisor.
23. Each report prepared as required by ¶ 22 above shall be
reviewed, along with any associated arrest report, by the reporting
officer's chain of command within one week of the precipitating
incident. Supervisors shall refer to the IA Officer for investigation all
incidents where a report reasonably indicates a possible violation of
SPD policies or other misconduct; the IA staff shall investigate all
incidents where they receive a referral, and issue findings. Any
supervisor who believes there is a possible violation shall make the
referral to the IA Officer; the decision to refer is not subject to
modification. Supervisors shall be held accountable and evaluated for
their referral decisions. Referral shall be automatic and shall take
place immediately at the time of the incident for all incidents resulting
in serious injury either to a civilian or to an officer where a use of force
or a vehicular pursuit report was required to be completed, and for all
reports of firearm discharges.
STOPS, SEARCHES, AND SEIZURES
24. The City shall develop, and require all officers to complete, a
written report each time an SPD officer performs a search without a
warrant (excluding searches incident to arrests, frisks, and pat
downs), seizes any property without a warrant (excluding towing
vehicles), or conducts a traffic stop, or an investigative stop based on
suspicion of criminal activity (a stop authorized by Terry v. Ohio, 392
U.S. 1 (1968)). The record shall include the officer's name and badge
number; description of incident; the specific type of stop, search, or
seizure; the basis for the stop, search, or seizure; whether the subject
was asked to consent to any search; whether the subject granted
such consent; the name, race, and gender of all persons involved in
the stop, search, or seizure; any weapons, evidence, or contraband
found; whether the individual involved in the stop, search, or seizure
was arrested or cited, and if so, the charges; date, time, and location
of the incident; and the signatures of the officer and his immediate
supervisor. For stops, the report shall include whether the stop
involved a frisk or pat-down search; for warrantless searches and
seizures, the report shall include names and contact information for
all witnesses.
25. Each stop, search, and seizure report prepared as required by ¶
24 above shall be reviewed by the reporting officer's chain of
command within one week of the stop, search, or seizure.
Supervisors shall refer to the IA Officer for investigation all incidents
where a report reasonably indicates a possible violation of SPD
policies or other misconduct; the IA staff shall investigate all incidents
where they receive a referral, and issue findings. Any supervisor who
believes there is a possible violation shall make the referral to the IA
Officer; the decision to refer is not subject to modification. Supervisors
shall be held accountable and evaluated for their referral decisions.
Referral shall be automatic and shall take place immediately at the
time of the incident for all incidents resulting in serious injury to a
civilian where a report was required by this paragraph to be
completed.
REVIEW OF CERTAIN ARRESTS OR CHARGES
26. SPD officers shall give detainees warnings required by Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), on taking a suspect into custody,
without delay. The City shall randomly audit compliance with this
requirement.
27. Arrests or charges that fall in the following categories shall be the
subject of arrest reports by officers, and the reports shall be reviewed
by the reporting officer's chain of command within one week of the
arrest or charge: arrests in which officers are the only complainants;
possessory arrests not stemming from a search for another offense or
a warrant search, and not made pursuant to an arrest warrant;
obstruction of justice; resisting arrest; assault on an officer; disorderly
conduct; public intoxication; and like charges. Where the charge is
resisting arrest or assault on an officer, supervisors should ensure
that there is an associated use-of-force report. Supervisors shall refer
to the IA Officer for investigation all incidents where an arrest report
or other documentation in this category reasonably indicates a
possible violation of SPD policies; the IA staff shall investigate all
incidents where they receive a referral, and issue findings. Any
supervisor who believes there is a possible violation shall make the
referral to the IA Officer; the decision to refer is not subject to
modification. Supervisors shall be held accountable and evaluated for
their referral decisions.
INTERNAL AFFAIRS
28. The City shall develop and implement an Internal Affairs policy
and manual for the SPD, detailing policies and investigative
procedures. Prior to implementation, the policy and manual must be
reviewed by the independent auditor and approved by the United
States. Once adopted, the City shall make the manual available for
inspection and copying by the public and officers at SPD
headquarters, the Steubenville Public Library, and the City offices.
The policy and/or manual shall include the following provisions (¶¶
29-63):
29. The City shall appoint a police supervisor as IA Officer and shall
arrange for the IA Officer to receive adequate training to enable him
or her to carry out the duties here specified, including training in
techniques for questioning individuals. Other officers may be detailed
to Internal Affairs as needed, and shall receive the training necessary
to carry out these duties. (Collectively, the IA Officer and the detailed
officers are referred to herein as the "IA staff.")
30. The IA Officer and staff shall be evaluated on the basis of the
professionalism and thoroughness of the investigations they conduct
or supervise, and on their competence in following the policies and
procedures for investigations.
31. The City shall provide the IA Officer with sufficient staff, funds,
and resources to perform the functions required by this Decree. The
City shall encourage highly qualified candidates to become IA staff.
The City shall establish formal eligibility criteria for the IA Officer and
staff, including previous superior performance as police officers,
including management potential. The City shall disqualify candidates
with poor disciplinary records and complaint histories. An IA Officer
shall serve in that capacity for no more than five years, for the first IA
Officer appointed, and no more than four years thereafter.
32. The IA Officer shall report on IA functions directly to the Chief of
Police. Except for the Chief of Police and subsequent review by the
City Manager, and (if applicable) the Civil Service Commission,
authority and responsibility for determining the disposition of an
investigation shall rest with the IA Officer. The accused officers'
supervisors shall not have the authority to modify or reverse any
disposition of any investigation.
Initiation of an IA investigation
33. The IA staff, supervised by the IA Officer, shall be responsible for
investigating all potential misconduct allegations. These include each
referral described in ¶¶ 23, 25, and 27, as well the other matters listed
in ¶ 65. There shall be no discretion by the IA Officer or by any SPD
officer to refuse to accept a complaint or referral.
34. No civilian shall be asked or allowed to waive his or her right to
sue about police misconduct unless the civilian is represented by
legal counsel and has consulted with counsel about such a waiver,
and at least 24 hours have passed since the incident in question. No
civilian shall be asked or allowed under any circumstances to waive
his or her right to complain about police misconduct either in criminal
court, or through a complaint filed with the SPD, or with a federal law
enforcement agency.
35. Civilians may initiate a complaint against an officer either in
person or by telephone (or TDD), mail, or facsimile transmission.
Complainants shall not be required to file a complaint "form" to initiate
an investigation, although the City may develop and offer a form to
complainants to assist them in relating useful information.
36. A complainant may file an anonymous verbal or written complaint.
The SPD shall accept and investigate complaints filed by individuals
other than the alleged victim of misconduct (third-party complaints).
The IA staff shall ask anonymous and third-party complainants for
corroborating evidence, but even if none is available or offered, the IA
staff shall investigate such complaints to the fullest extent possible to
determine whether the complaint can be corroborated.
37. The City shall require officers to report misconduct by other
officers. Officers shall report misconduct by fellow officers either
directly to the IA Officer or through the reporting officer's chain of
command.
38. No complainant shall be required to go to a police station to file a
complaint or provide a statement. The SPD shall make complaint
forms and pamphlets describing the complaint process available at
several non-police locations around Steubenville, so that
complainants can initiate a complaint without coming to the SPD
station. The IA Officer shall have a telephone number, with a 24-hour
answering machine, so that a complainant need not call the SPD
main number. The City shall hold yearly open meetings to inform the
public about various methods for filing civilian complaints against
police officers. The IA staff shall receive complaints at these open
meetings. At least one week before such meetings, the City shall
publish the telephone number of the IA Officer and the time and
location of each meeting in a prominent location in all City buildings,
and in each local newspaper. Complaints received by the IA staff at
such meetings may relate to any SPD or officer misconduct and shall
be treated like any other civilian complaint.
39. The IA Officer shall notify the supervisors of an accused officer
whenever a civilian complaint has been filed against that officer.
Conducting the IA Investigation
40. Under no circumstances shall an officer who is the subject of an
IA investigation be allowed to participate in any way in conducting that
investigation.
41. The IA Officer shall monitor and be responsible for the progress
and completeness of all IA investigations. The City shall not permit
any SPD officer to attempt to settle a civilian complaint through
informal means.
42. The IA Officer shall not close any investigation without rendering a
disposition. Withdrawal of a complaint or unavailability of a
complainant to make a statement shall not be a basis for closing an
investigation or rendering a disposition of "unresolved" without further
attempt at investigation. The IA Officer shall investigate such
complaints to the fullest extent possible to determine whether the
complaint can be corroborated.
43. If complainants or witnesses are reluctant to come to the SPD
station, or unavailable to be interviewed during business hours, the IA
staff shall offer to interview them at alternate sites and times,
including at residences or places of business, and during reasonable
weekend or after-business hours. IA staff shall provide reasonable
notice before all complainant and civilian witness interviews.
44. All interviews of complainants, involved officers, and witnesses
shall be tape-recorded and transcribed. These tapes shall be
maintained and kept as part of the IA investigative file. If a
complainant or witness refuses to be tape-recorded, then the IA staff
shall prepare a written narrative of the statement to be signed by the
complainant or witness. The IA staff shall not conduct group
interviews, and shall not accept a "special report" or written statement
from any officer in lieu of an interview. The IA staff shall have the
authority to question all interviewees and to challenge their version of
the facts.
45. In order to interview officers effectively, the IA Officer shall obtain
(and be given full access to) information from the information system
described in ¶ 71, and the following information regarding the
accused officer and officer witnesses: performance evaluations,
assignment history, and training/qualification records.
46. Officers shall be obligated to appear at the IA interview and to
answer questions, under penalty of discipline. Officers who are the
subject of an IA investigation shall be informed of their rights and
obligations under Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967).
47. Supervisors on the scene of incidents that result in an IA
investigation shall be interviewed. Supervisors shall be required to
detail their handling of the situation during and after the alleged
incident and their observations of the complainant (if any) and
officers.
48. The IA staff shall canvass the scene of an incident for witnesses
as soon as possible after receiving a complaint of misconduct or any
other referral.
49. The IA staff shall itself aggressively collect all appropriate
evidence to document each incident of potential misconduct, or any
injury of a complainant, including medical records and photographs of
injuries. The IA staff shall not require complainants or other witnesses
to provide evidence that the IA staff can itself obtain, but shall seek
appropriate releases where useful in obtaining evidence.
50. The IA Officer shall assess the propriety of all officer conduct
during an incident the IA staff investigates. If during the course of an
IA investigation, the IA Officer has reason to believe that misconduct
other than that alleged by a complainant (or indicated by a triggering
report) has occurred, the IA staff must investigate and make findings
with respect to such misconduct, as well.
Evaluating the Complaint
51. At the end of the investigation, the IA officer shall give the
investigative file to the Chief of Police, and shall make one of the
following dispositions:
"Sustained," where a preponderance of the evidence shows that
misconduct or inappropriate behavior occurred.
"Unfounded," where a preponderance of the evidence shows that
misconduct or inappropriate behavior did not occur.
"Not resolved," where there is insufficient evidence to decide what
happened.
"Exonerated," where the conduct described by the complainant or
other referral source occurred, but did not violate SPD policy.
52. There shall be no automatic preference of an officer's statement
over a complainant's statement. In making credibility determinations,
the IA staff shall consider the officer's history of complaints (including
those with dispositions other than "sustained") and disciplinary
records and the complainant's criminal history for crimes involving
untruthfulness. Any credibility determinations shall be explained fully
in writing.
53. Where the IA staff has completed an investigation, and
determines that "exonerated" is the likely disposition, and the claim
involves an allegedly unconstitutional stop, search, or seizure, or a
false arrest, the IA staff may call upon the SPD's legal advisor for
legal advice. Such advice shall be in writing, and shall be made a part
of the investigation file.
54. At the conclusion of each investigation, the IA Officer shall issue a
report describing the alleged misconduct, any other misconduct
identified during the course of the investigation, a summary of all
evidence gathered during the investigation (including an explanation
for any absence of evidence), documentation of all credibility
determinations, the accused officer's complaint history, the IA
Officer's findings with respect to all potential misconduct, and the
analysis supporting the IA officer's findings. The report shall include
the disposition of the investigation, and shall be made a part of the
investigation file. The IA Officer shall not recommend discipline or
supervisory responses to the disposition and findings. Except in the
case of an especially complex investigation, the IA Officer shall finish
the report within 30 days of receipt of the complaint or referral.
55. The IA Officer shall give the report described in ¶ 54 to the Chief
of Police, who shall read it and evaluate the investigation. If the Chief
thinks that other investigatory steps should be taken, he or she shall
require the IA Officer to take such steps, and report the results. The
original report and disposition shall remain in the investigation file.
The Chief of Police shall not attempt to influence the findings or
disposition made by the IA officer.
56. On completion of a final investigation that satisfies the Chief of
Police, the Chief shall review the investigation and report, and shall
report, in writing, his or her agreement or disagreement with the IA
Officer's findings and disposition. If the Chief draws different
conclusions, he or she shall detail his or her rationale, in writing, and
shall render express findings and a final disposition, along with a
decision, pursuant to ¶ 69, on appropriate supervisory or disciplinary
steps.
57. Pursuant to the requirements of the Steubenville City Charter,
after the Chief has reviewed the investigation, the matter shall
proceed to the City Manager, who can approve the investigation or
return it to the Chief for further investigation, and can approve or
disapprove the findings, disposition, and supervisory or disciplinary
steps taken. It is primarily the responsibility of the Chief of Police to
ensure appropriate investigation and compliance with SPD policy;
rather than taking on the primary responsibility, the City Manager
shall insist that the Chief carry out this duty appropriately, and shall
evaluate the Chief on the basis of success or failure in this function.
58. If, pursuant to State and City law, the Civil Service Commission
reviews any determination made pursuant to the above procedure, it
shall do so in compliance with the obligation, imposed by law and by
this Decree, to ensure that SPD officers do not engage in misconduct,
and to discipline them for misconduct.
Management and Public Oversight
59. Every complaint or other referral received by the IA Officer shall
be assigned a control number.
60. In addition to preparing and maintaining investigation files, the IA
staff shall maintain summary records that include the IA file control
number, the names of all involved officers, contact information for all
officers and complainants, the race and gender of all involved officers
and complainants, a narrative description of the allegations,
significant dates, the street address of the incident, and the
disposition of the complaint. When the City prepares a complaint
history, the history shall include, at a minimum, the officer's name, the
IA file number, the date of the incident, a narrative description of the
allegations, the disposition, and the management responses. The
actual investigation files shall be maintained for at least ten years
from the date of the disposition of the complaint. All IA information
shall be maintained in a readily accessible manner during that
officer's employment with the SPD and for three years after the officer
leaves the SPD. Data regarding an officer who has left the SPD shall
be maintained indefinitely in an archive.
61. IA files and records relating to a particular officer shall be
available to personnel within that officer's chain of command who are
responsible for that officer's training, supervision, or discipline.
62. Once a complaint is finally resolved by the Chief and the City
Manager, the IA Officer shall inform the complainant of the resolution,
in writing, including the investigation's significant dates, general
allegations, disposition, and any resulting supervisory steps or
discipline.
63. The IA officer shall prepare, and the SPD shall issue, a twiceyearly public report of its investigations. Such reports shall include
each investigation's significant dates, general allegations, disposition,
and any resulting supervisory steps or discipline.
SUPERVISION OF OFFICERS
64. The City, by and through its officials, agents, employees, and
successors, has an affirmative obligation to supervise, monitor, and
discipline its officers.
65. The City shall use the following sources as supervisory tools
alerting management to potential misconduct, inappropriate behavior,
and areas in which additional training or policy modification may be
necessary:
a. The reports discussed in ¶¶ 22, 24, and 27;
b. criminal case orders suppressing evidence because of
constitutional violations (including violations of the First Amendment,
the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment) or for other reasons, or
other judicial findings or comments about SPD misconduct made in
the course of a criminal proceeding;
c. civilian complaints;
d. civil suits alleging misconduct by an officer in the course of his or
her duties, or against an officer and including allegations of
untruthfulness, physical force, racial bias, or domestic violence;
e. criminal arrests or charges against officers;
f. reports of misconduct by officers about other officers.
The reports listed in subparagraph (a) shall be referred to the IA
Officer under the terms specified in ¶¶ 23, 25, and 27. Each of the
other events listed in this paragraph shall trigger an IA investigation.
The IA Officer shall conduct an independent investigation on receipt
of the referral, and shall not wait for resolution of any criminal or civil
court case. The fact that the City settled a civil litigation shall have no
bearing on the need or findings of an IA investigation or on the
supervisory or disciplinary results.
66. In addition, the City shall use the information system described in
¶ 71, below, in order to decide on appropriate supervision of officers.
In particular:
a. The City shall develop a protocol for use of the information
revealed by the information system quarterly audits described in ¶¶
74-77, below. Prior to implementation, the protocol must be reviewed
by the independent auditor and approved by the United States. The
protocol shall specify what types of audit results will require review by
senior supervisors, and where appropriate, supervisory meetings with
officers, retraining, counseling, assignment to a FTO, transfer, or
reassignment.
b. The City shall identify for review by senior supervisors, all officers
with three or more complaints of misconduct or other IA referrals in
three years, whether or not the disposition of the investigation was
"sustained". Such review shall result, where appropriate, in
supervisory meetings with the officer, retraining, counseling,
assignment to a FTO, transfer, or reassignment. The City's
supervisory response shall address the types of misconduct alleged.
67. The City shall require all officers to notify the Chief of Police and
the IA Officer when the officer has been arrested or criminally
charged, or named as a party in any civil suit involving his or her
conduct as an SPD officer or including allegations of untruthfulness,
physical force, racial bias, or domestic violence. The Chief or the IA
Officer shall notify the City Manager and the Law Director, and the
City and the SPD shall monitor all criminal prosecutions of officers,
and all such civil litigation.
68. The City shall monitor all criminal proceedings containing
allegations of false or unconstitutional arrests or improper searches or
seizures by SPD officers. Whenever such a court finds an SPD officer
to have falsely arrested an individual or conducted an improper
search or seizure, such judicial findings, shall be included along with
the information gathered by the IA investigation, in the information
system described in ¶ 71 and in an officer's complaint history. A
finding of not-guilty, without more, shall not be considered a judicial
finding of misconduct under this paragraph.
69. After an IA investigation is complete, and findings and a
disposition have been made, the Chief of Police shall decide an
appropriate supervisory and/or disciplinary response. In particular:
a. At the close of every IA investigation (whatever its disposition), the
Chief shall evaluate the need for non-disciplinary supervisory steps,
including remedial training, counseling, assignment to an FTO,
transfer, or reassignment. The Chief's decision shall be made in
writing, shall set forth its rationale and the factors considered, and
shall be part of the investigation record.
b. Whenever the disposition of an IA investigation is "sustained," the
City shall impose appropriate discipline and supervision. Except
where the discipline is termination, the City shall require the officer to
receive remedial training and counseling, in addition to whatever
other steps are taken. Where appropriate, the City also shall transfer
or reassign any officer when a "sustained" disposition is made.
c. In deciding the appropriate discipline for each officer who is the
subject of a "sustained" disposition, the City shall consider an officer's
complaint history and the immediate misconduct. Prior remedial
training, counseling, discipline, transfer, or reassignment for
allegations of related misconduct also shall be considered in
assessing the severity of the discipline imposed. Anonymous
complaints determined by the IA officer after investigation to be
uncorroborated may not be the basis of discipline of any officer.
d. The City shall discipline and appropriately re-train, counsel, reassign, or transfer officers found guilty or liable by a court or jury of
misconduct related to their SPD duties.
e. The IA report and additional reports by the Chief of Police and (if
applicable) the City Manager shall be reviewed by the subject officer's
chain of command within one week of completion of the IA
investigation.
70. The City shall maintain records documenting all mandatory
counseling of officers. At a minimum, these records shall reflect the
name of the officer, the reasons for the referral (including any IA file
number or other related cross references), the general subject matter
of the mandatory counseling, and whether the mandatory counseling
sessions were attended.
INFORMATION SYSTEM
71. The City shall develop a plan for maintaining information
necessary for supervision and management of the SPD. Prior to
implementation, the plan must be reviewed by the independent
auditor and approved by the United States. The information system
developed shall include the following features:
a. The system shall collect and maintain, in accessible form,
information about SPD arrests, stops, searches, seizures, uses of
force, vehicular pursuits, officer injuries, weapons discharges,
complaints and commendations, training, discipline, and counseling.
b. The system shall include, at a minimum, the following information,
in a form searchable by officer, date and range of dates, supervisor,
squad, shift, special unit, and charge: all arrests with the location of
each arrest, the race of each arrested person, and the code
violation(s); uses of force, vehicular pursuits, serious injuries, and
weapons discharges as documented in the reports described in ¶ 22;
stops, searches, and seizures, as documented in the reports
described in ¶ 23; a detailed description of all allegations that have
triggered IA investigations, including all information described in ¶ 60;
discipline, training, reassignments, transfers, and mandatory
counseling imposed, and related IA file numbers (if any);
commendations and other indicia of positive performance; status of
any administrative appeals or grievances.
c. Information regarding an officer shall be maintained in the
information system during that officer's employment with the SPD and
for three years after the officer leaves the SPD. Information regarding
an officer that is removed from the information system shall be
maintained indefinitely in an archive.
72. The City shall gather records relating to each civilian complaint,
civil suit, judicial finding of misconduct, and criminal charge relating to
SPD officer misconduct since 1990, and shall incorporate into the
information system as much of the information as possible about each
one. This information shall be included in the complaint history of
each officer, and shall be audited and evaluated as discussed below.
73. The City shall use the information system described in ¶ 71 to
supervise the behavior of officers. At a minimum, the City shall use
the information system to conduct regular audits in the areas
discussed in the following paragraphs (¶¶ 74-77):
74. The City shall conduct regular audits and reviews of the uses of
force by all officers. The City and SPD supervisors shall have an
affirmative obligation to act on this data with the goal of preventing the
use of excessive force. In addition to reviewing each use of force, as
discussed in ¶ 22, at a minimum, SPD senior supervisors shall
analyze use of force information on a quarterly, cumulative basis to
detect trends in SPD use of force. The analysis shall include a review
of use of force incidents by officer, by injury, and by type of force
used. The City, and SPD senior supervisors shall act on this data to
ensure that SPD officers are using appropriate types and amounts of
force.
75. The City shall conduct regular audits and reviews of stops,
searches, and seizures by all officers. The City and SPD supervisors
shall have an affirmative obligation to act on this data with the goal of
preventing improper stops, searches, and seizures by their officers. In
addition to reviewing each stop, search, and seizure, as discussed in
¶ 25, at a minimum SPD senior supervisors shall analyze stop,
search, and seizure information on a quarterly, cumulative basis to
detect trends in SPD practices. The analysis shall include a review of
incidents by officer, by injury, and by type of stop, search, or seizure
used. The City and SPD senior supervisors shall act on this data to
ensure that SPD officers are using appropriate types and methods of
stops, searches, and seizures.
76. The City shall conduct regular audits and reviews of arrest and
charging practices by all officers. The City and SPD supervisors shall
have an affirmative obligation to act on this data with the goal of
preventing improper arrests by their officers. At a minimum, SPD
senior supervisors shall analyze arrest and charge information on a
quarterly, cumulative basis to detect trends in SPD arrests and
charging practices. The analysis shall include a review of arrests for
the charges listed in ¶ 27 by officer. SPD senior supervisors shall act
on this data to ensure that SPD officers are bringing only appropriate
charges, and are not violating other department policies or legal rules.
77. The City shall conduct regular audits and reviews of potential
racial bias (including use of racial epithets) by all officers. The City
and SPD supervisors shall have an affirmative obligation to act on this
data with the goal of eliminating actions that reflect racial bias by
officers. At a minimum, SPD senior supervisors shall analyze racial
information on a quarterly, cumulative basis to detect trends of
possible racial bias. The analysis shall include a review of race
statistics in the categories of arrest listed in ¶ 27, and in uses of force,
stops, searches and seizures, and complaints; use of racial epithets;
or other indicators of possible racial bias.
PERSONNEL MATTERS
78. The City shall develop and implement a performance evaluation
policy for officers. Prior to implementation, the policy must be
reviewed by the independent auditor and approved by the United
States. The policy shall set out objective, job-relevant criteria, and
provide for review of these criteria by each officer. It shall provide that
each officer receive periodic face-to-face and written performance
evaluations by supervisors during which his or her performance is
discussed and evaluated, including recommendations for necessary
improvement. Evaluations shall include narrative discussion of the
officer's performance, and shall explain fully the weight and
substance of all factors used to evaluate an officer. Supervisors shall
include in the evaluation consideration of uses of force, civilian
complaints, disciplinary actions, injuries, etc., focusing on possible
patterns of misconduct or inappropriate action. The performance
evaluations shall be part of promotion decisions made about any
officer. Anonymous complaints determined by the IA officer after
investigation to be uncorroborated may not be the basis of denial of
promotion of any officer. Supervisors and senior supervisors'
evaluations shall include assessment of their ability to monitor, deter,
and appropriately address misconduct or inappropriate action by
officers they supervise.
79. The City shall implement a performance evaluation system for the
Chief of Police, who shall be evaluated by the City Manager. Each
year, the City Manager and the Chief of Police shall together
formulate the performance criteria, goals, and objectives for that year.
The City Manager shall evaluate the Chief's performance on the basis
of the City Manager's ongoing oversight of the SPD, and also of
twice-yearly reports by the Chief discussing progress and problems
and addressing specifically the goals and objectives. The Chief's
performance evaluation shall consider and address progress on
implementation of this Decree and its objectives.
80. Because peculiar and exceptional qualifications of a managerial
and professional character are required, and because competition in
such special case is impracticable and the position can best be filled
by selection of a person of high and recognized attainments, pursuant
to the provisions of Ohio law, when a vacancy occurs in the position
of Chief of Police, the City shall suspend the provisions of Ohio
Revised Code §§ 124.01 to 124.64. Selection of a new Chief of Police
shall be conducted in accordance with the following provisions:
a. A written and/or oral competitive examination may be part of the
selection process. The search and selection process proposed by the
City, including any competitive exam, must be reviewed by the
independent auditor and approved by the United States.
b. The City shall search (or shall contract with a qualified search
organization) for a Chief who is qualified to implement this Decree
and its objectives, and shall select a Chief with sufficient expertise.
Candidates who are already employed by the SPD at the time of the
search shall receive preference in the hiring process for Chief of
Police. The degree of preference will be one provision of the selection
process developed as set out in subparagraph a.
c. Officers who are employed by the SPD on the effective date of this
decree and who would otherwise be eligible to sit for a competitive
exam for the position of Chief of Police, at the time of selection, need
not meet the education qualification set out in subparagraph d, below,
in order to be eligible for selection.
d. Mandatory qualifications, except as set out in subparagraph c, shall
include a four year college degree, appropriate administrative
experience, and a demonstrated commitment to police excellence.
e. The salary offered to any new Chief of Police shall be
commensurate to his or her experience and qualifications.
81. The City shall contract for or provide an employee assistance
program ("EAP"). This program shall at a minimum provide
counseling and stress management services to officers. The program
shall be staffed by sufficient licensed and certified counselors who are
trained and experienced in addressing psychological and emotional
problems common to police officers. The City shall publicize the
availability of these services to all officers. Except when the City
imposes mandatory counseling as a supervisory tool, officers shall be
free to attend counseling confidentially, and without any adverse
actions taken against them. The City shall refer officers to EAP
counseling where the City believes an officer's job performance may
benefit from EAP services.
IMPLEMENTATION
82. Within 60 days after the entry of this Decree, the City and the
United States shall together select an independent auditor who shall
report on a quarterly basis the City's compliance with each provision
of this Decree. The auditor shall be an agent of the Court and shall
not be retained by any current or future litigant or claimant in a claim
or suit against the City or its officers. The auditor shall not issue
statements or make findings with regard to any act or omission of the
City, the SPD, or the IA Officer or staff, except as required or
expressly authorized by the terms of this Decree. The auditor may
testify in court regarding any matter relating to the implementation,
enforcement, or dissolution of this Decree. The auditor shall be
acceptable to both parties. If the parties are unable to agree on an
auditor, each party shall submit two names, along with resumes or
curricula vitae and cost proposals, to the Court and the Court shall
appoint the auditor from among the names submitted. The City shall
bear all costs of the auditor.
83. The auditor shall offer the City technical assistance in coming into
compliance with this Decree, including with: policy development,
forms, training, management information systems. The auditor shall
perform the policy review function specified in the Decree, and also
shall audit and evaluate compliance with the Decree.
84. If the parties agree both that a particular technical assistance
function should be provided by someone other than the auditor, and
on who the alternative consultant should be, limited technical
assistance tasks may be performed by someone other than the
auditor. The City shall bear all costs of any additional consultant.
85. Within eight months of the effective date of this Decree, the City
shall provide the auditor and the United States with its preliminary
policies, manuals, and forms required to be developed under this
Decree. Once the policies and manuals have been reviewed by the
auditor, and approved by the United States, the City shall implement
them within 30 days. If agreement proves impossible, the decision
shall be made by the auditor.
86. The City shall provide the auditor with full access to: all IA staff
and records (including databases, files, and quarterly summaries); the
information system described in ¶ 71; all information regarding officer
use of force, stops, searches and seizures (including all reports
required by ¶¶ 23, 25, and 27); all records kept by a legal advisor of
any advice or counsel sought by an officer; and all relevant City
policies and procedures that the auditor deems necessary to fulfill his
or her duties, as defined below. At a minimum, the auditor shall
review and evaluate the following, and issue a quarterly report to the
parties and the Court describing the review and analysis:
a. All IA reports, along with any additional reports by the Chief of
Police and the City Manager, and any findings by the Civil Service
Commission. The City shall forward all such records to the auditor
immediately upon their completion.
b. All records specifying the imposition of, and completion of
supervisory steps and disciplinary actions, taken after an IA
investigation or an information system audit. The City shall forward all
such records to the auditor immediately upon their completion.
c. The substance and timeliness of at least 50% of all IA
investigations completed during each evaluation period.
d. All officer uses of force, stops, searches and seizures, and arrests
in the categories specified in ¶ 27.
87. The City shall re-open for further investigation all investigations
the auditor determines to be incomplete. The auditor shall provide
written instructions for completing the investigation.
88. Ninety days following entry of this Decree and every six months
thereafter until this Decree is terminated, the City shall file with the
Court and the auditor, with a copy to the United States, a status report
delineating all steps taken during the reporting period to comply with
each provision of this Decree. The first two reports also shall include
timetables setting out the steps the City has taken and will take to
meet the deadline in ¶ 85.
89. The City shall maintain all records necessary to document their
compliance with all terms of this Decree. The City shall also maintain
any and all records required by or developed under this Decree.
90. During all times while the Court maintains jurisdiction over this
action, the auditor shall have unrestricted access to and, upon
request made to the City's Law Director, receive copies of any
documents and any databases relating to the implementation of this
Decree. The auditor shall have immediate access to all City staff and
facilities as necessary to monitor the City's compliance with the terms
of this Decree.
91. During all times while the Court maintains jurisdiction over this
action, the United States shall have access to and, upon request
made to the City's Law Director, receive copies of any documents and
any databases necessary to evaluate compliance with this Decree.
The United States shall have immediate access to all staff and
facilities as necessary to evaluate the City's compliance with the
terms of this Decree.
92. This Decree shall become effective on entry by the Court.
COMPLIANCE
93. The City shall immediately provide copies of, and explain the
terms of this Decree to all current and future officers and employees,
and all City officials with oversight or responsibility for SPD
operations, in order to ensure that they understand the requirements
of this Decree and the necessity for strict compliance. All such
individuals shall sign a statement indicating that they have read and
understand this Decree and acknowledge receiving an individual copy
of the Decree. These statements shall be retained by the City.
94. Except where otherwise specifically indicated, the City shall
implement all provisions of this Decree within ninety days after entry
of this Decree.
95. If the United States seeks a finding of contempt against the City, it
shall be obligated to show that the City is not in substantial
compliance with the relevant provision of this Decree.
96. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for all purposes
during the term of this Decree. At any time after both five years have
elapsed since the date of entry of this Decree, and substantial
compliance has been maintained for no less than two years, the City
may move to dismiss this Decree. Any motion to dismiss must detail
all aspects of the City's compliance with each provision of this
Decree, supported by affidavits and supporting documentation. The
United States shall have ninety days from receipt of the City's motion
to dismiss to file any objections. In the event the United States files
objections to the City's motion, the Decree shall remain in effect at
least until entry of a court order disposing of the motion and thereafter
as dictated by the court's order. In the event the United States objects
to termination of the Decree, the Court shall hold a hearing, at which
both parties may present evidence, before ruling on the City's motion
to dismiss. At the hearing, the burden shall be on the City to
demonstrate that it has fully and faithfully implemented all provisions
of this Decree and maintained substantial compliance for at least two
years.
MODIFICATIONS
97. No changes, modifications, or amendments of this Decree shall
be effective unless they are ordered by the Court.
SEVERABILITY
98. The parties agree to defend the provisions of this Decree. The
parties shall notify each other of any court or administrative challenge
to this Decree. In the event any provision of this Decree is challenged
in any local or state court, removal to a federal court shall be sought.
99. In the event any provision of this Decree is declared invalid for
any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, said finding shall not
affect the remaining provisions of this Decree.
We consent and seek entry of this Decree:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
SHARON J. ZEALEY
ISABELLE KATZ PINZLER
United States Attorney
Acting Assistant Attorney
Southern District of Ohio
General
Civil Rights Division
________________________
__________________________
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM
JAMES RATTAN (#0018632)
Chief
Civil Chief
MELLIE H. NELSON
Office of the U.S. Attorney
Deputy Chief
Southern District of Ohio
U.S. Department of Justice
280 North High St., 4th floor
Civil Rights Division
Columbus, OH 43215
Special Litigation Section
(614) 469-5715
___________________________
MARGO SCHLANGER
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Special Litigation Section
P.O. Box 66400
Washington, D.C. 20035-6400
(202) 616-8657
FOR THE DEFENDANTS, CITY OF STEUBENVILLE, ET AL.:
_________________________
_________________________
_
_
DOMINIC MUCCI
GARY DuFOUR
Mayor
City Manager
City of Steubenville
City of Steubenville
300 Market Street
302 Market Street
Steubenville, OH 43952
Steubenville, OH 43952
(614) 283-6133
________________________
GARY REPELLA
City of Steubenville
Law Director
Attorney of Record
308 Market Street
Steubenville, OH 43952
(614) 283-6031
SO ORDERED this _______ day of ______________, 1997.
___________________________________
United States District Judge
Updated 2008-07-25
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/steubensa.php