DOJ six-month assessment report on PPD

8/20/2019 DOJ six-month assessment report on PPD

1/96

COLLABORATIVE

REFORM INITIATIVE

Six-Month Assessment

Report on the Philadelphia

Police Department

James “Chip” Coldren, Steven Carter,

James LaRochelle, Ashley Shultz


2/96


3/96

COLLABORATIVE

REFORM INITIATIVE

Six-Month Assessment

Report on the Philadelphia

Police Department

James “Chip” Coldren, Steven Carter,

James LaRochelle, Ashley Shultz


4/96

Thisprojectwassupportedbycooperativeagreementnumber2013CKWXK016,awardedbytheOfficeofCommunity

OrientedPolicingServices,U.S.DepartmentofJustice.Theopinionscontainedhereinarethoseoftheauthor(s)anddonot

necessarilyrepresenttheofficialpositionorpoliciesoftheU.S.DepartmentofJustice.Referencestospecificagencies,com-

panies,products,orservicesshouldnotbeconsideredanendorsementbytheauthor(s)ortheU.S.DepartmentofJustice.

Rather,thereferencesareillustrationstosupplementdiscussionoftheissues.

Thisdocumentcontainspreliminaryanalysisthatissubjecttofurtherreviewandmodification.Itmaynotbequotedorcit-

edandshouldnotbedisseminatedfurtherwithouttheexpresspermissionofCNAortheU.S.DepartmentofJustice.Any

copyrightinthisworkissubjecttotheGovernment’sUnlimitedRightslicenseasdefinedinFAR52227.14.Thereproduction

ofthisworkforcommercialpurposesisstrictlyprohibited.Nongovernmentalusersmaycopyanddistributethisdocument

inanymedium,eithercommercialornoncommercial,providedthatthiscopyrightnoticeisreproducedinallcopies.Non-

governmentalusersmaynotusetechnicalmeasurestoobstructorcontrolthereadingorfurthercopyingofthecopies

theymakeordistribute.Nongovernmentalusersmaynotacceptcompensationofanymannerinexchangeforcopies.All

otherrightsreserved.

TheInternetreferencescitedinthispublicationwerevalidasofthedateofthispublication.GiventhatURLsandwebsites

areinconstantflux,neithertheauthor(s)northeCOPSOfficecanvouchfortheircurrentvalidity.

Recommendedcitation:

Coldren,James,StevenCarter,JamesLaRochelle,andAshleyShultz.SixMonth Assessment Report on the Philadelphia Police

Department.CollaborativeReformInitiative.Washington,DC:OfficeofCommunityOrientedPolicingServices.

Copyright©2015CNACorporation.TheU.S.DepartmentofJusticereservesaroyaltyfree,nonexclusive,andirrevocable

licensetoreproduce,publish,orotherwiseuseandauthorizeotherstousethispublicationforFederalGovernmentpurpos-

es.Thispublicationmaybefreelydistributedandusedfornoncommercialandeducationalpurposesonly.

Published2015

http:///reader/full/52-227.14http:///reader/full/52-227.14


5/96

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents

Executive Summary 1

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Progresstowardreportrecommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Nextsteps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Chapter 1. Introduction 3

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Organizationofthissixmonthassessmentreport 6

Chapter 2. Use of Force Policies 7

Finding1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Finding2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Finding3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Finding4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Finding5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Finding6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Finding7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Finding8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Finding9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Finding10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Chapter 3. Basic Recruit Training 21

Finding12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Finding13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Finding14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Finding15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Finding16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Finding17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Finding18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Finding19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Finding20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Finding21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Chapter 4. In-Service Training 31

Finding22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Finding23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Finding24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Finding25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Finding26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

–iii–


6/96

COLLABORATIVE REFORM INITIATIVE

Six-Month Assessment Report on the Philadelphia Police Department

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Finding27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Finding28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Finding29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Finding30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Chapter 5. Investigations 43Finding31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Finding32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Finding33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Finding34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Finding35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Finding36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Finding37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Finding38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Finding39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Chapter 6. Use of Deadly Force Review and Officer Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Finding40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

Finding41 57

Finding42 57

Finding43 58

Finding44 59

Chapter 7. External Oversight and Transparency 61

Finding45 61

Finding46 63 Finding47 63

Finding48 65

Chapter 8. Conclusion and Next Steps 67

Appendix A. Philadelphia Police Department Recommendation Status Summary 69

Appendix B. Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Initialisms 81

About CNA 83

About the COPS Office 85

–iv–


7/96

Executive Summary

Background

InJune2013,CommissionerCharlesH.RamseyofthePhiladelphiaPoliceDepartment(PPD)requested

technicalassistancefromtheU.S.DepartmentofJustice(DOJ)OfficeofCommunityOrientedPolicingServices(COPSOffice)throughtheCollaborativeReformInitiativeforTechnicalAssistance(CRITA).While

Philadelphiawasexperiencingreductionsinviolentcrimeandassaultsagainstthepolice,thecitywasalso

experiencingincreasesinfatalofficerinvolvedshootings.

CRITAprovideslawenforcementagenciesintheUnitedStateswithanoptiontocloselyassessemerging

issuesofconcernwhich,ifleftunchecked,mightdevelopintoseriousproblemsrequiringextensiveand

expensivereformefforts.ThroughCRITA,independentorganizationsconductassessmentsoftheidenti-

fiedproblemsinapoliceagencyandrecommendreformsaimedateliminatingorsubstantiallyreducing

theproblems;theythenmonitorthepoliceagency’simplementationofthosereformsfor12to18months,

helpingtoinsurethatthereformshavealastingeffect.

ThegoalsofCRITAatthePPDincludeexaminingandreformingdeadlyforcetraining,policies,andpractic-

esinthePPDandimprovingcommunityinvolvementinthesematters.Theobjectivesofthisassessment

includethefollowing:

• Enhancetrainingasitrelatestoofficerandpublicsafetyindeadlyforcesituations.

• Improvethequalityandtransparencyofdeadlyforceinvestigationsfrombothcriminalandadminis-

trativestandpoints.

• Strengthentheuseofforcereviewprocess.

• Institutionalizeorganizationallearningprocessesandpracticesrelatedtodeadlyforceincidents.

AttherequestoftheCOPSOffice,CNA1conductedathoroughassessmentoftrendsandpatterns,training,

andpoliciesandpracticespertainingtouseofforceatthePPD..

TheCOPSOfficepublishedtheinitialassessmentreport,CollaborativeReformInitiative:AnAssessmentof

DeadlyForceinthePhiladelphiaPoliceDepartment,inMarch2015. 2

Thatreportpresentedadetailedanaly-

sisofuseofforceincidentsinthePPDfrom2007to2013.Theanalysisrevealedthatduringthoseyears,the

PPDaveragedabout50officerinvolvedshootings(OIS)peryearandthatthenumberofOISshaddeclined

inrecentyears.However,thepercentageofOISsthatinvolvedPPDofficersshootingatunarmedindividuals

increasedoverthatsametimeperiod,fromapproximatelyeightpercenttomorethan20percent. 3

WhilethereleaseoftheassessmentreportinMarchmarkedthecompletionoftheassessmentphase,the

COPSOffice,CNA,andthePPDhavecontinuedtheircollaborationtosupporttheimplementationofthe

91recommendedreformsincludedinthatreport.

1. CNA is a research and analysis firm specializing in policing reform issues around use of force and police-community relations. CNA worked with the COPS Office to

develop the Collaborative Reform Initiative and has worked on CRI-TA projects in Las Vegas, Nevada; Spokane, Washington; and Fayetteville, North Carolina, in addition

to the Philadelphia project.

2. George Fachner and Steven Carter, An Assessment of Deadly Force in the Philadelphia Police Department , Collaborative Reform Initiative (Washington, DC: Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2015), http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-w0753-pub.pdf .

3. Fachner and Carter, An Assessment of Deadly Force in the Philadelphia Police Department , 17–33 (see note 2).

Trackingtheimplementationprogressofthesereforms

beganinApril2015andwillcontinuethroughOctober2016,aperiodofabout18months.

–1–

http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-w0753-pub.pdfhttp://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-w0753-pub.pdf


8/96



ThissixmonthassessmentreportisthefirstoftwoprogressreportsthattheCOPSOfficewillpublishon

thePPD’sprogresstowardimplementationoftherecommendedreforms.Itwillinformallstakeholders(i.e.,

thePPD,theDOJ,andthePhiladelphiacommunity)ofthePPD’sprogresstodate.Overthenextyear,CNA

willconductadditionalsitevisitsandinterviewswithPPDpersonnelandcommunitymembers;directly

observePPDactivities;analyzerelateddata;andcontinuetoreviewsupportingdocumentationprovided

bythePPD.Thefinalassessmentreportwilldocumentthestatusoftheimplementationoftherecom-mendedreformsatthecompletionofthemonitoringphase.TheCOPSOfficewillmakethefinalassess-

mentreportpubliclyavailable.

Progress toward report recommendations

Thissixmonthassessmentreportassignsoneoffourstatusestoeachofthe91recommendationscon-

tainedintheassessmentreport:Complete,Partiallycomplete,Inprogress,orNoprogress.Table1shows

thetallyofthestatusofthe91recommendationsasofOctober30,2015.Todate,thePPDhascompleted

21recommendations,hasmadedemonstrableprogressonanadditional61recommendations(thoselist-

edasPartially completeand In progress),andhasmadenoprogressonninerecommendations.The

PPDhasmadepositiveprogresstowardimplementingthereforms.Attheonethirdmarkintheimple-

mentationphase(aftersixof18months),24percentofthe91reformrecommendationsareCompleteor

Partially completewithanother66percentInprogress.Thus,90percentofthe91recommendationsfor

thePPDareComplete,Partially complete,orIn progress.

Table 1. Status of PPD assessment report recommendations

Status Reforms/

Recommendations (N)

Percent (%)

Complete 21 23

Partially complete 1 1

In progress 60 66

No progress 9 10

Total 91 100

Next steps

Overthenextyear,theassessmentteamwillcontinuetomonitorthePPD’sprogresstowardsimplement-

ingthereformrecommendations.AfinalassessmentreportontheimplementationoftheCollaborative

ReformInitiativeinthePPDwillbeprovidedinearly2017.

–2–


9/96

Chapter 1. Introduction

Background

InJune2013,CommissionerCharlesH.RamseyofthePhiladelphiaPoliceDepartment(PPD)requested

technicalassistancefromtheU.S.DepartmentofJustice(DOJ)OfficeofCommunityOrientedPolicingServices(COPSOffice)throughtheCollaborativeReformInitiativeforTechnicalAssistance(CRITA).While

Philadelphiawasexperiencingreductionsinviolentcrimeandassaultsagainstthepolice,thecitywasalso

experiencingincreasesinfatalofficerinvolvedshootings.

CRITAprovideslawenforcementagenciesintheUnitedStateswithanoptiontocloselyassessemerging

issuesofconcernwhich,ifleftunchecked,mightdevelopintoseriousproblemsrequiringextensiveand

expensivereformefforts—possiblyevenconsentdecreesandappointmentofindependentmonitors.

ThroughCRITA,independentorganizationsconductassessmentsoftheidentifiedproblemsinapolice

agencyandrecommendreformsaimedateliminatingorsubstantiallyreducingtheproblems;theythen

monitorthepoliceagency’simplementationofthosereformsfor12to18months,helpinginsurethatthe

reformshavealastingeffect.

InthecaseofthePPD,thegoalsofCRITA,whichweremutuallyagreeduponbytheCOPSOfficeandthe

PPD,includedexaminingandreformingdeadlyforcetraining,policies,practicesinthePPD,takinginto

accountnationalstandards,bestpractices,currentandemergingresearch,andimprovingcommunityin-

volvementinthesematters.Theagreeduponobjectivesofthisinitiativeincludedthefollowing:

• Enhancetrainingasitrelatestoofficerandpublicsafetyindeadlyforcesituations.

• Improvethequalityandtransparencyofdeadlyforceinvestigationsfrombothcriminalandadminis-

trativestandpoints.

•

Strengthentheuseofforce(UOF)reviewprocess.• Institutionalizeorganizationallearningprocessesandpracticesrelatedtodeadlyforceincidents.

AttherequestoftheCOPSOffice,CNAconductedathoroughassessmentoftrendsandpatterns,training,

andpoliciesandpracticespertainingtouseofforceatthePPD.

InMarch2015,followinga12monthassessment,theCOPSOfficepublishedCNA’sinitialassessmentre-

port, An Assessment of Deadly Force in the Philadelphia Police Department .4 Thatreportpresentedadetailed

analysisofUOFincidentsinthePPDfrom2007to2013.Thisanalysisrevealedthatduringthoseyears,the

PPDaveragedabout50officerinvolvedshootings(OIS)peryear,andthatthenumberofOISsdeclinedin

recentyears.However,thepercentageofOISsthatinvolvedPPDofficersshootingatunarmedindividuals

increasedoverthatsametimeperiod,fromapproximatelyeightpercenttomorethan20percent.5

Whilethereleaseoftheinitialassessmentreportmarkedthecompletionoftheassessmentphase,the

COPSOffice,CNA,andthePPDhavecontinuedtheircollaborationtosupporttheimplementationof91

recommendedreformsincludedinthatreport.Trackingtheimplementationprogressofthesereforms

beganinApril2015andwillcontinuethroughOctober2016,aperiodofabout18months.

4. Fachner and Carter, An Assessment of Deadly Force in the Philadelphia Police Department (see note 2).

5. Fachner and Carter, An Assessment of Deadly Force in the Philadelphia Police Department , 17–33 (see note 2).

–3–


10/96


SixMonthAssessmentReportonthePhiladelphiaPoliceDepartment

ThissixmonthassessmentreportisthefirstoftworeportsthattheCOPSOfficewillpublishonthePPD’s

progresstowardimplementationoftherecommendedreforms.Itwillinformallstakeholders(i.e.,thePPD,

theDOJ,andthePhiladelphiacommunity)ofthePPD’sprogresstodate.Thefinalassessmentreportwill

documentthestatusoftheimplementationatthecompletionofthemonitoringphase.

Inthissixmonthassessmentreport,eachrecommendationhasbeenassignedoneoffourstatuses(see

table2).

Table 2. Definitions of recommendation statuses

Status Definition

Complete

The recommendation has been sufficiently demonstrated to be complete based

on the assessors’ review of submitted materials, observations, and analysis.

Ongoing review of this recommendation throughout the monitoring period

will determine whether this reform has been fully institutionalized within the

department.

Partially complete

The agency has submitted materials that they believe demonstrate completion

of the recommendation. However, the assessors have deemed that additionaleffort is needed to complete the recommendation. The agency has stated that

no further work will be forthcoming on the recommendation.

In progressImplementation of the recommendation is currently in progress based on the

assessors’ review of submitted materials, observations, and analysis.

No progress The agency has not sufficiently demonstrated progress toward implementation

of the recommendation.

Thereareimportantcaveatstothestatusesreportedhere.Everyrecommendationfromtheinitialassess-

mentreportissubjecttoreviewovertheentirecourseoftheprogram,includingthoserecommendations

thathavereachedthestatusof“Complete.”Thisisnecessarytoensurethatthecompletedrecommenda-tionscontinuetobeinstitutionalizedwithinthedepartmentandtoexaminepotentialmodificationstothe

implementationofthesereforms.Astatusof“Partiallycomplete”isassignedtothoserecommendations

wherethedepartmentdidnotfullyimplementarecommendationasstatedintheinitialassessmentre-

portandhasnofurtherplanstocontinueworkingonorfullyimplementingtherecommendation.Ifthe

assessmentteambelievesthatthePPDwillcontinuetoworkontherecommendation,thestatusislisted

as“Inprogress.”Thisstatusisalsousedtoindicateinstancesinwhichthedepartmenthasmadeconsider-

ableprogressandhassubmittedenoughmaterialsfortheassessorstomakedeterminationthatconstruc-

tivestepshavebeentakentowardcompletion.Recommendationslistedas“Noprogress”arethosefor

whicheither(1)insufficientmaterialswereprovidedfortheassessorstodocumentdemonstrativeprogress

towardscompletion,(2)thedepartmentwasunabletoimplementtherecommendationsbecauseofcir-cumstanceswithinorbeyondtheircontrol(e.g.,theyhavenotyetbegunimplementationofchangesor

theyarerestrictedbystatelegislationorcontractualissues),or(3)thedepartmenthasnotedthatitdoes

nothaveplanstoimplementtherecommendation.

Table3showsatallyofthestatusofreportrecommendations.Todate,thePPDhascompleted21recom-

mendations,haspartiallycompletedormadedemonstrableprogressonanadditional61recommenda-

tions,andhasmadenoprogressonninerecommendations.ThePPDhasmadepositiveprogresstoward

–4–


11/96

Chapter1.Introduction

implementingthereforms.Attheonethirdmarkinthemonitoringphase(aftersixof18months),24per-

centofthe91reformrecommendationsareCompleteorPartially completewithanother66percentIn

progress.Thus,90percentofthe91recommendationsatthePPDareComplete,Partially complete,or

In progress.

Table 3. Status of PPD initial assessment report recommendations

Status Reforms/Recommendations (N) Percent (%)

Complete 21 23


In progress 60 66

No progress 9 10

Total 91 100

Approach

ThegoalsoftheCRITAmonitoringphaseareforthemembersoftheassessmentteamtofullyunderstand

thestepsthePPDhastakentowardimplementingtherecommendedreformsandtocollectandreviewas

muchevidenceasnecessarytoconfirmthatthosestepshavebeencompleted.Inordertotracktheimple-

mentationprogress,theassessmentteamprovidedthePPDwithadocumentoutliningprocessesthat

provideevidenceofcompliance.Thatdocumentincludedexamplesofimportantstepsthedepartment

shouldtakeincompletingthereformsaswellasalistofformaldocumentationnecessarytoprovideevi-

denceoftheimplementationprogress.

FromApriltoOctober2015,theassessmentteamconductedtwositevisits,maintainedfrequentcontact

withthePPD,andrevieweddocumentscontainingevidenceofthePPD’sdeliberateactionsandprogress

towardsagencyreformbasedonthe91recommendationsintheinitialassessmentreport.Todate,the

PPDhassubmittedmorethan100documentsandfilesforreviewcoveringmostoftherecommendations,

includingpoliciesanddirectives,internalbulletinsandmemoranda,traininglessonplans,attendancere-

cords,OISinvestigationfiles,emailcommunications,andotherpertinentdocumentation.Theassessment

teamhascriticallyreviewedthesefilesforrelevanceandconsistencywiththerecommendationsaswellas

forclarityandqualityofthedocuments.InadditiontoreviewingthedocumentsandfilesreceivedfromthePPD,theassessmentteamheldbiweeklycallswiththePPDliaisonfortheCRITAassessmentduring

whichtheprogresstowardeachrecommendationwasdiscussedindetail.Tosupplementthebiweekly

phonecalls,theassessmentteamconductedtwositevisitstothePPDonJune3–5andOctober14–16,

duringwhichtheteamobservedseveraldifferenttrainingsessions,attendedcommunitypolicingevents,

interviewedseveralcommandlevelstaffinthetrainingandinternalaffairsdivisions,metwiththePolice

CommunityOversightBoard,andinterviewedCommissionerRamsey.

–5–


12/96



Overthenextyear,CNAwillconductadditionalsitevisitsandinterviewswithPPDpersonnelandcommu-

nitymembers,directlyobservePPDactivities,analyzerelateddata,andcontinuetoreviewsupporting

documentationprovidedbythePPD.

Organization of this six-month assessment report

Theorganizationofthissixmonthassessmentreportresemblestheformatestablishedwiththeinitialas-

sessmentreport.Chapters2to7inthissixmonthassessmentreportcoverthesametopicareasanalyzed

intheinitialassessmentreportandcoveredinchapters4through9ofthatreport.Thissixmonthassess-

mentreportaddressesallrecommendationsinthesameorderinwhichtheyappearedintheinitial

assessmentreport(andwehavemaintainedconsistentnumberingfortherecommendations),though

thechapternumbersthemselvesdonotalignacrossthetworeports.Foreachrecommendation,we

includeinformationexcerptedfromtheinitialassessmentreportthatexplainstherelevanceoftherecom-

mendation.Wherepossible,wedocumentevidencesupportingtheassessments.Weconcludethereport

withasectiononnextsteps.

AppendixAprovidesatablethatoutlinesthestatusofallthereforms,andappendixBprovidesalistoftheacronyms,abbreviations,andinitialismsusedthroughoutthisreport.

–6–


13/96

Chapter 2. Use of Force Policies

Thistopicappearedinchapter4oftheinitialassessmentreportonthePhiladelphiaPoliceDepartment

(PPD)andincluded20recommendationsbasedonananalysisofdirectives10and22,whicharethede-

partment’suseofforce(UOF)policies.Severalotherdirectivesandpoliciesinfluenceofficerdecisionmak-

ing,publicencounters,andcriticalincidents,suchasdirective111oncrisisresponseandcriticalincident

negotiations;directive136onseverelymentallydisabledpersons;directive146onfootpursuits;anda

draftdirectiveonelectroniccontrolweapons(ECW).Theinitialassessmentreport’srecommendationsin-

cludedthemessuchasconsistencywithtrainingpracticeandotherpolicies;consistencywithpromising

andemergingpractices,researchliterature,andthedepartment’suniqueneeds;courtdecisions;and

theimportanceofofficerandpublicsafety.Ofthe20recommendations,11arecompleteandninearein

progress,asshownintable4.ThefollowingchapterprovidesadetailedassessmentofPPD’sprogressin

implementingthese20recommendations.Wehavemaintainedtheoriginalrecommendationnumbers

(1.1,1.2,etc.)forconsistencyacrossthereports.

Table 4. Status of use of force policies recommendations


Complete 11 55


In progress 9 45

No progress 0 0

Total 20 100

Finding 1

PPD officers do not receive regular, consistent training on the department’s deadly force policy.

Recommendation 1.1

The PPD should develop a standard training module on directives 10 and 22 and require all sworn personnel to

complete the training on an annual basis.

Theinitialassessmentreportfoundtherewasasignificantlackofinservicetrainingthatthroughoutan

officer’scareerreinforcedthecriticallyimportanttenetsofthedepartment’sdeadlyforcepolicy.

–7–


14/96



Current assessment of compliance | In progress.

ThePPDhasdevelopeda10minutevideoofCommissionerCharlesH.Ramseydiscussingspecificchangesin

policiesandpracticesastheyrelatetothesetwodirectives.Inaddition,thePPDhasdevelopedaneighthour

lessonplanonthistopicthathasbeensubmittedforcommandapproval.ThelessonplanincludesappropriatereferencestoGrahamv.Conner andTennesseev.Garner .Itincludesillustrativeteachingpointsonhowofficers

canbetterarticulatemorepreciselywhatoccurredduringanincident.Thereisadiscussionontherequirement

forofficerstointervenewhenexcessiveforceisusedandthedutytoreportthesetypesofincidents.Manyofthe

policychangesrecommendedintheinitialassessmentreportarehighlightedinthelessonplan.Casestudies

areusedasmechanismstoreinforcethelearningobjectives.Theassessmentteamwillcontinuetomonitorthe

progressofthisrecommendationinanalyzingthelessonplanandhowthePPDintendstodeliverit.

Recommendation 1.2

The PPD should engage with officers and supervisors at the patrol level to seek their input on the clarity and com-

prehensibility of the department’s use of force directives.

TheinitialassessmentreportfoundthatthePPD’spolicyandplanningdivisionconductedsignificant

outreachtootherdepartmentpersonnelinrevisingdirective10.However,theiroutreachdidnotinclude

patrolofficersorsergeantswhosepositionatthestreetlevelcanhelpshapethepolicyinawaythatisun-

derstandable,practical,andaccessibletosuchofficers,astheyarethemostlikelytoapplythepolicytoev-

erydaypractice.


TheassessmentteamreviewedaJuly2015revisiontodirective150,DepartmentDirectiveProgram,andconcludedthatthefollowinglanguagedemonstratesthedepartment’sefforttomeetthecriteriaforcom-

pletionofRecommendation1.2:

The Research and Planning Unit will initiate a focus group consisting of officers and supervisors at the patrol level

to seek their input on the clarity and comprehensibility of any recommendation to update or change all or part of

the Use of Force Directives.

TheassessmentteamrequestedinMarch2015thatifthedepartmentmakesanymajorrevisionstothe

UOFpolicyorinstitutesanynewUOFrelatedpolicies,thedepartmentwilldocumentthatithasreceived

feedbackfromofficersandsupervisorsatthepatrollevelasarequirementofdirective150.However,sever-

aldraftswerewrittenbetweenMarchandOctober2015withoutanyofficerlevelengagement.AttheendofSeptember,thePPDissuedanewdirective7.16,DepartmentDirectiveProgram,whichstatesthatafo-

cusgroupofofficersandsupervisorswillbeformedtoensurethatfuturechangestoUOFdirectivesare

clearandcomprehensible.Whilethereviseddirectives7.16and150showprogresstowardimplementing

therequirementsofthisrecommendation,theassessmentteamwillmonitorwhetherfuturerevisions

includedinputfromofficersandsupervisors.

–8–


15/96

– 9 –

Finding 2

The PPD’s use of force policies are fragmented, as are revisions of these policies. As a result, the

PPD currently has two use of force models, which can be a source of confusion for officers.

Recommendation 2.1

The PPD should revise directives 10 and 22 at the same time to ensure the policies provide clear and consistent

direction and guidance.

The initial assessment report noted that directives should be revised at the same time, and when making

revisions, the PPD should audit to ensure that the language, guidance, and illustrations are consistent and

understandable to officers on the street. The initial assessment report also noted that the directives should

be reviewed at least annually for compliance with changing laws, court precedents, emerging best practic-

es from the field, findings and recommendations from the use of force review board (UFRB), and findings

and recommendations from the police advisory commission.

Current assessment of compliance | Complete.

Under the new directive 7.16, Department Directive Program, one modification is the following:

The Research and Planning Unit will initiate a focus group consisting of officers and supervisors at the patrol level

to seek their input on the clarity and comprehensibility of any recommendation to update or change all or part of

the Use of Force directives. All changes/updates that are made to the Use of Force Directives will be made and dis-

seminated at the same time.

The assessment team will follow up to determine whether directive 10 has been audited within one year of

its revision.

Recommendation 2.2

For each district unit, the PPD should designate or assign an individual who is responsible for policy and training

bulletin dissemination and auditing.

The initial assessment report noted that officers interviewed suggested the position of training coordinator

be created in each district and that training coordinators be responsible for timely policy dissemination

and verification that training was received and audited. The initial assessment report observed that officers

noted the lengthy time it takes to receive updates and disseminate them constitutes a large workload.

Therefore, making this the primary responsibility of a district training coordinator will result in a more time-

ly dissemination.


The PPD has developed a different structure for training coordination. PPD directive 150 established the

position of Training Coordinator, which is responsible for the distribution of policy updates and training

bulletins. This is an extremely limited role, and in a functional sense this person has no real involvement in

training; they are merely performing the administrative duties of document distribution and tracking.

Chapter 2. Use of Force Policies


16/96



Thechiefinspector(CI)oftheTrainingBureauhasproposedthecreationofaFieldTrainingCoordinator

program.Thispositionwouldbeacorporalorsergeantwho,whileworkinginadistrictordivision,would

beresponsivetotheCIoftheTrainingBureau(andcouldalsoconducttrainingattherequestofthedistrict

captain).Theywouldmonitoradistrict’scompliancewiththedistributionoftrainingmaterials,policies,

andtheMunicipalPoliceOfficerEducationandTrainingCommission(MPOETC)requirements.Theywould

monitorUOFreportstodetermineiftherearetrainingneedsthatshouldbeaddressed.Theywoulddelivershorttermtrainingatrollcallsorinhourlongblocksatthedistricts,includingtherotatingfirearmstraining

simulator(FATS)machine.TheywouldbeMPOETCcertifiedinstructors.Theassessmentteamhasclosely

reviewedtheproposalandfeelsitwouldbeamajorimprovementtothecurrentoperationalenvironment.

Itwouldfacilitateinservicetrainingattheunitlevelwhileensuringconsistencywithtrainingconductedat

theAcademy.Theassessmentteamwillcloselyfollowtheprogressofthisproposal.

Recommendation 2.3

The PPD should incorporate officers’ acknowledgement of receipt of training bulletins and policy updates into the

PPD’s training recordkeeping system.

TheinitialassessmentreportfoundthatthePPDcouldnotdeterminehowwellofficersarekeeping

abreastofpolicyupdatesatthedepartmentlevel,norcouldittrackcomplianceattheunitlevel,because

officers’acknowledgementofreceiptofpolicyupdateswerenotrecordedinanytypeofelectronicrecords

system.TheinitialassessmentreportnotedthatthePPDshouldcollectandstorereceiptinformationelec-

tronicallyandintegratethoserecordswithotherinformationmaintainedonofficertraining.


TheCIoftheTrainingBureaurequestedthattheexistingtrainingrecordsdatabasebereplacedwithasys-

temthat

• supportsawebbasedplatformthatpermitsonlinetrainingandeaseofaccessacrossthedepartment;

• transmitsnotificationsandalertsacrossdifferentusersviaemail;

• allowssystementriesatthedistrictorunitcommanderlevelwiththeabilitytouploadcompletion

trainingcertificateswithTrainingBureauvettingofcoursestakenoutsidethedepartment;

• tracksinventoriesofequipment,alertingequipmentholderstoexpirations,etc.(e.g.,ballisticvests,

oleoresincapsicum[OC]spray[pepperspray]canisters,Narcanvials),withspecificfirearm/electronic

controlweapons(ECW)assignmentandlocationtracking;

• allowsbulkentriesoftrainingdata,suchaswiththeQISTdatabase;

• tracksstudentcertificationexpirationsforallpersonneltosatisfythedepartment’strainingmatrix

needs.

PPDmembersreviewedtheproposedQualtrax6systemandnotedthatitislackinginotherareas

neededtotracktrainingandequipment.Theassessmentteamwillcontinuetomonitortheprogress

ofthisrequest.

6. Qualtrax is an automated training records system that the PPD thought could replace its current system.

–10–


17/96

Chapter2.UseofForcePolicies

Finding 3

Directive 10 is too vague in its description of use of force decision making, relying too heavily

on the use of force decision chart.

Recommendation 3

The PPD should update directive 10 to include additional narrative context describing the appropriate level of

force to be applied under various circumstances.

Theinitialassessmentreportfoundthatbasedsolelyontheuseofforcedecisionchart,anofficerappears

tobeabletouseanyforceoptionrangingfromphysicalcontroltobatonstoECWsonasubjectwhoisei-

therpassivelyresistantornoncompliant,whichwouldbeaninappropriateUOF.


ThePPDchangeddirective10toincludeadditionalnarrativetoexplaineachlevelontheUOFdecision

chart.TheadditionalnarrativecomplementstheconceptsdepictedonthenewUOFdecisionchart.Itin-

cludesexamplesofhowtointerpretthedecisionchart.AnearlyrevisionincludedASP/batonstrikes(not

allpermittedusesofthebaton—strikesonly)inthemoderateUOFlevel.However,afterworkingwiththe

assessmentteam,thedirectivewasrevisedtoreflectthefollowing:

TheuseoftheElectronicControlWeapon(ECW)and/orASP/Batonisauthorizedwhentheoffender

isphysicallyaggressiveorassaultiveandthereisanimmediatelikelihoodthattheymayinjure

themselvesorothers.Suchbehaviorsmayincludepunching,kicking,grabbing,orapproachingwith

aclenchedfist.

Finding 4Directive 10 uses the term “probable cause” in the context of deadly force, which is an unneces-

sary and confusing departure from the traditional legal definition of the term.

Recommendation 4

The PPD should remove the term “probable cause” from directive 10 and expound upon the principles of Graham

v. Connorto guide officers in deadly force decision making.

Theinitialassessmentreportfoundthatdirective10usestheterm“probablecause”inthecontextofdead-

lyforce,whichisanunnecessaryandconfusingdeparturefromthetraditionallegaldefinitionoftheterm.

Likealllawenforcementofficersinthiscountry,PPDofficersapplyprobablecausetoarrestsandsearchesinthevastmajorityoftheirwork.However,becauseofthePPD’spolicylanguage,officersmustshifttheir

thinkingonprobablecausewhenconfrontedwithadeadlyforcesituation,resultinginconfusionwhen

appliedinthefield.

–11–


18/96




ThePPDchangedtheterm“probablecause”indirective10to“objectivelyreasonable”andprovidedthe

definitionthatexpoundeduponthelegalpreceptsinGrahamv.Connor.

Finding 5

The definition of “objectively reasonable” in PPD directive 10 includes the terms “imminent” and

“immediate,” which can be a source of confusion for officers in the field. Notably, the term “im-

minent” does not appear in the Graham

v.Connor

decision.

Recommendation 5

The PPD should remove the term “imminent” from directive 10.

Theinitialassessmentreportalsofoundthatdirective10definesimminent as“threatening,likely,andun-

avoidable,”whichisvagueandinsufficientlanguage.


ThePPDchangedtheterm“imminent”indirective10to“immediate”.

Finding 6

The PPD’s “duty to intervene” clause in directive 22 creates a limited requirement—specifically,

that officers are required to stop another officer from using force when it is no longer required.

The policy is silent on whether officers are required to stop the initial use of force when it is in-

appropriate and on whether any such abuses should be reported.

Recommendation 6.1

The PPD’s “duty to intervene” should be revised to account for any officers witnessing the inappropriate initiation

of force.

Theinitialassessmentreportfoundthatthepolicyneglectsthedutyofofficerstointervenewhenthelevel

offorcebeingappliedisinappropriateinthefirstplace.


ThePPDchangeddirective22policytoreflectofficers’“dutytointervene”uponwitnessingexcessiveforce

beingused.Theassessmentteamsuggestedthefollowingadditionallanguagetothedirectivethathad

notalreadybeenadded:

Nopersonshouldeverbesubjecttoexcessiveforceatthehandsofthepolice.Yourinterventionwill

upholdthemoralandethicalstandardsofthePhiladelphiaPoliceDepartment.Officerswhoengage

orarecomplicitintheuseofexcessiveforcearesubjecttocivilandcriminalliability,inadditionto

disciplinaryaction.

–12–


19/96


TherevisedDirective22nowstates,

Theprimarydutyofallpoliceofficersistopreservehumanlife.Onlytheamountofforcenecessary

toprotectlifeortoeffectanarrestshouldbeusedbyanofficer.Excessive force will not be

tolerated.Officersshouldexerciseallsafeandreasonablemeansofcontrolandcontainment,using

onlytheminimalamountofforcenecessarytoovercomeresistance.

Recommendation 6.2

The PPD’s “duty to intervene” should be expanded to include a “duty to report”.

Theinitialassessmentreportfoundthatdirective22issilentonwhetherofficersarerequiredtostopthe

initialuseofforcewhenitisinappropriateandonwhetheranysuchabusesshouldbereported.Theinitial

assessmentreportalsofoundthatwhiledirective114onemployees’responsibilitytoreportcorruption,

misconduct,andotherimproperactsnegativelyaffectingthedepartmentrequiresthereportingofsuch

incidents,itisnotstatedclearly,norisitreferencedinthedepartment’sUOFdirectives.

Current assessment of compliance |Complete.

ThePPDchangeddirectives10and22toinclude“dutytoreport”andthestatement“Officerswhowitness

inappropriateorexcessiveforcehaveadutytoreportsuchviolationstoasupervisorandInternalAffairs.”

Finding 7

Directive 22 does not require officers to carry oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray.

Recommendation 7

Directive 22 should state that officers are required to carry OC spray on their duty belt at all times while on duty.

TheinitialassessmentreportfoundthatmanyofficersdonotcarrytheirOCspraybecausetheydonot

believeittobeeffective,basedlargelyonanecdotalstoriessharedthroughouttheranks.Bynotcarrying

OCspray,PPDofficersarenotavailingthemselvesofavaluabletoolthatcouldenablethemtogaincom-

pliancewithoutinjuryortheenhanceddangerofgoing“handson”withasuspect.


ThePPDchangeddirectives78and22toreflectthisrecommendation.Theassessmentteamaskedthat

languagebeaddedtoreflectthatsubsequentviolationswillsubjecttheofficertoincreasinglevelsofdisci-

pline.ThePPDexplainedthatthedisciplinarycodeisacontractualmatterbetweenPPDandthepoliceunion(theFraternalOrderofPolice)andthatthematterofchangestothedisciplinarycodecannotbead-

dresseduntilthenextcontractnegotiationsscheduledfor2017.

Whilepolicyhasbeenchanged,whichmeetstheminimumrequirementofthisrecommendation,itis

notlikelythatthedisciplinarycodematterwillbeaddressedduringthe18monthimplementationphase.

Inaddition,duringitstwomonitoringvisits,theassessmentteamobserveduniformedofficersworking

invariouscapacitieswhowerenotcarryingOCspray.Theassessmentteamwillcontinuetomonitorfor

evidencethatofficersareheldtothisstandard.

–13–


20/96



Finding 8

The PPD requires officers to complete CIT in order to obtain an ECW. This requirement conflates

the two tactical approaches and limits the distribution of lesslethal tools throughout the de-

partment.

Recommendation 8.1

The PPD should decouple ECWs and CIT both conceptually and operationally.

Theinitialassessmentreportfoundthatcrisisinterventionteam(CIT)trainingismeanttotrainofficerson

therecognitionofindividualswhoareincrisis(becauseofmentalhealthorothertemporaryimpairments)

andthentoemploydeescalationstrategies,includingverbaldeescalation,sothatwhenpossible,en-

counterswithpersonsinastateofmentalcrisiscanberesolvedwithoutviolence.ThePPD’sstronglinkage

ofthisconceptwithECWssendsmixedmessages.Infact,manyinterviewedofficersreferredtoCITtraining

as“Tasertraining”becausetheyviewedobtainingthetoolastheprimaryoutcomeofthetraining.7

7. CNA interviews.


CommissionerRamseyindicatedthatthePPDisworkingonacompromiseversionofdecouplingECWand

CITthatwouldincludesomedeescalationtrainingtogoalongwiththeECWclass.

Recommendation 8.2

ECWs should be standard issue weapons for all PPD officers assigned to uniformed enforcement units.

TheinitialassessmentreportfoundthatthedistributionofECWshascoincidedwithadecreasingpropor-

tionofarmedencountersbeingresolvedwithdeadlyforce.Theinitialassessmentreportnotedthatthe

PPDshouldmakeECWsastandardissuetoolforalluniformedpersonnelassignedtouniformedenforce-

mentunits.


ThePPDindicatedthatthisisacostlyrecommendation.Theassessmentteamacknowledgedthisissue

andsuggestedthatunlikethecurrentsystemofindividuallyissuinganECWtoeachofficer,thePPDcould

maintainasupplyineachdistrictandissuethematthebeginningoftheshifttocutdownoncosts.

OnMay18,2015,theAcademybegantrainingrecruitsontheECW.Inaddition,overhalfofthePPDisECW

certified.Theassessmentteamrequestedevidenceofprogressregardingthisrecommendationforincum-bentofficers.

–14–


21/96


Recommendation 8.3

All PPD officers in uniformed enforcement units should be required to carry ECWs on their duty belt at all times.

TheinitialassessmentreportfoundthatthePPDdoesnotrequireCITofficerstocarrytheirECWontheirduty

beltatalltimes.SomedepartmentpersonnelnotedthatofficerswhohavehadCITdonotcarryECWsbe-

causetheyprefertousetheirverbalskills.OthersnotedthatevenwhenrequiredtocarryECWs,officerswouldoccasionallyleavethemintheirvehiclesratherthancarrythemontheirdutybeltbecauseoftheirbulkiness.


ThePPDchangeddirectives78and22toreflectthisrecommendation.Theassessmentteamaskedthat

languagebeaddedtoreflectthatsubsequentviolationswillsubjecttheofficertoincreasinglevelsof

discipline.Asnotedearlier(seerecommendation7),changestothedisciplinarycodearesubjecttounion

contractnegotiations,whichwillnottakeplaceuntil2017.Thusitisunlikelythatthisrecommendation

willbecompletedduringtheimplementationphase.

Theassessmentteamrequestedtoseeevidencethatthisispartofrollcallinspection.ThePPDindicated

thatwhenthedirectivechangesareapprovedbyCommissionerRamsey,ageneralmessagewillbesent

byResearchandPlanningDivisionstatingthatsupervisorswillinspectpersonneltoensurecompliance

andthatthisinspectionwillbedocumentedintheofficer’spersonnelrecords.

Whilethepolicyhasbeenchangedtomeettherecommendation,theassessmentteamsuggestsa

mechanismthatallowsthedepartmenttoensurethoseofficerswhoareECWcertifiedarecarryingtheir

ECWsasthiscannotbesimplyobserved.Theassessmentteamwillcontinuetomonitorthisaspectof

therecommendation.

Recommendation 8.4The PPD should continue to dispatch CIT officers to calls for service involving persons in a probable state of men-

tal crisis.

TheinitialassessmentreportnotedthatbeingarmedwithanECWdoesnotbetterprepareanofficerto

manageanencounterwithsomeoneinmentalcrisis.ItshouldremainthepolicyofthePPDthatCIToffi-

cersbedispatchedtocallsforserviceinvolvingpersonsinastateofexciteddeliriumormentalcrisis.


ThePPDdraftedamemoin2011entitled“DispatchingCrisisInterventionTeams”mandatingthatwhenthereisanincidentinvolvinga“SeverelyMentallyDisabledPerson(SMDP)whoisviolent,suicidaloracting

out,”thedispatcherwillattempttodispatchCITofficers.Ifnoneareavailable,dispatchwillnotifyaradio

andstreetsupervisor.TheradiosupervisorwillattempttofindaCITofficerfromanearbydistrictordivi-

sion.ThememoalsodocumentshowCITtrainedofficersaredocumentedintheircomputeraideddis-

patch(CAD).Theassessmentteamisconcernedthatthisisfocusedonlyonmentalhealthclientsanddoes

notrecognizethattheremaybeotherswhoaresufferingatemporaryemotionalcrisisforwhomthese

proceduresshouldalsobeimplemented.

–15–


22/96



ThePPDupdatedtheCommunicationsDivision’sstandardoperatingprocedure(SOP)421,entitled“Severely

MentallyDisabledPerson‘302.’”(Thedesignation302isaradiocodeforaSMDP.)ThisSOPdefinesaSMDPas

Apersonisseverelymentallydisabledwhen,asaresultofmentalillness,his/hercapacitytoexercise

selfcontrol,judgment,anddiscretioninconductofhis/heraffairsandsocialrelationsortocarefor

his/herownpersonalneedsissolessenedthathe/sheposesaclearandpresentdangerofharmto

othersortohim/herself.

ThisagainreinforcesthatCITisonlyrequiredforthementallyillandnotthosewhomaybeinatemporary

emotionalcrisis.Inaddition,thispolicyonlyaddresseswhattodowhenacallcomesintodispatchre-

questingtransportofaSMDPtoacrisiscenter.Theassessmentteamisconcernedthatthispertainsonlyto

requestsforSMDPtransportstoacrisiscenterandnottosituationswhenacalltakeridentifiesapotential

CITclientwhileassessingothercallsforservicefromthepublic.

Theassessmentteamrequesteddatafromdispatchfromthebeginningoftheyearthatshowsallofthe

callsforservicethatinvolvedamentalhealthissueandthecorrespondingnumberofCITofficersdis-

patched,buttheCADsystemwasnotcapableofproducingsuchreports.

ThePPDrequestedtechnicalassistanceinobtainingdispatchprotocolsforCITcalls;theassessmentteam

sentrelevantpoliciesfromtheDenver(Colorado)andLasVegas(Nevada)Metropolitanpolicedepart-

mentsandwillcontinuetomonitorthisrecommendation.

Finding 9

The PPD’s ECW policy drafted in 2014 is not detailed enough regarding the circumstances in

which use of the tool should be limited.

Recommendation 9.1

The PPD’s ECW policy should limit the number of cycles used per subject to three.

Theinitialassessmentreportfoundthatthepolicydoesnotexplicitlylimitthenumberofcyclesusedona

singlesubject.


ThePPDreviseddirective22toreadasfollows:

WhenactivatinganECW,personnelshoulduseitforone(1)standardcycle(astandardcycleisfive

(5)seconds)andshouldevaluatethesituationtodetermineifsubsequentcyclesarenecessary.

Personnelshouldconsiderthatexposuretomultipleactivations,continuouscyclingandexposuretotheECWlongerthanfifteen(15)secondsmayincreasetheriskofdeathorseriousinjury.Any

subsequentactivationshouldbeindependentlyjustifiableandshouldbeweighedagainstother

forceoptions.UndernocircumstancesareofficersauthorizedtoadministermorethanTHREE (3)

CYCLES againstaperson.

–16–


23/96


Recommendation 9.2

The PPD’s use of force decision chart policy should clearly illustrate where using ECWs is appropriate and where it

is inappropriate.

TheinitialassessmentreportfoundthatECWsarepositionedintheUOFdecisionchartsuchthatusingthe

toolonanoncompliantorpassivelyresistingsubjectcanbeinterpretedasanappropriateuseoftheweapon.


ThePPDchangeddirective22tocontainlanguageunderthedecisionchartthatoutlineswhenitisappro-

priatetousetheECW.TheUOFdecisionchartandaccompanyingnarrativenowprovidecleardirectionon

theECW;itnowstates:

TheuseoftheElectronicControlWeapon(ECW)and/orASP/Batonisauthorizedwhentheoffender

isphysicallyaggressiveorassaultiveandthereisanimmediatelikelihoodthattheymayinjure

themselvesorothers.Suchbehaviorsmayincludepunching,kicking,grabbing,orapproachingwith

aclenchedfist.

EXCEPTION: Protestors/DemonstratorsthatareexercisingtheirConstitutionalRightsofFree

SpeechorAssemblyandarenoncompliantandpassivelyresistingofficer’scommands,ECWSHALL

NOT BE USED toovercometheresistance.Rather,officerswilldisengageandcontactasupervisor.

Ifnecessary,additionalofficerswillbeusedtoovercometheresistance.

Recommendation 9.3

ECW discharges used against handcuffed persons should be permissible only in cases where the officer or another

is in danger of serious bodily injury.

TheinitialassessmentreportfoundthatthePPD’scurrentpolicycontainednoprohibitionagainstusing

ECWdischargesonhandcuffedprisoners.


ThePPDchangeddirective160.Itnowstates,“TheECWSHALLNOTbeusedinthefollowingmanner:I.On

handcuffedpersonsunlessnecessarytopreventtheindividualfrominflictingseriousbodilyinjuryto

themselvesorothers.”

Recommendation 9.4

Officers who accidentally discharge an ECW and strike a suspect or nonsuspect should be required to complete a

use of force report.

TheinitialassessmentreportnotedthatUOFreportswerenotrequiredifsomeonewasaccidentallystruck

byanECW.Reportsshould,outsideofthetrainingenvironment,alwaysberequiredwhenforceisused

againstaparty,whetherintentionaloraccidental.

–17–


24/96




ThePPDchangeddirective22toreflectthatUOFreportswillnowberequiredwheneverapersonisstruck

byanECW,regardlessofintent.

Finding 10

Between 2007 and 2013, PPD officers were involved in 30 OISs involving vehicles. The depart-

ment’s policy does not provide enough limitations on this practice.

Recommendation 10

The PPD should amend its policy and include a stronger prohibition on shooting at moving vehicles.

Theinitialassessmentreportfoundthatthedepartment’spolicydoesnotprovideenoughlimitationson

thispractice,andexpoundinguponthepolicystatementwouldmakeitstronger.


PPDchangeddirective10toemphasizethisprohibition.Thenewlanguagecontainsthefollowing:

G.PoliceofficersshallnotdischargetheirfirearmsFROMamovingvehicleunlesstheofficersare

beingfiredupon.Shootingaccuratelyfromamovingvehicleisextremelydifficultandtherefore,

unlikelytosuccessfullystopathreatofanotherperson.

H.PoliceofficersshallnotdischargetheirfirearmsATavehicleunlessofficersorciviliansarebeing

fireduponbytheoccupantsofthevehicle.

1. OfficersshallnotdischargetheirfirearmsATavehiclewhencircumstancesdonotprovidea

reasonableprobabilityofstrikingtheintendedtargetorwhenthereissubstantialrisktothe

safetyofinnocentbystandersorofficers.

2. Amovingvehiclealoneshallnotpresumptivelyconstituteathreatthatjustifiesanofficer’suse

ofdeadlyforce.

3. Officersshallnotmoveintoorremaininthepathofamovingvehicle.Movingintoor

remaininginthepathofamovingvehicle,whetherdeliberateorinadvertent,SHALLNOTbe

justificationfordischargingafirearmatthevehicleoranyofitsoccupants.Anofficerinthe

pathofanapproachingvehicleshallattempttomovetoapositionofsafetyratherthan

dischargingafirearmatthevehicleoranyoftheoccupantsofthevehicle.

NOTE:Anofficershouldneverplacethemselvesoranotherpersoninjeopardyinanattempt

tostopavehicle.

–18–


25/96


4. Theprohibitionsregardingthedischargeofafirearmatorfromamovingvehicleexistforthe

followingreasons:

a. Bulletsfiredatamovingvehicleareextremelyunlikelytodisableorstopthevehicle.

b. Disablingthedriverofamovingvehiclecreatesunpredictablecircumstancesthatmay

causethevehicletocrashandinjureotherofficersorinnocentbystanders.

c. Movingtocoverinordertogainandmaintainasuperiortacticaladvantagemaximizes

officerandpublicsafetywhileminimizingtheneedfordeadlyorpotentiallydeadlyforce.

NOTE:Barringexigentcircumstances,(e.g.,thedriverisunconsciousandthemotorisstill

running),anofficershallneverreachintoanoccupiedvehicleinanattempttoshutoffthe

engineortorecoverevidence,sincethishasbeenknowntoresultinseriousinjuryto

officers.

Althoughthisrecommendationisconsideredcomplete,theassessmentteamwillcontinuetomonitor

thestatusofthisrecommendationtodeterminewhetheranytrainingisprovidedtosupportthispolicychange.Theassessmentteamfeelsthisisanopportunitytouserealitybasedtraining(RBT)toreinforce

thispolicyinthefuture.

–19–


26/96


27/96

Chapter 3. Basic Recruit Training

Thistopicappearedinchapter5oftheinitialassessmentreportofthePhiladelphiaPoliceDepartment

(PPD)andincluded16recommendations,whichwerebasedonacomprehensiveassessmentofthePPD’s

recruitacademytrainingasitrelatestodeadlyforce.Theserecommendationsincludeddefensivetactics,

deescalation,useofforce,andfirearms.Ofthe16recommendations,twoarecompleteand14arein

progress,asshownintable5.ThischapterprovidesadetailedassessmentofthePPD’sprogressinimple-

mentingthese16recommendations.Wehavemaintainedtheoriginalrecommendationnumbers(11.1,

11.2,etc.)forconsistencyacrossthereports.

Table 5. Status of basic recruit training recommendations


Complete 2 12


In progress 14 88

No progress 0 0

Total 16 100

Finding 11PPD recruit training is not conducted in a systematic and modular fashion. As a result, some re-cruit classes receive firearms training close to the end of the academy while others receive it ear-

ly on.

Recommendation 11.1

The PPD should revise the sequencing of its academy curriculum so that recruits are continually building on previ-

ously learned skills.

Theinitialassessmentreportfoundthatthesequenceofcoursesthroughouttheacademydoesnotgen-

erallyflowfromtheinstructionoffoundationalskillstomorecomplexskills,becausemuchoftheschedule

isdeterminedbytheavailabilityofinstructorsandspaceduetooverlappingacademyclasses.


ThePPDindicatedthattheRecruitTrainingUnit(RTU)revieweditscurriculumtosequentiallyprovidere-

cruittraining.Thechiefinspector(CI)oftheTrainingBureaumetwiththeLosAngelesPoliceDepartment

(LAPD)togaininsightintohowtoimprovethesequencingofthetrainingcurriculum.ThePPDindicated

–21–


28/96



thatthereareseveralfactorsthatdeterminetheplacementofacourseorblockofinstruction(e.g.,Shoot-

ingRange,EmergencyVehicleOperatorsCourse[EVOC])withintherecruitschedule.Somefactorsover

whichtheyhavenocontrolincludethefollowing:

• Thesizeoftheclass.Thisdeterminesthenumberofplatoons;forexamplea90recruit,3platoonclasswill

inevitablyhaveanineweekdifferenceinstartingtimeattherangebetweenAplatoonandCplatoon.

• Theamountofoverlapbetweenclassesbasedonwhenclassesbeginandpossibleconflictsinthe

timingofthecurriculum.

• Limitationsplacedbythetrainingvenue—onerange,onegym,oneEVOCcourse.Recruittraining

doesnotalwaystakeprioritycomparedtootherunitsusingthetrainingfacility(forexample,in

servicebiketraining,crisisinterventionteam[CIT]training,andotherinservicecourses).

Theassessmentteamperformedadetailedanalysisofoneofthemostrecentrecruitschedules.Therehas

beensignificantefforttostructurethesequencingofthecoursessuchthatadvancedinstructiononlyoc-

cursafterfoundationalideasandconceptshavebeenpresented.TheAcademystaffiscontinuingtostudy

thestructureofthecurriculuminlightofrecommendationsmadebytheassessmentteamandtheaddi-

tionofnewcoursesofstudythatexpandontheconceptsofcommunitypolicing,fairandimpartialpolic-

ing,andproceduraljustice.Inaddition,theyarereengineeringtheirdefensivetacticsprogram,whichwill

haveanimpactonscheduling.Thestaffhasindicatedanevenbetterschedulewillbeforthcoming,and

thisschedulewillalsobeanalyzedindetailbytheassessmentteam.

Recommendation 11.2

Skills that require continual training and refinement, such as firearms, defensive tactics, communications, and

driving, should be staggered throughout the length of the academy.

Theinitialassessmentreportfoundthatfirearmstrainingisconductedinitsentiretyinone80hourblock

ofinstruction.Theproblemwasthatthisblockofinstructionwould,attimes,occurearlyintheeightmonthrecruitacademy.Thisearlyscheduling,coupledwiththerequirementthatofficersareonlyrequired

tofiretheirserviceweaponsonceperyear,couldresultinanofficerwhowasnewtohandgunsnotprac-

ticingwiththeirfirearmforalmosttwoyears.


ThePPDexaminedthefeasibilityofstaggeredfirearmstraining.Physicaltraininganddefensivetacticsare

alreadystaggered,andcommunicationshasseveralcomponents(statemandatedandcitycourses)that

canbescheduledatdifferentpointsinthecurriculum.

ThePPDindicatedthatdrivingandfiringaremusclememoryskills,whichtheirexperiencedinstructorsfeel

shouldcontinuetobescheduledastheycurrentlyare.Theyfeltrecruitslearnmorewithrepetition,prac-

ticingeachmaneuveroverandoveragainforbetterskilldevelopment.Beginningwithaclassthatstarted

inmid2015,theacademyinitiatedaprogramtosendallrecruitstoafulldaytothefirearmsrangeand

drivertrainingshortlybeforeleavingthepoliceacademytoreacquainttherecruitswiththemechanicsof

bothskillsets.Thistrainingregimenwillcontinueforfuturerecruitclasses,andtheassessmentteamwill

continuetomonitorthispractice.

–22–


29/96

CChapter3.BasicRecruitTraining

Finding 12

PPD training staff members are required to complete instructor training just one time during

their careers, in accordance with minimum MPOETC standards.

Recommendation 12

The PPD should establish a minimum continuing education requirement for all training staff to remain certified

by the PPD.

TheinitialassessmentreportfoundthatmostPPDtrainingstaffmembersmaintaintheirinstructorcertifi-

cationbycontinuingtoteach,whichistheminimumrequiredbyMunicipalPoliceOfficerEducationand

TrainingCommission(MPOETC)standards.However,thereportrecommendedamoreformalizedprocess

tokeepuptheinstructor’sproficiency.


MPOETCcurrentlyrequiresaninstructornottoexceedaperiodoffouryearswithoutteachinginorderto

maintaincertification.ATrainingBureauCertifiedInstructorlistisreviewedonanannualbasistoensure

instructorsareintheteachingrotation.TheAdvancedTrainingUnit(ATU)staffcreatedaneighthourin-

structordevelopmentrefreshercoursethatwillberequiredtrainingforallcertifiedinstructorseverytwo

yearsaftersuccessfulcompletionofthetwoweekMPOETCinstructordevelopmentcourse.Whilethereis

nocurrentminimumeducationalrequirementtobeassignedtotheTrainingBureau,MPOETCisinthepro-

cessofamendingthisstandardtorequireaminimumofanAssociatedegreewhilepursuingaBachelor’s

degree.ApplicantsfortransfertotheTrainingBureauarerequiredtohaveexceptionalwriting,research,

andanalyticalskillsinordertosuccessfullycommunicateinformationtostudentsandpreparecomprehen-

sivelessonplans.Collegeleveleducationprovidesapplicantswiththetoolsnecessarytocompletethese

tasksrequiredofallTrainingBureaupersonnel.

Theinstructordevelopmentcourseispendingcommandapproval.

Finding 13

On occasion, PPD training staff provides inconsistent or contradictory instruction to recruits.

Recommendation 13

The PPD should create formal, ongoing collaboration between the FTU [Firearms Training Unit] and the academy.

TheinitialassessmentreportfoundthatPPDtrainingstaffmembersoccasionallyprovideinconsistentorcontradictoryinstructiontorecruits.Thisinconsistentinstructionisoneofthemostfrequentlycitedissues

byrecruitsontheirexitevaluationsoftheAcademy.8 Theinconsistenciesweredescribedasoccurring

betweenfirearmsinstructionandtheacademyclassroominstructiononuseofforce(UOF)(twodifferent

staffsareresponsiblefortheseinstructionalareas).

8. CNA interviews.

–23–


30/96




AtthedirectionoftheCIoftheTrainingBureau,theRTUUOFinstructorshavebeencrosstrainedasfire-

armsinstructorsandFirearmsTrainingUnit(FTU)instructorsaretobecrosstrainedasUOFinstructors.To

date,RTUandFTUpersonnelhavemetseveraltimesonamonthlybasistodiscussabestpracticesstrate-gytoensureongoingcollaborationbetweenthetwounits.Themeetingsfocusonbestpracticesandlo-

gisticalissuesofcrosstrainingadditionalpersonnelinbothUOFandfirearmsdisciplines.ThePPDindicated

thatRTUandFTUwillcontinuetomeetonamonthlybasis.

Theassessmentteamwillmonitortheminutesfromthesemeetingstodetermineiftheworkinggroup

establishesanygoalsoroutcomesarerealized.Theassessmentteamrequestedevidenceofformalmeet-

ingprotocolandprocessesinplacethatwillkeeptheworkgroupgoaldrivenandmakesthemreview

theirpolicyeveryyear.

Finding 14

PPD officers are dissatisfied with academy defensive tactics training.

Recommendation 14.1

The PPD should review and update its defensive tactics manual at least once every two years, taking into account

PPD officer experiences and emerging best practices from the field.

TheinitialassessmentreportfoundthatPPDofficers(recruitsandincumbents)aredissatisfiedwithacade-

mydefensivetactics(DT)trainingbythelackofroutinerefreshertraininginDT,toomuchfocusonlegallia-

bility,andnotenoughfocusonteachingpracticalandrealisticmethodsforsurvivingaphysicalencounter.


TheDTmanualhasbeenupdatedandsubmittedtoCommissionerRamseyforapproval.ThePPDhasin-

vestigatedagroundfightingprogramfromtheLAPDaswellasKravMagaforlawenforcementofficers

andwillincorporatebothbeginninginJanuary2016.WhileMPOETCdoesexercisesomecontroloverDT

instruction,theydonotmandatespecifictacticsandmaneuvers.ThePPDisfreetoteachsuchstylesas

KogaandKravMaga.9

Theassessmentteamfeelsitisrelevanttonotethatinresponsetocurrenteventsandtherecommenda-

tionsofthePresident’sTaskForceon21stCenturyPolicing,MPOETChasmandatedachangeofreferences

intheDTmanualsandtrainingfrom“warrior”to“guardian”and“survival”to“prevailing”.

TheassessmentteamrequestedandreceivedthecolorcopyoftheDTmanual,whichhasbeensimplified

greatlywithhundredsofphotographstoexplainallofthemovestonewrecruits.Themanualiscurrently

underreviewbytheassessmentteam.

9. Koga and Krav Maga are widely accepted styles of arrest control and defensive tactics instruction taught to law enforcement officers around the country. Koga was

developed by Bob Koga, an LAPD officer, in the mid-1960s. Krav Maga is a form a self defense taught in Israel that has been adapted for law enforcement.

–24–


31/96

Chapter3.BasicRecruitTraining

Recommendation 14.2

Ground fighting should be part of the PPD’s defensive tactics training.

TheinitialassessmentreportfoundthatthePPDdoesnotincludegroundfightingaspartoftheirDTtrain-

ing,unlikethevastmajorityofotherlargemunicipalagencies.10Manyphysicalaltercationswillnecessitate

thisskill.Includinggroundfightinginthedepartment’scurriculumwillhelpaddressrecruits’concernsabouttherelevanceofdefensivetacticstrainingandbetterpreparethemforphysicalaltercationsinthefield.

10. Brian A. Reaves, “State and Local Law Enforcement Training Academies, 2006,”Special Report, revised April 14, 2009 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics,

2009), http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/slleta06.pdf .


TheDTmanualhasbeenupdatedandsubmittedtoCommissionerRamseyforapproval.ThePPDwill

receiveaKravMagatrainthetrainerclassinNovember2015.Thisinstructionwillbecombinedwithinfor-

mationprovidedbytheLAPDtodevelop“grounddefensivetactics”thatmaybeincorporatedintotheDT

manual.

TheassessmentteamwillcontinuetomonitortheprogressofthisrecommendationtoassessthePPD’s

movetoincorporategroundfightingorgrounddefensivetacticsintotheirtraining.

Recommendation 14.3

The PPD should discontinue training on the use of neck restraints and eliminate its use from the field except in exi-

gent circumstances when life or grave bodily harm are at risk.

Theinitialassessmentreportfoundtherewasaconcernaboutthelackofclarityontrainingasitrelatesto

theuseofneckrestraints.


ThePPD’sdirective22explicitlyforbidstheuseofneckrestraints.Inaddition,thedepartmentissuedthe

followingteletyperegardingadherencetodirective22UseofForce:

Theintentionaluseofneckrestraints(chokeholds,‘sleeperholds’orotherholdstorenderasubject

unconscious)[is]prohibited.Thiswillincludeanyincidentwhereanindividualattemptstoingest

narcoticsorotherevidence;theywillbetakenimmediatelytothenearesthospital.

Finding 15

For some PPD recruits, deescalation training has amounted to little more than lectures and ob-

servations.

Recommendation 15.1

The PPD should revamp its academy deescalation training, ensuring recruits receive more hours of scenario

training, which allows each recruit to exercise and be evaluated on verbal deescalation skills.

–25–

http:///reader/full/agencies.10http:///reader/full/agencies.10http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/slleta06.pdfhttp:///reader/full/agencies.10http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/slleta06.pdf


32/96



Theinitialassessmentreportfoundthatalthoughmanyofthescenariosinvolvestudentparticipation,not

allstudentsparticipatedbecauseoftimerestrictions,classsize,orunwillingnessofsomerecruitstovolun-

teer.Theinitialassessmentreportalsofoundthatscenarioswerefrequentlycitedasthemostbeneficial

training,andacademyandFTUevaluationsindicatedthatrecruitswantedmoreofthem.


ThePPDindicatedtheyarerevampingtheirAcademydeescalationtrainingthroughthecreationofthe

RealityBasedTrainingUnit(RBTU).RBTUisidentifyingscenariobasedcoursessoacomprehensiveevalua-

tiontoolthatassessesverbalandphysicaldeescalationskillscanbedeveloped.Thescenariosarebeing

reworkedsothattheroleplayersareresponsivetotheactionsofthetrainee.Inotherwords,dependingon

howtherecruitperforms,theroleplayerwilleitherescalateordeescalatethescenario.

ThePPDindicatedthatatacticaldeescalationlessonplanwassubmittedtotheCIoftheTrainingBureau

forapproval.Theyarerevisingtheirdeescalationlessonplantoincludetacticaldeescalationgoalsand

learningobjectives.ArecruitRBTUmoduleisalsoindevelopment.Theassessmentteamwillcontinueto

monitortheprogressofthisrecommendationtoobservethesedevelopmentsandrevisions.

Recommendation 15.2

The PPD deescalation training should be expanded to include a discussion of tactical deescalation.

Theinitialassessmentreportnotedthatdeescalationinvolvesnotonlyverbalskillsbutalsotactics.In

manywaystacticaldeescalationmaybejustasimportantastheuseofverbalskillsinthatofficerswilluse

tacticstoslowdownthesituation,requestadditionalresources,andcreatedistancebetweenthemand

thethreat.Theseactionswillreducethelikelihoodthatofficerswillplacethemselvesinapositionofperil

andunnecessarilyprecipitatetheusedeadlyforce.


ThePPDdevelopeda40hourrealitybasedtraining(RBT)programthatincorporateseighthoursof

classroomdiscussionduringwhichtacticaldeescalationisdiscussedinconjunctionwithactualscenarios,

includingadebriefwithtrainingrecruitsfollowingeachscenario.PPDisreviewingforadoptionanin

servicetacticaldeescalationlessonplanfromtheSeattlePolice.Inaddition,theRBTUcurriculumwillin-

cludetacticaldeescalationcomponentsthatconformtotheLasVegasMetropolitanPoliceDepartment

(LVMPD)modelcurriculum.PartofthedutiesoftheRBTUwillbetocreateclassroominstructionthataug-

mentsthescenarios.Thiswillalsohaveafocusonthetacticalelementsofdeescalation.

Theassessmentteamwillcontinuetomonitortheprogressofthisrecommendationtoobservehowthe

departmentwillincludetacticaldeescalationtrainingunitswhileworkingontheoverallRBTUplan.

–26–


33/96


Finding 16

Academy recruits are not trained to use ECWs.

Recommendation 16

ECW certification should be incorporated into the PPD’s basic recruit academy.

TheinitialassessmentreportfoundthatthePPDhasnotimplementedthepracticetotraintheiracademy

recruitsintheuseofECWs,unlikeroughlyhalfofpoliceagencieswith1,000ormoreswornofficersasof

2006.11Manygraduatesandofficersinterviewedsaidtheywantedmorelesslethalforceoptions.Infact,

recruitgraduatesnearlyunanimouslyexpressedtheirdesiretocompleteCITinordertoobtainanECW.

11. Ibid.


ThePPDamendedtheRecruitFirearmsTraininglessonplantoincludeECWtraining.Instructioncom-

mencedwiththerecruitclassthatbeganitsfirearmstrainingonMay18,2015.Theassessmentteamwill

continuetomonitortheprogressofthisrecommendationtodeterminewhenthefinancialstructureisin

placetosupportrecruitsgraduatingtheAcademywithECWsindividuallyassignedtothem.

Finding 17

Incidents involving discourtesy, use of force, and allegations of bias by PPD officers leave seg-

ments of the community feeling disenfranchised and distrustful of the police department.

Recommendation 17.1

The PPD’s academy should significantly increase the scope and duration of its training on core and advanced

community oriented policing concepts.

TheinitialassessmentreportfoundthatthePPD’sacademydoesnotincludeastrongcommunityoriented

policingcomponent,committingjusteighthoursoftrainingonthetopicperrecruitclass.


TheassessmentteamcontinuestomonitorPPDprogressonthisrecommendationandplanstoreviewthe

contentandlessonplansforseveralothercoursesthatcouldbeclassifiedascommunitypolicingrelated.

Inaddition,theintroductionoffairandimpartialpolicingandproceduraljusticeclasseswillcounttoward

progressonthisrecommendation.

Recommendation 17.2

The PPD should develop and implement an action plan in response to the organizational assessment on com-

munity oriented policing policies and practices throughout the department.

–27–


34/96



Theinitialassessmentreportfoundanumberofweaknessesinthedepartment’spoliciesandtrainingre-

latedtotheprinciplesofcommunityorientedpolicing.Theinitialassessmentreportalsofoundthatcom-

munitymembershadpolarizedviewsonthestateofthecommunityrelationswiththePPD.


ThePPDcompletedacommunitypolicingselfassessmenttodeterminewherethedepartmentfallsalong

thecommunitypolicingcontinuum.Thisisthefirststeptowardthedevelopmentofanactionplan.The

assessmentteamwillreviewthecontentofthatcommunitypolicingassessmentreportandprovidetech-

nicalassistancetothePPDinthedevelopmentofacommunitypolicingactionplan.

Finding 18

Academy instruction materials on the use of force policy and use of force continuum are incon-

sistent.

Recommendation 18The PPD should conduct a complete audit of its use of force policy and legal instruction conducted throughout

the academy and ensure that messaging is clear, consistent, and understandable.

Forexample,thecontinuumconceptandvisualaidpresentedinthedepartment’sUOFlawenforcement

academyclassismarkedlydifferentfromtheforcedecisionmodelthatappearsinthePPD’spolicies.


ThePPDconductedaninternalauditoftheUOFcurriculumdatedApril24,2015.Itnotedthattherewasa

“glaringdiscrepancy”inthereviewedtrainingmaterials—theyalluseddifferentUOFcontinuummodels—

andrecommendedtheybeaddressedwithMPOETCandtheResearchandPlanningDivision.Theassess-

mentteamrequestedevidencethatallofthematerialshavebeenupdatedandarenowconsistent.Upon

approvalofdirectives10and22,thePPDwillperformanauditoftheselessonplansandsubmitchanges

notedbyredlinestotheassessmentteamforreview.

Finding 19

The majority of academy instruction and scenariobased training sessions related to use of force

end with the officer having to use force.

Recommendation 19The PPD should review all of its use of force course materials, including lesson plans, case studies, and scenarios,

and ensure that they demonstrate the opportunity for a peaceful resolution.

–28–


35/96


Recruitsoftenstatethatthescenariospresentedtothemwereinvariably“nowin”situations.Trainers,on

theotherhand,indicatetheyfeltaneedtopreparerecruitsfortheworstpossiblesituations.Whileitisim-

portanttodevelopanappreciationforhowasituationcanturnfortheworse,thevastmajorityofpolice-

citizen12encountersdonotendinaphysicalconfrontation,muchlessrequiringtheuseofdeadlyforce.

12. This report uses “citizen”to refer to all individuals in a city or town who are not sworn law enforcement officers or government officials. It should not be understood

to refer only to U.S. citizens.


ThePPDcontinuestoworkonmakingthechangesnecessarytocompletethisrecommendation.ThePPD

createdtheMPOETCScenarioBasedTrainingCurriculumthatnotonlyoutlineshowtoaccomplishRBTbut

alsoincludesthefollowingstatement:

Everyscenariowillbebasedonthetheorythatscenariotrainingsituationsshouldbe“winable”,

buildingthecadet’sconfidenceintrainingreceived.Whenthecadetdisplaysconfidence,empathy,

properunderstandingofthelessonstaughtandsoundcommunicationskills,thentheinstructors/

Roleplayerswillcooperatewiththerespondingcadet(s)andallowthecadetto“win”thesituation,

therebybuildingconfidenceandreinforcingobjectives.Since97%ofpolicecitizencontactsare

nonphysical,thepoliceofficerwhopossessesbettercommunicationskillswillhaveahigher

chanceofsuccessfullydealingwithconfrontationalsituations.

Finding 20

There is a strong desire for more realitybased training throughout the department.

Recommendation 20

The PPD should increase the amount of realitybased training offered to academy recruit

DOJ six-month assessment report on PPD

Documents

Transcript of DOJ six-month assessment report on PPD