MMOONNTTGGOOMMEERRYYCCOOUUNNTTYYDDEEPPAARRTTMMEENNTTOOFFPPOOLLIICCEE

INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION ANNUAL REPORT

2017

2 | P a g e  

The Montgomery County Police Department (MCPD) is providing its InternalAffairsDivision Annual Report for 2017 as part of its ongoing commitment tobuilding trust through community engagement, communication, transparency,and accountability. MCPD is committed to providing the highest level ofprofessional service and public safety to all county residents.MCPD’s InternalAffairs Division (IAD) has published this annual report in an effort to be astransparentaspossible.Myhopeisthatthisreportwillhelpyouunderstandtheseriousness with which we approach complaints made by the public and theproceduresandprocessesthatarefollowedineverycase.Public perceptions of the department are largely based on individualexperiences andcancertainly impact the legitimacyofpolice actions.Thepublicexpectsanddeservesaculture of transparency, accountability, fairness, trust, and respect, and every member of the policedepartmentmustbeheldaccountablefortheiractions.Communitytrustmustbebuiltonthefoundationofa strong police culture that values integrity and holds individuals accountable for their behavior andactions.Everypositiveornegativeinteractionbetweenamemberofthedepartmentandmemberofthecommunityhasthepotentialtoeitherstrengthenordamagethecommunity’sconfidenceandtrust.Thedepartmentiscommittedtoworkinginpartnershipwiththecommunitytoidentifyandresolveissuesthatimpactpublicsafety,enhancecommunityrelations,andbuildandmaintaintrustandconfidencethroughtransparency,accountability,andstrongleadershipatalllevelsofthedepartment.Creatingacultureofintegritywithinthepolicedepartmentiscrucialtobuildingandsustainingcommunitytrust, effective policing, and safe communities. To that end, it is imperative that police executivesacknowledgemisconduct,andappropriatelydealwithmisconductwhenitoccurstoearntherespectandconfidenceof thecommunity. Notwithstandingthesignificantpositiveprogressthatthedepartmenthasmade based on its culture and long standing commitment to community policing, hiring and recruitingpractices, training, continuing education, and leadership, there are always opportunities for furtherimprovement.The information contained in this report is part of the department’s commitment to ensure that everymemberofthepolicedepartmentunderstandsthatheorsherepresentstheentireagency,thatpersonalconduct is his or her own responsibility, and that he or she will be held accountable for all conduct,whetherpositiveornegative.

Captain Willie Parker-Loan Director,InternalAffairsDivision

DIRECTOR’SMESSAGE

3 | P a g e  

TheMontgomery County Police Department (MCPD) recognizes the importance of establishing andimplementingcomplaintanddisciplineproceduresinordertomonitortheconductoftheDepartmentandpromptlyaddressissuesthatareidentifiedthatmaynegativelyimpacttrustandconfidenceinthedepartment by employees and the public. A critical part of maintaining this level of trust andconfidenceis through an effectiveand sounddisciplinaryprocess.

The Montgomery County Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD) ensures that allcomplaints are thoroughly reviewedregardlessofsourceand investigated to ensure that correctiveaction is taken for improper conduct, as well as ensuring that employees are protected fromunwarranted criticism forproperlyengaging intheir duties. TheDirectorof IADreportsdirectlytothe Chief of Police and IAD investigators have full authority to conduct an investigation withoutinterferencefromanymemberofthedepartment.

TheDepartment accepts complaints via e‐mail, inperson, by telephone, or inwritten form inorderto ensure that the community is comfortable invoicing their concerns. Anonymouscomplaints arealsoaccepted. TheDepartmental Complaint Form (MCP 580) continues to be made available in sixdifferent languages at allDistrict police stations and the Executive Office Building(EOB) located indowntown Rockville. In addition,thecomplaint form canalso bedownloadedand printedoutfromthe department’s webpage at https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/chief/iad/index.html. Allcomplaintsare tobereceived courteouslybyanyDepartmentalemployee.

Each complaint is personally reviewed by the IAD Director and Deputy Director in order todifferentiate between allegations of serious and minor misconduct. Theminor allegations (intakes)are customarily sent to theDivision orDistrict executive staff of the involved officer/employee. Ifan intake investigationresultsin a sustained violation,correctiveaction is normally taken throughnon‐disciplinary counseling. Traffic offenses, lack of courtesy, and poor performance are sometypical examples of minor offenses. IAD investigators handle the more serious allegations ormultipleminoroffenses,which can result inprogressivediscipline ranging from oral admonishmentup to and including dismissal from the Department (formals). Excessive uses of force,discrimination, theft, etc., are examples of serious allegations. All formal investigations involvingswornpersonnel must beconducted in compliancewiththeLawEnforcementOfficers' BillofRights(LEOBR). IADalsoconducts formal investigationsof civilianemployeeswhoarenotcoveredby theLEOBR.

Each sustained formal allegation is reviewed by the Internal Investigative Review Panel (IIRP),which consists oftheAssistant Chiefs, the IADDirector, andtheCommander/Directorofthe DistrictorDivision ofthe involved employee. The IIRPultimatelydetermines whichallegations will remainsustained and makes disciplinary recommendations which are then forwarded to the Chief ofPolice for action. The ultimate authority for disciplinary action involving sworn and civilianpersonnel of the Department rests with theChief of Police. The Chief may concuror increase ordecrease the IIRP’s disciplinary recommendation(s). Employees may accept the recommendeddisciplineor appealthedecisionoftheChiefofPolice.

The FraternalOrderof Police (FOP)CollectiveBargaining Agreement (CBA) permits officers toappeal discipline issuedbythe Chief ofPolice via ahearing board process. Civilian disciplinaryactions are appealed through procedures established through collective bargaining and theOffice of Human Resources. In 2009, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled in favor ofthe County as to the use of summary punishment under Section 3‐111 of the Public SafetyArticle.

THEINTERNALAFFAIRSPROCESS

4 | P a g e 

Summary punishment may be imposed for minor violations of law enforcement agency rules andregulationsifthefactsthatconstitutetheviolationarenotindispute;thelawenforcementofficerwaivesahearing; andthe law enforcement officer accepts the punishment imposed by the highest ranking lawenforcementofficer,orindividualactinginthatcapacity,oftheunittowhichthelawenforcementofficeris assigned. Summary punishment imposed under Section 3‐111 may not exceed suspension of threedayswithoutpayorafineof$150.

Themajority of summary punishment offers made to resolve disciplinary cases involving swornpersonnel areacceptedbyemployees. The full implementation of summary punishment has allowedofficers the ability to accept disciplinaryoffersprovidedtheofficerdoesnotdisputethefactsofthecaseatthetimeoftheoffer. This has helped to significantly reduce the total time between theinitiationofacaseandcasecompletion.

The department’s IAD plays a critical role by helping to prevent misconduct, properly addressingmisconductwhenitoccurs,helpingtobuildandmaintainthehighestpossiblelevelsofcommunitytrustand confidence, and maintaining an ethical work environment based on integrity and honesty.Throughout 2017, the IAD Director provided weekly updates on existing cases to the Chief andAssistant Chiefs, and also provided a briefing on new complaints. In the past, this report waspreparedandpresentedinternallytosummarizeallegationsofmisconductmadeagainstemployees,andusedtoidentifypatterns,oranyotherissuesrequiringcorrectiveaction.

In 2017, therewere 291 cases openedby the InternalAffairsDivision,with a total of 511 allegationsrecorded. The following statistics reflect a three‐year comparison, as well as an analysis of thecomplaints received involving both sworn and civilian personnel. Intake investigations made up 71percentofallIADcases,whileformalinvestigationsaccountedfor29percentofcases.

ComplaintTypes

ThechartsbelowprovideacomparisonofcomplaintsreportedtotheIADfrom2015–2017.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2015 2016 2017

Total Complaints 216 333 291

Intakes 157 247 208

Formals 59 86 83

COMPLAINT SUMMARY

COMPLAINTSUMMARY

5 | P a g e   

The data reflects a 12.6 percent decrease in the number of complaints received in 2017compared to2016, but a 34.7 percent increase since 2015. Both intake and formal investigations declined from2016to2017by15.8percentand3.5percentrespectively,butremainedhigherthan2015totals(32.5percentand40.7percentrespectively).

Therewere55complaints(intakeinvestigations)thatweredeclinedbyIADin2017.ThisoccurswhenthecomplaintdoesnotcontainenoughinformationforIADtodeterminetheemployees’ identity,or itis determined that the subject of the complaint is from another jurisdiction, the complaint did notincludesufficientinformationtoidentifyapotentialruleviolation,orbodycameravideofootageclearlyestablishesthattheindividualcompliedwithdepartmentpolicy.

AllegationTypes

In 2017,Neglect ofDuty/UnsatisfactoryPerformancewas themost common allegationreceived,whichwas responsible for36.4 percent of the allegationsmadeagainstdepartmentemployees, followed byConformance to Law (18.6 percent), and Courtesy (11.7 percent). Overall,thesethreecomplainttypeswereresponsible formore thantwo‐thirdsof the allegationsreceivedin2017.Thistrendisconsistentwith data from previous years. Examples of these allegations may include employees not followingdepartment policies and procedures, traffic violations (e.g., speeding), and unprofessionaldemeanor/rudenessininteractingwiththepublic.ThefollowingchartsummarizesthetypesofallegationsreceivedbyIADin2017.

Note:Theremaybemorethanoneallegationmadeagainstanemployee.Thoseallegationsdesignatedas‘N/A’werethosethatwereunabletobeclassifiedduetoinsufficientormissinginformation.

13 9 5 1

28

95

60

151

2114

186

5 8

3

47

ALLEGATION TYPESAbuse of Authority

Abuse of Process

Carry Creds/Identification

Compliance with Orders

Conduct Unbecoming

Conformance to Law

Courtesy

Discrimination/Harassment

Integrity of Report System

Maintenance of Property

N/A

Neglect of Duty/ Unsatisfactory Performance

Property

Punctuality

Untruthful Statements

Use of Force

6 | P a g e   

DispositionofFormalInvestigationsIn2017,therewere203allegationsthatresultedin83formalinvestigations.Onaverage,IADinvestigatorswereabletobringapproximately38.9percentoftheformalinvestigationstoaclosewithinapproximately66days.Formal investigations generally tend to take longer than intakesbecauseofthecomplexnatureoftheinvestigationsandthelawsandproceduresgoverningtheemployees’rights,includingtherighttoappeal.Inmanycomplaints,thereareoftenmultipleallegationsagainstoneemployee,and/ortheremaybe multipleemployeesnamedassubjectsinonecase.In2017,therewere89employeeswithmultipleallegationspercase.ThechartbelowprovidesasummaryofthedispositionsoftheformalIADinvestigationsopenedin2017.

Note:Approximatelytwo‐thirdsoftheformalinvestigationsarestillopen(active).Thefollowingisalistofthedefinitionsofeachofthedispositionsshownabove.

AdministrativeClosure:Anadministrativeconclusionusedtoterminateaninternalinvestigationwhichcannotproceedtoanormalconclusion(e.g.,becauseofanuncooperativecomplainant).

Exonerated: The incident did occur, but the actions of the involved employee(s)were justified,lawful,andproper.

InsufficientEvidence:Theinvestigationfailedtodisclosesufficientevidencetoproveordisprove

theallegation.

Sustained:Theinvestigationdisclosedsufficientevidencetoproveanallegationofmisconduct.

Unfounded:Theinvestigationofthecomplaintrevealsthattheactscomplainedofdidnotoccur.The chart on the following page provides a breakdown of the bureaus within the department thatemployees were assigned to at the time the allegations were made. Each bureau falls under themanagementofanAssistantChiefofPolice.

28

30

6

87

DISPOSITION OF FORMAL CASES

Administrative Closure

Exonerated

Insufficient Evidence

Sustained

Unfounded

7 | P a g e   

AllegationsbyBureauThefollowingchartsummarizestheallegationtypesreceivedbyIADin2017bybureau.

The data indicates that 74 percent of the allegationsmade in 2017 involved employees in thePatrolServices Bureau (PSB), which is the largest bureau in the department comprised primarily of swornofficersassignedtothedepartment’ssixpolicedistricts.

Thefollowingchartrepresentsthedepartment’sdemographicsasofJanuary2018.

5248

29

361

22

ALLEGATIONS BY BUREAU

Field Services Bureau

Investigative ServicesBureau

Management ServicesBureau

Patrol Services Bureau

Unknown

38

120

172

807

848

1 118

86

DEPARTMENT DEMOGRAPHICS

Black Female

Black Male

White Female

White Male

Asian Female

Asian Male

American Indian Female

American Indian Male

Hispanic Female

Hispanic Male

Other

DEMOGRAPHICS

8 | P a g e   

Thedatashowsthatapproximately63.7percentofthedepartment’spersonnelaremaleand36.3percentarefemale,and71percentofthesepersonnelareCaucasian.ComplaintsbyEmployeeTypeThechartbelowprovidesabreakdownofcomplaintsbyemployeetypein2017.

Note:Insomeinstances,theremaybemorethanoneemployeethatisthesubjectofacomplaint.

The data shows that 85 percent of the employees who were the subject of complaints were swornpersonneland15percentwerecivilianmembersofthedepartment.The followingseriesofchartsprovideasummaryof thedemographicsof the known,uniquesubjects1(i.e., the individual the complaint was made against) of the IAD cases received in 2017. Thisincludes the race/ethnicity, gender, and age of the subjects, as well as the years of servicewith thedepartment at the time the allegation was made,andonlyinthosecases where this information wasavailable.Race/EthnicityIn2017,68.7percentof theemployeesinvestigatedbyIADwereCaucasian,16.2percentwereAfricanAmerican,4.5percentwereAsian, and10.6percentwereHispanicasdepicted in thecharton thenextpage. 

 1Note:Occasionally,complaintsaremadeagainstMCPDofficers,butthecomplainantdoesnothaveanameandcanonlyprovidepartialdescriptions.

226

40

COMPLAINTS BY EMPLOYEE TYPE

Sworn

Civilian

9 | P a g e   

GenderIn2017,76percentoftheemployeesinvestigatedbyIADweremale,and24percentwerefemaleasshown inthechartbelow.

Age

In 2017, 52.5 percent of the employeesinvestigatedbyIADwere between the ages of20and39; 45.7percent were in the40‐59agegroup;and the remaining1.8percentwere in theage60andolderagegroup, asrepresentedinthechartonthefollowingpage.

43

182

1228

RACE/ETHNICITY

African American

Caucasian

Asian

Hispanic

201

64

GENDER

Male

Female

10 | P a g e   

YearsofService

ThechartbelowsummarizestheyearsofserviceonthedepartmentoftheemployeesinvestigatedbyIADin2017.

In2017,31.3percentof theemployeesthatwerethesubjectofacomplaintservedonthe departmentfrom 1‐5 years, 34.7 percent served on the department from 6 to 15 years, and employees servingonthedepartmentformorethan16yearscomprisedtheremaining34 percentofemployees.

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

20‐29 30‐39 40‐49 50‐59 >60

47

9284

37

5

AGE GROUPS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1‐5 6‐10 11‐15 16‐20 21‐25 26‐30 >30

83

35

57

3832

16

4

YEARS OF SERVICE

11 | P a g e   

  

Thisreport is the first tobereleasedtothepublicandprovidescontextandanalysistothedatathatwasmade available to the public in 2017 on the dataMontgomery web site, and is part of the department’scontinued commitment to creating and maintaining a culture of transparency and accountabilityhttps://data.montgomerycountymd.gov/Public‐Safety/Internal‐Affairs‐Allegations/usip‐62e2.Opennessspeakstothe integrityof thepolicedepartmentandbuildsonthetrustandcollaborationwithour community. This report is also an integral component of the department’s responsibilities as aCommissiononAccreditation forLawEnforcementAgencies (CALEA)‐accredited law enforcement agency.MCPDhas been a CALEA‐accredited law enforcement agency since 1993. The CALEALawEnforcementAccreditationProgramistheprimarymethodforanagencytovoluntarilydemonstratetheircommitmenttoexcellenceinlawenforcementbysystematicallyconductinganongoinginternalreviewandassessmentoftheagencies’operations,policiesandprocedures,andmakeadjustmentswherevernecessary,tomeetabodyofinternationallyacceptedstandards.Thedataoutlinedinthisreportshowsthefollowingoutcomesfor2017: IADreceived511allegationsandopened291cases.

Intake investigations made up 71 percent of all cases, and formal investigations comprised theremaining29percent.

IADreceived12.6percentfewercomplaintscomparedto2016.

Formalandintakeinvestigationsdecreased15.8percentand3.5percentrespectivelyfrom2016.

Therewere55complaints(intakeinvestigations)declinedbyIADduetoinsufficientinformationorotherreasons.

85percentofthepersonnelwhowerethesubjectofcomplaintswereswornofficersand15percentwerecivilianpersonnel.

Neglect of Duty/Unsatisfactory Performance was the most common allegation responsible for36.4 percent of the allegationsmadeagainstdepartmentemployees, followed by Conformanceto Law (18.6 percent), and Courtesy (11.7 percent). Overall, these three complaint types wereresponsibleformorethantwo‐thirdsofthe allegationsreceived.

Therewere89employeeswithmultiple allegationspercase.

Therewere203allegationsthatresultedin83formalinvestigations–approximately39percentofwhichwereclosedwithinanaverageof66days.

74percentoftheallegationsinvolvedemployeesinthePatrolServicesBureau(PSB).

68.7percentofthesubjectsofIADcaseswereCaucasian,16.2percentwereAfrican American,4.5percentwereAsian,and10.6percentwereHispanic.

76percentofthesubjectsofIADcasesweremale,and24percentwerefemale.

52.5percentof thesubjectsof IADcaseswerebetween theagesof20and39;45.7percent wereinthe40‐59agegroup;andtheremaining1.8percentwereintheage60andolderagegroup.

SUMMARY

12 | P a g e   

31.3 percent of the employees that were the subject of a complaint served on the departmentfrom 1‐5 years, 34.7 percent served on the department from 6 to 15 years, and employeesservingonthedepartmentmorethan16yearscomprisedtheremaining34 percentofemployees.

In2017, IADcontinuedtoprovidetraining forentry‐levelandsupervisory classes.Trainingcontinuestofocus on complaint avoidance through professional service delivery, rather than technical handling ofcomplaints.IADprovidedtrainingaspartofthein‐servicesupervisorytraining andcoveredtopicssuchashow to handle intake complaints and how the formal investigative process works. Trainingwas alsoprovidedtothepoliceofficercandidatesandduringthecitizenacademies.Thedepartment’sBodyWornCamera (BWC)programwas fully implemented in2016, andnow includesapproximately 1,000 officers who are equipped with the technology that helps document interactionsbetweenthepoliceand individuals involved in themajorityofcalls forservice. Thedepartment’suseofforce policy requires supervisors to review all body camera footage captured for all incidents whereofficersuseany typeof force. Bodycamerashavealsoprovedhelpful in resolvingcomplaints inamoretimelyfashionandcapturingvaluableevidenceforinvestigativepurposes.Theuseofthistechnologyhasadded an additional layer of transparency and accountability to the department’s efforts to continuallybuildtrustandimproveitsstandingwiththecommunitiesitservesthroughoutthecounty.Intoday’senvironmentofheightenedpublicexpectationsandfocusonpolicedepartmentoperations,itisimportanttoemphasizethatregardlessofthedepartment’sviewonhowwell itexecutesitsmission,theultimatemeasureofsuccessandtheabilitytomaintainpublictrust,ishowwellthecommunityviewsthedepartment’seffortstobetransparentandheldaccountable.

MONTGOMERYCOUNTYDEPARTMENTOFPOLICE100EdisonParkDriveGaithersburg,MD20878

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/

FollowusonFacebookandTwitter