DOJ Reaches Agreement to Reform Cleveland Police Brutality

Post by **admin** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:18 am

DOJ Reaches Agreement to Reform Cleveland Police Brutality
by Andrew Emett
May 28, 2015

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

The Department of Justice found that a pattern of excessive force has eroded public confidence in the Cleveland Police Department. How will they repair the distrust between the community and the people they protect?

The Justice Department and the city of Cleveland announced on Tuesday that they have entered into a court enforceable agreement to reduce systemic police abuse and repeated violations of the Fourth Amendment. Although the Cleveland Police Department (CPD) has not admitted any wrongdoing, the Department of Justice found that a significant amount of CPD officers utilize deadly and excessive force. With a lack of proper training and transparency, CPD officers now face a myriad of reforms and independent auditors in order to reinstate the broken trust between the police and their community.

At the request of Mayor Frank Jackson on March 14, 2013, the Justice Department began investigating allegations of excessive force and violations of the Fourth Amendment being committed by the CPD. The investigation included a comprehensive assessment of officers’ use of force, and CPD’s policies, procedures, training, systems of accountability, and community engagement. On December 4, 2014, the Justice Department announced that a significant amount of CPD officers used excessive force and constituted an ongoing risk to the public and their fellow officers.

“The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that every American benefits from a police force that protects and serves all members of the community,” stated Attorney General Loretta Lynch. “The agreement we have reached with the city of Cleveland is the result of the hard work and dedication of the entire Cleveland community, and looks to address serious concerns, rebuild trust, and maintain the highest standards of professionalism and integrity. I am pleased to have the full cooperation of law enforcement and city officials in this effort. And I look forward to working with the entire community to build a stronger, safer Cleveland for residents and officers alike.”

According to the agreement, the CPD expects its officers to treat all members of the Cleveland community with courtesy, professionalism, and respect, and not to use harassing, intimidating, or derogatory language. CPD officers will no longer employ neck holds, assault handcuffed suspects, strike individuals in the head with their Taser or service weapon, use force against people verbally confronting them, pepper-spray compliant persons, or engage in retaliatory force. Officers will also use de-escalation techniques and allow suspects the opportunity to submit to arrest before using force against them.

The Justice Department found that systemic deficiencies, including accountability systems, policies, community policing efforts, officer training, and supervision, contribute to the pattern or practice of excessive force within the CPD. Through cooperation with Internal Affairs, monitoring civilian complaints, and establishing independent review boards, the DOJ hopes CPD officers will be able to report misconduct without fear of reprisal from their fellow officers.

Body cameras were not a requirement of the agreement.

The city of Cleveland agreed to no more violations of the Fourth Amendment by allowing CPD officers to commit illegal searches and seizures without consent based on an individual’s gender or race. After officers fired 137 bullets and killed two unarmed suspects in November 2012, the CPD also agreed to limit the number of pursuit vehicles involved in a police chase. On Saturday, Officer Michael Brelo was found not guilty of manslaughter for jumping on the hood of their car and fatally shooting Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams when officers mistook a backfiring car for gunshots.

Not properly trained to handle encounters with people suffering from mental illnesses, CPD officers often do not practice de-escalation techniques to avoid the use of force. On November 13, 2014, a mentally ill woman named Tanisha Anderson suffocated after a CPD officer physically restrained her in a prone position on the ground and handcuffed her. Anderson’s death was ruled a homicide.

On November 22, 2014, CPD officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback responded to a 911 call about a possible juvenile scaring people with a “probably fake” gun. Police dispatchers failed to inform the officers of the caller’s doubts. As the patrol car approached 12-year-old Tamir Rice, Officer Loehmann jumped out and immediately fired two shots with the fatal bullet hitting Rice in the abdomen. The officers later realized Rice had been playing with an airsoft pistol with the orange safety indicator removed. Rice’s family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Loehmann, Garmback, and the city of Cleveland.

The agreement calls for the CPD to reform its use of force policies and to utilize de-escalation techniques whenever possible. While enforcing mandatory reporting of incidents involving the use of force and prohibiting retaliatory attacks, the CPD has also agreed to providing medical care for the recipients of physical force.

The Justice Department investigation found that this pattern of excessive force has eroded public confidence in the police. As a result, public safety suffers and the job of each police officer becomes more difficult and dangerous with every passing day. By instituting independent auditors, improved officer training, and public accountability, the city of Cleveland has taken a step towards repairing the distrust between the community and the people sworn to protect them.

Post by **admin** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:28 am

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND,
Defendant.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. I
II. BACKGROUND ................................ ................................................................................ I
lll. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND BUILDING TRUST ........................................... 4
A. Co1nmunity Police Con1mission ................................................................................... 4
B. District Policing Committees ........ ................................................................................ 7
JV. COMMUNITY AND PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING ............................... .............. 8
Y. BIAS-FREE POLICING ............................................................................................ ....... I 0
VI. USE OF FORCE ............................................................................................................... 12
A. Use of Force Principles .............................................................................. ................. 12
B. Use of Force Policies .................. ................................. .............. ................................. 14
I. Firearn1s ......... ......................................................... ... ................ ....... .................... 15
2. Electronic Control Weapons ........................................... ...... ~ .. ............................. 16
3. Oleoresin Capsicum Spray ("OC Spray") ............................................................. l 8
C. Use of Force Training ............................................................ ........ ............................. 19
D. Use of Force Reporting Policy and Use of Force Reports .......................................... 20
E. Use of Force Investigations ........................................................................................ 22
l. Investigations of Level 1 Uses of Force .............. ................................................. 22
2. Investigations of Level 2 Uses of Force .............. ................................................. 23
3. Force Investigation Team and Investigations of Level 3 Uses of Force ............... 27
F. Force Review Board .................. ............................................................ ........ ............. 31
vrr. CRISIS INTERVENTJON ................................................................................................ 34
A. Mental Health Response Advisory Committee ........................................................... 34
B. Crisis Intervention Coordinator ......................................................................... ......... 35
C. Crisis Intervention Training .................. ...................................................................... 35
D. Specialized Crisis Intervention Trained Officers ........................ ......................... ....... 36
E. Crisis Intervention Policies and Procedures .................... ............................... ............ 38
VIII. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ...................................................................................... ... 39
IX. ACCOUNTABILITY ................................................. ...................................................... 43
A. Internally Discovered Misconduct ................ .............................................................. 43
B. Reporting Misconduct and Preventing Retaliation ..................................................... 46
C. Investigation of Civilian Complaints .................................................................... .. .... 4 7
1. The Office of Professional Standards ......... ... ....................................................... 4 7
2. Filing and Tracking of Civilian Complaints .. .. ...... .................... .... ... .................... 49
3. Classification of Civi lian Complaints ..................... .............................................. 51
4. Investigation of Civilian Complaints .............. ...................................................... 52
5. Communication with the Complainant ................................................................. 54
D. Police Review Board .................................................................... .. ....................... ...... 54
E. Disciplinary Hearings ............................ ..................................................................... 56
F. Discipline ............. .. ........................................................... .................................... ...... 57
X. TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT .................................................. , ...................... 58
A. Police Inspector General ............................................ ................................................. 58
B. Data Collection and Analysis ...................................................................................... 59
XL OFFICER ASSISTANCE AND SUP.PORT ................... .................................................. 63
A. Training .............................................................................................. ......................... 63
I. l~rai ning Plan ..... .................................................................................................... 63
2. Field Training Program ......................................................................................... 66
3. Documentation of "fraining ................................................................................... 67
B. Equipment and Resources .................. ................................................ ......................... 67
II
C. Recruitment and Hiring ............................................................................................... 70
0. Performance Evaluations and Promotions .................................................................. 71
I. Performance Evaluations ...................................................................................... 72
2. Promotions ............................................................................................................ 73
E. Staffing ........................................................................................................................ 73
Xll. SUPERVISION ................................................................................................................. 74
A. Duties, and Training of First Line Supervisors ........................................................... 74
B. Officer Intervention Program ...................................................................... ................ 75
C. Body Worn Cameras .......... ......... ............................................. ........ .................... ....... 78
XIJI. POLICIES .............................................................................. ........................................... 78
XIV. IMPLEME TATTON, ASSESSMENT, OUTCOMES, AND ENFORCEMENT .......... 80
A. Role of the Independent Monitor .......................................................................... ...... 80
B. Selection and Compensation of the Monitor .............................................................. 81
C. Compliance Reviews ..................................................................... ............................. 82
D. Biennial Community Survey ................................................. ...................................... 83
E. Outcome Measurements .............................................................................................. 84
F. Monitoring Plan and Review Methodology ................................................................ 88
G. Monitor Recommendations and Technical Assistance ............................................... 89
H. Con1prehensive Reassessment .................................. .................................................. 90
l. Monitor Reports ......... ....................................... ... ...... ............................... .................. 90
.J. Coordination with the Police Inspector General ......................................................... 91
K. Communication between Monitor, Parties, and Pub I ic .............................................. 91
L. Public Statements, Testimony, Records, and Conflicts of Interest.. ........................... 92
M. CDP Consent Decree Implementation Unit ................................................................ 93
N. Implementation Assessment and Report ..... ................................................................ 93
111
0. Access and Confidentiality ........ ................................................................................. 94
P. Court Jurisdiction, Modification of this Agreement, and Enforcement. ..................... 95
Q. Termination of this Agreement ................................................... ........ ........................ 96
XV. DEFTNJTJONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................... 97

Post by **admin** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:29 am

I. INTRODUCTION

The United States of America and the City of Cleveland (collectively "Parties'') are
committed to ensuring that police services in Cleveland are delivered in a manner that is
constitutional, effective, and consistent with community values, while preserving officer and
public safety. To further these goals, the Cleveland Division of Police ("CDP") and the
Cleveland community must have a strong relationship that is built on mutual trust and respect.
The provisions of this Agreement are designed to bolster this relationship and ensure that it
endures. The Constitution requires the City to prevent excessive force, to ensure that searches
and seizures arc reasonable, and to ensure that police services are deli vered free from bias.
These precepts also are fund amental to a strong community-police relationship. To further these
goals, the City has agreed to provide clear guidance to offi cers; increase accountability; provide
for civilian participation in and oversight of the police; provide officers with needed support,
training, and equipment; and increase transparency. The Parties acknowledge that nothing in this
Agreement alters the fact that the City of Cleveland is a governmental entity organized under the
laws of Ohio and governed in accordance with its Municipal Charter (''Charter"). This
Agreement does not alter the Cleveland Charter provisions regarding control and supervision or
the police force. The Mayor of Cleveland and Director of Public Safety retain their authority
over CDP and the Chief of CDP retains authority to oversee the operations of CDP.

For these reasons, and noting the general principle that settlements are to be encouraged,
particularly settlements between government entities, the Parties agree to implement this
Agreement under the following terms and conditions.

Post by **admin** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:31 am

II. BACKGROUND

1. On March 14, 20 13, at the request of the Mayor of Cleveland and others, the United
States Department of Justice ("DOJ") announced the beginning ol'its investigation into
CDP's policies and practices to determine whether CDP engages in a pattern or practice
of the use of excessive force in violation of the Fom1h Amendment of the United States
Constitution and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42
U.S.C. ~ 14141 ("Section14141").

2. As part of its investigation, DO.I, in consultation with expc11s in police practices,
conducted a comprehensive assessment of officers' use of fo rce and CDP's policies,
procedures, training, systems of accountability, and community engagement. The
investigation included multi-day onsite tours of CD P's facilities, District command
stations, and ride-alongs with officers in every police District; interviews with
Cleveland officials, CD P's command staff, members of CD P's specialized units,
supervisors, and police officers; an extensive review of documents; and numerous
meetings with residents, community groups, members of religious communities, the
Office of Professional Standards, the Civilian Police Review Board, and other
stakeholders.

3. The City and CDP cooperated during the investigation and provided access to
documen~s, faciliti es, and personnel. Many members of Cleveland's diverse
communities, including community advocates, religious leaders, and members of
CDP's patrol offi cer and management unions, took an active interest in the
investigation and played a critical role in providing information and faci litating a
thorough investigation.

4. On December 4, 2014, the Department of Justice publicly announced that it had
reasonable cause to believe that CDP engages in a pattern or practice of using excessive
force. DOJ announced that it had reasonable cause to believe that, although most force
used by CDP officers was reasonable, a significant amount of deadly and less lethal
force was excessive and constituted an ongoing risk to the public and to CDP officers.
DO.I also determined that systemic deficiencies contribute to the pattern or practice of
excessive force. These deficiencies relate to operational and structural areas of CDP,
including its accountability systems, resource deployment, community policing efforts,
policies, and officer support, training, equipment, and supervision. Although DOJ did
not specifically investigate CDP's search, seizure, and a!1'est practices, DOJ's force
review revealed Fourth Amendment concerns in those areas as well.

5. The City agrees that DOJ"s findings raise issues of importance to the City and the
community that should be addressed. To that end, and simultaneous with the release of
DO J's findings, the Parties issued a Joint Statement of Principles agreeing to begin
negotiations with the intention of reaching a court-enforceable settlement agreement, to
include the appointment of an outside independent monitor to ensure compliance with
the terms of this Agreement. In agreeing to address these important issues, the City is
not agreeing with the findings.

6. Constitutional policing and effective policing are interdependent, and rely on a strong
partnership between the police department and the communities that it serves. To
ensure that the reforms embodied in this Agreement are responsive to community and
offi cer concerns, the Parties consulted extcns.ively with community leaders, police
officers, advocates, residents, and other concerned individuals who offered meaningful
recommendations and insights on reform. This Agreement rc llects the broad input
received by the Parties from the diverse communities that make up the City of
Cleveland. The Parties are committed to ongoing engagement with community
stakeholders to foster continued participation and long-term sustainabi lity of the
reforms created by this Agreement.

7. This Agreement was reached as a result of the authority granted to the Department of
Justice under Section 14141 to seek declaratory or equitable relief to remedy a pattern
or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives individuals of rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal law.

8. This Agreement is not intended to limit the lawful authority of the Mayor of Cleveland
over the CDP or the lawful authority of the Chief of Police to oversee the operations of
CDP.

9. The Parties acknowledge the appropriation authori ty of Cleveland City Council under
the Ohio Revised Code and the Cleveland Charter and Codified Ordinances. This
Agreement is not intended to override the lawful authority of the Cleveland City
Council to appropriate funds.

10. This Agreement is not intended to I imit the lawful authority of CDP officers to use
objectively reasonable force or otherwise fulfill their law enforcement obligations
under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Ohio.

11. This Agreement will not be construed as an admission or evidence of liability under
any federal, State, or municipal law including 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nor is the City's
entry into this Agreement an admission by the City, CDP, or its officers and employees
that they have engaged in any unconstitutional, illegal, or otherwise improper activities
or conduct. The Parties acknowledge the many CDP officers who have continued to
work diligently and with integrity despite challenging circumstances.

12. This Agreement will constitute the entire integrated agreement of the Parties. No prior
drafts or prior or contemporaneous communications, oral or written, will be relevant or
admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein in any
litigation or any other proceeding, except the Department of Justice's December 4,
20 14 Findings Letter.

13. This Agreement is binding upon all Parties hereto, by and through their officials,
agents, employees, and successors. If the City establishes or reorganizes a government
agency or entity whose function includes overseeing, regulating, accrediting,
investigating, or otherwise reviewing the operations of CDP or any aspect thereof, the
City agrees to ensure that these functions and entities are consistent with the terms of
this Agreement and wi 11 incorporate the terms of this Agreement into the oversight,
regulatory, accreditation, investigation, or review functions of the government agency
or entity as necessary to ensure consistency.

Post by **admin** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:33 am

Ill. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND BUILDING TRUST

14. This Agreement recognizes the impo1ta:nce of community input into the way police
services are delivered. Ongoing community input into the development of reforms, the
establishment of police priorities, and mechanisms to promote community confidence
in CDP will strengthen CDP and the police-community relationship that is necessary to
promote public safety. To promote public trust and confidence in CDP, constitutional
and effective policing, officer and public safety, and the sustainability of reforms, CDP
will create, in accordance with this Agreement, formal and informal mechanisms that
facilitate ongoing communication between CDP and the many Cleveland communities
it serves.

A. Community Police Commission

15. To leverage the experience and expertise of the people of Cleveland, and to ensure that
CDP recognizes and operates in a manner consistent with cooperative community
understanding and engagement, the City wi ll establish, within 90 days of the Effective
Date, a Community Police Commission (''Commission") consisting of 13 members
who represent the many and diverse communities in Cleveland. The Commission will
have the following mandate:

a. to make recommendations to the Chief of Police and the City, including the
Mayor and the City Council, on pol icies and practices related to community
and problem-oriented policing, bias-free policing, and police transparency;

b. to work with the many communities that make up Cleveland for the purpose
of developing recommendations for police practices that reflect an
understanding of the values and priorities of Cleveland residents; and

c. to report to the City and community as a whole and to provide transparency on
police department reforms.

16. To ensure diverse representation, within 30 days of the Effective Date, the City wi ll
establish a selection panel made up of representatives from each or the fo llowing:
(a) faith based organizations; (b) civil rights advocates; (c) the business/philanthropic
community; (d) organizations representing communities of color; (e) advocacy
organi1..ations; (f) youth or student organizations; (g) academia; and (h) individuals with
expertise in the challenges faci ng people with mental illness or the homeless. The
members of this panel will be selected by the Mayor in consultation with DOJ. and with
participation by members of Cleveland City Council as determined by the Council
President. Within 30 days of their appointment, the selection panel will accept
applications for membership on the Commission from individuals who reside or work
in the City of Cleveland. Within 30 days thereafter, in an open public forum, the
selection panel will recommend I 0 persons to be appointed as members of the
Commission for a term of no more than 4 years, ensuring at least I representative from
each of the categories identified above. The persons recommended by the selection
panel shall be appointed as provided in the Charter. Current members of the se lection
panel cannot apply to become members of the Cor;nmission. In add ition, the Cleveland
Patrolmen's Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Black Shield will each
identify one member to be appoi nted as provided in the Charter to serve on the
Commission. Vacancies within the original four year term will be filled in the same
fashion as the original appointments. At the end of four years, a selection panel will be
reconstituted and members of the Commission wi II be selected as described above.
One member of the Commission will be selected by the Commission to attend meetings
of, and receive relevant information and reports from the Community Relations Board
of the City of Cleveland, and one member of the Community Relations Board will be
selected by the Community Relations Board to attend meetings of, and receive relevant
information and reports from the Commission. The Commission will meet periodically
with the Chief of Police and provide recommendations and reports to him or her, but
remain independent from, the Chief of Police, the Mayor, and the City Council.

17. The Commission will:

a. within 90 days of appointment, hold public meetings across the City, complete
an assessment of CDP's bias-free policing policies, practices, and training,
and make recommendations;

b. on an ongoing basis, including through its membership on the Training
Review Committee, assist as appropriate in CDP"s development of training
related to bias-free policing and cultural competency;

c. on an ongoing basis, assess CDP's community activities, and make
recommendations for additional strategies for CDP to consider to increase
community engagement with and community confidence in CDP;

d. on an ongoing basis, review CDP's civilian oversight structure to determine if
there are changes it recommends for improving CDP's accountability and
transparency; and

e. perform other function as set out in this Agreement.

18. In addition to the above, the Commission has the authority to:

a. review and comment on CDP's policies and practices related to use of force,
search and seizure, and data collection and retention;

b. review and comment on CD P's implementation of initiatives, programs, and
activities that are intended to support reform; and

c. hold public meetings to discuss the Monitor's reports and to receive
community feedback concerning CDP's compliance with this Agreement.

19. The City will provide access to all information requested by the Commission related to
its mandate, authority, and duties un less it is law enfo rcement sensiti ve, legally
restricted, or would disclose a personnel action.

20. At least annually, the Commission will issue reports, including any recommendations
for improvement, related to each activity that it undertakes. The City will post the
Commission's reports and recommendations to the City's website.

21. The City will consider and timely respond in writing to the Commission's
recommendations for improvements. Those responses also will be posted to the City's
website.

22. The budget for the Commission will be visible as a separate line item in the budget
proposal that is submitted annually pursuant to the Charter to the Cleveland City
Council with the appropriations ordinance. The Parties will endeavor to secure private
funding for the Commission as appropriate. The Monitor will analyze the
Commission's budget and advise the Parties and the Court as to whether it affords
sufficient independence and resources to meet the terms of this Agreement.

B. District Policing Committees

23. Working jointly, the Commission, CDP, and Community Relations Board ("CRB"),
will work with the D.istrict Policing Committees (formerly called District Community
Relations Committees) to fac il itate regular communication and cooperation between
CDP and community leaders at the local level. These Disn·ict Policing Committees
should meet, at a minimum, every quarter.

24. Working jointly, the Commission, CDP. and CRB will develop a mechanism to recruit
and expand the membership of the District Policing Committees, each of which should
include a representative cross-section of community members, including, for example,
representatives of social services providers, faith leaders, local business owners, youth,
etc., from that District. Each District Policing Committee also will include at least one
CDP officer from that District. CDP will work with the Commission to select officers
for each District Policing Committee.

25. CDP will work closely with the District Policing Committees to identify strategies to
address crime and safoty issues in their District. In developing appropriate strategies,
the District Policing Committees should consider and address law enfo rcement
priorities and community policing strategies in their District, and should address any
concerns or recommendations about specific CDP policing tactics and initiatives in
their District.

26. At least annually, each District Policing Committee will present its identified strategies,
concerns and recommendations to the Commission. At the same time, an officer who is
a member of the District Policing Committee will present to the Commission CD P's
assessment of ways to address, and barriers to, implementing the strategies, concerns
and recommendations of the Committee.

Post by **admin** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:35 am

IV. COMMUNITY AND PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING

27. CDP will develop and implement a comprehensive and integrated community and
problem-oriented policing model in order to promote and strengthen partnerships
within the community, engage constructively with the community to ensure
collaborative problem-solving, and increase community confidence in CDP. CDP will
consult with the Commission regarding this model as appropriate.

28. CDP will ensure that its mission statement reflects its commitment to community
oriented policing and will integrate community and problem-oriented policing
principles into its management, policies and procedures, recruitment, training,
personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics,, and accountability systems.

29. CDP will ensure that officers are familiar with the geographic areas they serve,
including their assets, challenges, problems, business, residential and demographic
profiles, and community groups and leaders; engage in problem identification and
solving activities with the community groups and members regarding the community's
priorities; and work proactively with other city and county departments to address
quality of life issues.

30. CDP will provide initial and annual in-service community and problem-oriented
policing training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope, and wi ll
incorporate into its training of all offi cers, including supervisors, commanders, and
executives, community and problem-oriented policing principles, including:

a. methods and strategies to improve publ ic safety and crime prevention through
community engagement;

b. training that promotes the development of new problem-solving partnerships
between the police and community, targeting problem-solving and crime
prevention;

c. leadership, ethics, and effective communication and interpersonal skills;

d. community engagement, including how to establish partnerships and actively
engage civilians and community organizations, including youth, LGBT,
homeless, and mental health organizations and communities;

e. principles of procedural justice and its goals;

f. conflict resolution and verbal de-escalation of conflict; and

g. cultural competency and sensitivity training.

31. The City and CDP will maintain collaborative partnerships with a broad spectrum of
community groups. CDP representatives will meet, as appropriate, with residential,
business, religious, civic, educational, and other community-based groups in each
District, and with the District Policing Committees, to proactively maintain these
relationships and identify and address community problems and challenges.

32. CDP will continue to meet with members of the community in each District on a
monthly basis. CDP will actively solicit participation from a broad cross-section of
community members in each District. Among other things, these community meetings
will be used to identify problems and other areas of concern in the community and
discuss responses and solutions. During these meetings, CDP may discuss, when
appropriate, summaries of relevant aud its and reports assessing CDP as well as any
policy changes completed during the preceding quarter.

33. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, CDP will develop and implement systems to
monitor officer outreach to the community. CDP will use this method to analyze,
among other things, whether officers are partnering with a broad cross-section of
community members to develop and implement cooperative strategies that build mutual
respect and identify and solve problems. The Monitor will review whether the systems
developed by the City are effective.

34. At least annually, CDP will present the results of this analysis, broken out by District,
in a publicly-available community policing report detailing its community policing
efforts in each District. This report will describe the problems and solutions identified
in the analysis above. The report also will identify obstacles encountered in community
and problem-oriented policing and recommendations for future improvement. In
developing this report, CDP will consider, as appropriate, available results from the
biennial survey. The community policing report will be provided to the Commission,
posted on CD P's website, and a summary of the report will be provided at each District
community meeting following the report's publication.

Post by **admin** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:37 am

V. BIAS-FREE POLICING

35. CDP will deliver police services with the goal of ensuring that they are equitable,
respectful, and free of unlawful bias, in a manner that promotes broad community
engagement and confidence in CDP. CDP expects all officers to treat all members of
the Cleveland community with courtesy, professionalism, and respect, and not to use
harassing, intimidating, or derogatory language.

36. CDP will integrate bias-free policing principles into its management, policies and
procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource
deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.

37. CDP will administer all activities without discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity,
national origin, religion, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

38. Within 18 months of the Effective Date, CDP will develop a bias-free policing policy
that incorporates, as appropriate, the recommendations developed by the Commission
pursuant to paragraph 17, and that provides clear guidance to officers that biased
policing, including deciding to detain a motorist or pedestrian based solely on racial
stereotypes, is prohibited.

39. Within 18 months of the Effective Date, with input from the Commission, CDP will
develop training that incorporates the principles of procedural justice and that is
designed to ensure that police services are delivered free from bias. The Monitor will
review the training to assess whether it is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type.

40. The training will be provided to all officers and will include:

a. constitutional and other legal requirements related to equal protection and
unlawful discrimination, including the requirements of this Agreement;

b. strategies, such as problem-oriented policing, procedural justice, and
recognizing implicit bias, to avoid conduct that may lead to biased policing or
the perception of biased policing;

c. historical and cultural systems that perpetuate racial and ethnic profiling;

d. identification of racial or ethnic profiling practices, and police practices that
have a disparate impact on certain demographic categories;

e. self-evaluation strategies to identify racial or ethnic profiling;

f. District-level cultural competency training regarding the histories and culture
of local immigrant and ethnic communities;

g. police and community perspectives related to bias-free policing;

h. the protection of civil rights as a central part of the police mission and as
essential to effective policing;

i. instruction in the data collection protocols required by this Agreement; and

j. methods, strategics, and techniques to reduce misunderstanding, conflict, and
complaints due to perceived bias or discrimination.

41. Supervisor training will include:

a. how to identify biased police practices when reviewing investigatory stop,
arrest, and use of force data;

b. how to respond to a complaint of biased police practices, including conducting
a preliminary investigation of the complaint in order to preserve key evidence
and potential witnesses;

c. how to evaluate complaints of improper pedestrian stops for potential biased
police practices; and

d. engaging the community and developing positive relationships with diverse
community groups.

42. Officers also will receive annual in-service training on bias-free policing that is
adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope.

43. To help ensure that police services are delivered in a manner free from bias, CDP will
analyze data pursuant to paragraph 265.

44. Within 18 months of the Effective Date, the appointing authority will consider
principles of bias-free policing and equal protection in its hiring; unit assignment, as
applicable; promotion; and performance assessment processes, including giving
consideration to an individual's record of bias-related violations, as wel I as using
interviews or other methods to assess the individual's abi lity to effectively practice
bias-free policing.

Post by **admin** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:52 am

VI. USE OF FORCE

45. DOJ acknowledges that CDP recently has made impo11ant changes to some of its force
policies. Building on these improvements, CDP will revise, develop, and implement
force policies, training, supervision, and accountability systems with the goal of
ensuring that force is used in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United
States and the requirements of this Agreement and that any use of unreasonable force is
promptly identified and responded to appropriately. The force policies, trai ning,
supervision, and accountabi Ii ty systems wi II be designed with the goal of ensuring that
officers use techniques other than fo rce to effect compliance with police orders
whenever feasible: use force only when necessary, and in a manner that avoids
unnecessary injury to officers and civilians; de-escalate the use of force at the earliest
possible moment; and accurately and completely report all uses of force.

A. Use of Force Principles

46. The City will implement the terms of this Agreement with the goal of ensuring that use
of force by CDP officers, regardless of the type of force, tactics, or weapon used, will
comply with the following requirements:

a. officers will allow individuals the opportunity to submit to arrest before force
is used wherever possible;

b. officers will use de-escalation techniques whenever possible and appropriate,
before resorting to force and to reduce the need for fo rce. De-escalation
techniques may include verbal persuasion and warnings and tactical deescalation
techniques, such as slowing down the pace or an incident, waiting
out subjects, creating distance (and thus the reactionary gap) between the
officer and the threat, and requesting additional resources (e.g. specialized
CIT officers or negotiators). Officers will be trained to consider the
possibility that a subject may be noncompliant due to a medical or mental
condition, physical or hearing impairment, language barrier, drug interaction,
or emotional crisis;

c. if force becomes necessary, officers will be limited to using only the amount
or force objectively reasonable as necessary to control the person.

d. in applying force, officers will reduce the level of force as the threat
diminishes;

e. officers normally will not use force against persons who are handcuffed or
otherwise restrained, unless it is objectively reasonable and necessary under
the circumstances lo stop an assault, escape, or as necessary to fulfill other
law enforcement objectives;

f. officers will not use force against persons who only verbally confront them
and do not impede a legitimate law enforcement function:

g. CDP will explicitly prohibit the use of retaliatory force by officers.
Retaliatory force includes, for example, force in excess of what is objectively
reasonable to prevent an escape to punish individuals for fleeing or otherwise
resisting arrest; and force used to punish an individual for di srespecting
officers;

h. officers will not use head strikes with hard objects, except where lethal force
is justified. Officers will be trained that a strike to the head with any impact
weapon could result in death;

i. other than to protect an officer's or other person's safety, officers will not use
force to subdue an individual who is not suspected of any criminal conduct;

j. CDP's policy will expressly provide that using a firearm as an impact weapon
is never an authorized tactic. Officers will be trained that use of a !irearm as
an impact weapon could result in death to suspects, bystanders, and
themselves;

k. officers will not use neck holds;

I. CDP will continue to limit vehicle pursuits to those in which the need to
capture the suspect outweighs the danger to the public. CDP will continue to
limit the number of CDP vehicles that may be involved in a vehicle pursuit;
and

m. immediately following a use or force, officers and, upon arri val, a supervisor
will inspect and observe subjects for injury or complaints of pain resulting
from the use of force, and immediately obtain any necessary medical care. As
necessary, officers will provide emergency first aid unti I professional medical
care providers are on scene.

47. As soon as practical following a use of force, CDP will ensure that the incident is
accurately and properly reported, documented, and investigated. A fundamental goal of
the revised use of fo rce policy wi ll be to account for, review, and investigate every
reportable use of force and reduce any improper uses of force.

48. CDP will track and analyze officers' uses of force to hold officers accountable for
unreasonable uses of force; to guide training and policy; and to identify poor tactics and
emerging trends.

B. Use of Force Policies

49. CDP will develop and implement use of force policies that comply with applicable law
and are adequate to achieve the goals described in paragraph 45. The use of force
policies will incorporate the use of force principles above, and will specify that the
unreasonable use of force will subject officers to the disciplinary process, possible
criminal prosecution, and/or possible civil liability.

50. CDP's policies will address the use and deployment of its authorized force techniques,
technologies, and weapons that are available to CDP officers, including standard-issue
weapons that are made available to all officers and weapons that are made available
only to specialized units. The policies will clearly define and describe each force
option and the circumstances under which use of such fo rce is appropriate.

51. CDP's policies related to specific weapons wi ll include training and certification
requirements that each officer must meet before being permitted to carry and use the
authorized weapon.

52. No officer will carry any weapon that is not authorized or approved by CDP.

53. Prior to the use of any approved weapon, the officer, when possible and appropriate,
wi ll communicate to the subject and other officers that the use of the weapon is
imminent, and allow the subject an opportunity to comply.

54. CDP will implement policies for each of the fo llowing weapons using the following
guidelines.

1. Firearms

55. Officers will not unholster and display a firearm unless the circumstances create a
reasonable belief that lethal force may become necessary. CD P's policies will require
and training will teach proper techniques for unholstering, displaying, pointing, and
aiming a firearm, and for determining when it is appropriate. to do so. The Monitor will
review CDP's policies and training to ensure that they comply with this paragraph. If
an officer unholsters a firearm during an incident, interaction, or event that would
otherwise trigger a reporting or data collection requirement, officers wiII document that
a firearm was unholstered. CDP will annually collect and analyze this data.

56. Unholstering a firearm and pointing it at a subject constitutes a Level 1 reportable use
of force and will be reported and investigated as such. The fo llowing exceptions to this
reporting requirement will apply:

a. SWAT Team Officers will not be required to report the pointing of a firearm
at a subject as a use of force during the execution of SWAT Team duties;

b. officers who are deputized and assigned to a Federal Task Force will not be
required to report the pointing of a firearm at a subject as a use of force when
conducting federal task fo rce operations during which a supervisor is present.
Reports or forms regarding any such incidents that are otherwise prepared by
a Task Force supervisor will be provided to CDP;

c. officers assigned to the Gang Impact, Narcotics, Homicide, Sex Crimes,
Domestic Violence, and Financial Crimes Units will not be required to report
the pointing of a firearm at a subject as a use of force if done solely while
entering and securing a building in connection with the execution of an arrest
or search warrant and a supervisor prepares a report detailing the incident.

57. Officers will not fire warning shots.

58. Officers will consider their surroundings before discharging their firearms and wi ll
avoid unnecessary risk to bystanders. victims, and other officers.

59. Officers will not discharge a firearm from or at a moving vehicle, unless use of lethal
force is justified by something other than the threat from the moving vehicle; officers
will not intentionally place themselves in the path of or reach inside a moving vehicle;
and, where possible, officers will attempt to move out of the path of a moving vehicle.

60. CDP annually will provide at least 16 hours of firearms training which will include
pistol , shotgun, and policy training. In consultation with the Monitor, CDP will
develop a plan lo provide appropriate night, reduced light, and stress training for
officers. Officers will successfully qualify with each firearm they are authorized to use
or carry on-duty at least annually. Officers will be required to qualify using proficiency
standards and will not be permitted to carry any firearm on which they failed to qualify.

2. Electronic Control Weapons

61. Officers wiII use Electronic Control Weapons (''ECWs") only where: (1) grounds for
arrest or detention arc present and the subject is actively or aggressively resisting, and
lesser means would be ineffective; or (2) such fo rce is necessary to protect the officer,
the subject, or another party from immediate physical harm, and lesser means would be
ineffective or have been tried and failed.

62. Each standard 5-second ECW application is a separate use of fo rce that officers must
individually justify as reasonable. After the first ECW application, the officer will
reevaluate the situation to detennine if subsequent cycles are reasonable. In
determining whether any additional application is reasonable, officers will consider that
a subject may not be able to respond to commands during or immed iately fo llowing an
ECW application. Officers will not employ more than three cycles of an ECW against
a subject during a single incident.

63. Officers will consider lransitioning to alternative control measures if the subj ect does
not respond to ECW applications.

64. Officers will not use ECWs in drive stun mode solely as a pain compliance technique.
Officers may use ECWs in drive stun mode only to supplement the probe mode to
complete the incapacitation circuit, or as a countermeasure to gain separation between
officers and the subject so that officers can consider another force option.

65. Officers wi II determine the reasonableness or ECW use based upon all the relevant
circumstances, includ ing the subject's apparent age, size, physical, and mental
condition, and the feasibility of lesser force options.

66. Except where lethal force is authorized, officers will not use ECWs where: (1) a
deployment may cause serious physical injury or death from situational hazards,
including falling, losing control of a moving vehicle, or becoming ignited from the
presence of potentially explosive or flammable materials or substances; or (2) the
subject is visibly pregnant, apparently elderly, a child, visibly frail, has obviously low
body mass, or is in apparent medical crisis.

67. Officers will not use ECWs on fleeing persons who do not pose a threat of physical
harm to officers, other civilians, or themselves.

68. Officers will not intentionally target ECWs to a subject's head, neck, or genitalia.

69. Officers will not normally use ECWs on handcuffed or restrained persons. ECWs wi ll
be used on handcuffed or restrained persons only where the subject is displaying
aggressive physical resistance and lesser means would be ineffective or have been tried
and failed.

70. Officers will carry ECWs in a weak-side holster to reduce the chances of accidentally
drawing and/or tiring a firearm.

71. Officers will be trained in and fo llow protocols developed by CDP, in conjunction with
the City's EMS professionals, on the officer's responsibi lities fo llowing ECW use,
including:

a. restrictions on removing ECW probes, including the requirements described in
the next paragraph;

b. understanding the risks of positional asphyx ia, and using restraint techniques
that do not impair the subj ect's respiration fo llowing a ECW application;

c. monitoring all subjects who have received an ECW application while in pol ice
custody; and

d. informing medical personnel of all subjects who have been subjected to
multiple ECW applications, including prolonged applications (more than 15
seconds); or who appear to be under the influence of drugs or exhibiting
symptoms associated with excited delirium; or who were kept in prone
restraints after ECW use.

72. The City will ensure that all subjects who have been exposed to an ECW application
receive a medical evaluation by emergency medical responders in the field or at a
medical facility. Absent exigent circumstances, probes will be removed from a
subject's sk in only by medical personnel or properly trained officers.

73. In addition to the force reporting requirements outl ined in paragraph 88, officers will
clearly articulate and justify the following regarding their ECW use in a written
narrative:

a. each and every ECW cycle used on a subject or attempted against a subject;

b. use of the ECW in drive stun mode;

e. ECW application for more than 15 seconds;

d. continuous cycling of an ECW;

e. ECW application on a fl eeing person; and

f. ECW application by more than one officer.

74. Oflicers who have been issued ECWs wi ll receive annual ECW certifications, which
will consist of physical competency; weapon retention; CDP policy, including any
policy changes; technology changes; and scenario-based training.

75. CDP will develop and implement integrity safeguards on the use of ECWs to ensure
compliance with CDP policy. CDP will conduct qua1terly downloads of all ECWs.
CDP will conduct random and directed audits of ECW application data, which will be
provided to the Monitor for review. The aud its should include a comparison of the
downloaded data to the officer's Use of Force Reports. Discrepancies within the audit
should be addressed and appropriately investigated.

76. ECW application data will be tracked and analyzed in CDP's Officer lntcrvention
Program.

3. Oleoresin Capsicum Spray ("OC Spray")

77. Officers will apply OC spray only: (1) when such force is reasonable to protect the
officer, the subject, or another party from physical ha1m and lesser means would be
ineffective; or (2) for crowd dispersal or protection and other means would be more
intrusive or less effective.

78. After one standard OC spray (one second), each subsequent application is a separate
use of force that officers must individually justify as reasonable.

79. Officers will not normally use OC spray on handcuffed or restrained persons. QC spray
will be used on handcuffed or restrained persons only where the subject is displaying
aggressive physical resistance and lesser means would be ineffective or have been tried
and failed.

80. Officers will be trained in and follow protocols developed by CDP in conjunction with
the City's EMS professionals, on the officer's responsibilities following OC spray use,
including:

a. decontaminating every subject exposed to chemical spray by using cool water
to flush the subject's face and eyes within 20 minutes of gaining control of the
scene. Officers need not decontaminate subjects who were only secondarily
exposed to OC spray, for example, when OC spray is used for crowd control,
unless requested by the subject;

b. understanding the risks of positional asphyxia, and using restraint techniques
lhat do not impair the subject's respiration fo llowing an OC spray application;

c. requesting medical response or assistance for subjects exposed to OC spray
when they complain of continued effects after having been decontaminated, or
they indicate that they have a pre-existing medical condition (e.g., asthma,
emphysema, bronchitis, heart ailment, etc.) that may be aggravated by OC
spray.

81. Officers will carry only CDP issued OC spray.

82. CDP wi II maintain documentation of tbc number of OC spray canisters distri butcd to
and utilized by each officer.

83. OC spray application data will be tracked and analyzed in CDP's Officer Intervention
Program.

C. Use of Force Training

84. As part of its training requirements in Section XI of this Agreement, within 365 days of
the Effective Date, CDP will provide all current officers use of force training that is
adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type and that includes:

a. proper use of force decision-making;

b. use of force reporting requirements;

c. the Fourth Amendment and related law;

d. de-escalation techniques, both verbal and tactical, that empower officers to
make arrests without using force and instruction that disengagement, area
containment, survei llance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements,
using cover, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the
appropriate response to a situation, even when the use of force would be
legally justified;

e. role-playing scenarios and interactive exercises that illustrate proper use of
force decision-making, including training on the importance of peer
intervention;

f. the proper deployment and use of all intermediate weapons or technologies;

g. the risks of prolonged or repeated ECW exposure, including that exposure to
ECWs for longer than 15 seconds (whether due to multiple applications or
continuous cycling) may increase the risk of death or serious physical injury;

h. the increased risks ECWs may present to a subject who is pregnant, elderly, a
child, frail, has low body mass, or is in medical crisis;

i. that when using an ECW the drive stun mode is generally less effective than
the probe mode and, when used repeatedly, may exacerbate the situation;

j. firearms training, as described in paragraph 60;

k. factors to consider in initiating or continuing a vehicle pursuit; and

I. for supervisors of all ranks, as part of their initial and annual in-service
supervisory training, training in conducting use or force investigations;
strategies for effectively directing officers to minimize uses of force and to
intervene effectively to prevent or stop unreasonable force; and supporting
officers who report unreasonable or unreported force, or who are retaliated
against for attempting to prevent unreasonable force.

85. CDP also will provide the use of force training described in paragraph 84 to all new
officers as part of its training Academy.

86. CDP will provide all officers with annual use of force in-service training that is
adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope.

D. Use of Force Reporting Policy and Use of Force Reports

87. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, CDP will develop and implement a single,
uniform, reporting system pursuant to a Use of Force Reporting policy. CDP uses of
force will be di vided into three levels. The three levels for the reporting, investigation,
and review of use of force correspond to the amount of force used and/or the outcome
of the force. This Agreement's categorization of these types of uses of force is based
on the fo llowing factors: potential of the technique or weapon to cause injury; degree
of injury caused; degree of pain experienced; degree of disability experienced by the
subject; complaint by the subject; degree of restraint of the subject; impairment of the
functioning of any organ; duration of force; and physical vulnerabi lity of the subject.
Each level of force will require increasingly rigorous reporting, investigation, and
review. The levels of force are defined as follows:

a. Level 1 is force that is reasonably expected to cause only transient pain and/or
disorientation during its application as a means of gaining compliance,
including pressure point compliance and joint manipulation techniques, but
that is not reasonably expected to cause injury, does not result in an actual
injury, and does not result in a complaint of injury. It does not include
escorting, touching, or handcuffing a person with no or minimal resistance.
Unholstering a firearm and pointing it at a subject is reportable as a Level 1
use of force with the exceptions set forth in paragraph 56.

b. Level 2 is force that causes an injury, could reasonably be expected to cause
an injury, or results in a complaint of an inj ury, but does not rise to the level
of a Level 3 use of force. Level 2 includes the use of an ECW, including
where an ECW is fired at a person but misses; OC Spray application;
weaponless defense techniques (e.g., elbow or closed-fist strikes, kicks. leg
sweeps, and takedowns); use of an impact weapon, except for a strike to the
head, neck or face with an impact weapon; and any canine apprehension.

c. Level 3 is force that includes: (1) uses of lethal force; (2) uses of fo rce
resulting in death or serious physical injury; (3) uses of force resulting in
hospital admission; (3) all neck holds; (4) uses of force resulting in a loss of
consciousness; (5) canine bites; (6) more than three appl ications of an ECW
on an individual during a single interaction, regardless of the mode or duration
of the application, and regardless of whether the applications are by the same
or different officers, or an ECW application for longer than 15 seconds,
whether continuous or consecutive; and (7) any Level 2 use of force against a
handcuffed subject.

88. All officers using or observing force will report in writing, before the end of their shift,
the use of force in a Use of Force Report. The Use of Force Report will include: (1 ) a
detailed account of the incident from the officer's perspective; (2) the reason for the
initial pol ice presence; (3) a specific description of the acts that led to the use of force;
(4) the level of resistance encountered; and (5) a complete and accurate description of
every type of force used or observed. The use of force reporting policy wi ll explicitly
prohibit the use of conclusory statements, ''boilerplate," or "canned" language (e.g.,
''furtive movement" or "lighting stance"), without supporting detail.

89. Officers will be subject to the disciplinary process for material omissions or
misrepresentations in their Use of Force Reports.

90. Officers who use or observe force and fail to report it will be subject to the disciplinary
process, up to and including termination, regardless of whether the force was
reasonable.

91. Officers who use or observe force will notify their supervisors, or ensure that their
supervisors have been notified, as soon as practical following any use of force. An
officer who becomes aware of an allegation of unreasonable or unreported fo rce by
another officer must immediately notify his or her supervisor of that allegation.

92. Use of Force Reports will be maintained centrally.

E. Use of Force Investigations

93. A supervisor who was involved in a use of force, including by participating in or
ordering the fo rce under investigation, will not investigate the incident or review the
Use of Force Reports for approval or disapproval.

1. Investigations of Level 1 Uses of Force

94. The direct supervisor of the ofiicer(s) employing a Level I use of force wi ll review and
approve the use of force in writing, return the Use of Force Report to the officer for
revision, or elevate the Level 1 use of force before the end of the supervisor's shift
following the shift on which the Level 1 force was used. lf the Use of Force Report is
returned to the officer for revision, all revisions and additional reviews will be
completed within 5 days of the use of force. It is not mandatory for supervisors to
report to the scene of a Level 1 use of force. Supervisors will elevate and investigate
any Level l use of fo rce that appears to have violated policy or was improperly
categorized as a Level I use of force. If a supervisor determines that an oflicer's report
reveals evidence of a use of force involving potential criminal conduct, he or she will
immediately notify Internal Affairs.

2. Investigations of Level 2 Uses of Force

95. The di rect supervisor of the officer(s) using force, upon notification of a Level 2 use of
force incident or allegation of excessive force, will respond to the location of the
occurrence. Where the force is a Level I but the subject has alleged excessive force,
the supervisor wil l respond to the scene to determine whether a Level I or Level 2
investigation should be conducted.

96. If a CDP supervisor uses a Level 2 use of force, a supervisor of a higher rank will
respond to the location of the occurrence and comply with the requirements of this
section.

97. For all Level 2 uses of force, the direct supervisor wlll:

a. respond to the scene, examine the subject of the force for injury, and interview
the subject for complaints of pain after advising the subject that the interview
pertains only to the use or force and not to any underlying alleged crime and
that the subject need not answer questions;

b. where appropriate, ensure that the subject receives medical attention from an
appropriate medical provider;

c. obtain an identify ing number that allows CDP to track the use of force;

d. identify and collect all evidence relevant to the use of force and evaluate that
evidence to determine whether the use of force: ( 1) was consistent with CDP
policy; and/or (2) raises any policy, training, tactical, or equipment concerns;

e. ensure that all evidence that could establi sh material facts related to the use of
force, including audio and video recordings, photographs, and other
documentation of injuries or the absence of injuries is collected;

f. ensure that a canvass for civilian witnesses is conducted and interview all
civilian witnesses. Supervisors will either record the interview or encourage
civilian witnesses to provide and sign a written statement in their own words;

g. ensure that all officers witnessing a use of force incident by another officer
complete a Use of Force Report. Supervisors wil l ensure that all Use of Force
Reports identify all offi cers who were involved in the incident, witnessed the
incident, or were on the scene when it occurred;

h. ensure that involved offi cers arc interviewed separately from one another.
Group interviews will be prohibited. Supervisors wi ll not ask officers or other
witnesses leading questions that suggest legal justifications for the officers'
conduct, where such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement
techniques; and

i. each investigating supervisor will provide a brief written synopsis to their
immediate supervisor, which will be forwarded through the chain of command
to the District Commander by the end of the shift on which the force occurred,
documenting the supervisor's preliminary determination of the
appropriateness or the use of force.

98. The investigating supervisor will ensure that all Use of Force Reports include the
information required by this Agreement and CDP policy; consider all relevant
evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, as appropriate; and
make credibility determinations, if feas ible. Supervisors will make all reasonable
efforts through the investigation to resolve material inconsistencies between the officer,
subject, and witness statements, as well as inconsistencies between the level of force
claimed by the officer and the subject's injuries, and inconsistencies between multiple
offi cers. CDP will train all investigating supervisors on how to effectively complete
these tasks.

99. Whenever a supervisor determines that there may have been misconduct, the supervisor
will immediately notify Internal Affairs and Internal Affairs will determine if it should
respond to the scene and/or conduct or take over the investigation.

100. Within five days of learning of the use of force, each supervisor will complete and
document his/her investigation using a supervisor's Use of Force Report. Any
extension to this deadline must be authorized by a District Commander. This Report
will include the following:

a. the supervisor's narrative description of the incident, including a precise
description of the evidence that either justifies or fai ls to justify the officers'
conduct based on the supervisor's independent review of the facts and
circumstances of the incident;

b. documentation of all evidence that was gathered, including names, phone
numbers, and addresses of witnesses to the incident. In situations in which
there are no known witnesses, the report will specifically state that fact. In
situations in which witnesses were present but circumstances prevented the
supervisor from determining the identification, phone number, or address of
those witnesses, the report will state the reasons why. The report should also
include all available identi fy ing information for anyone who refused to
provide a statement;

c. the names of all CDP employees who used force or witnessed the use of force;

d. the investigating supervisor's evaluation of the use of force, based on the
supervisor's review of the evidence gathered, including a determination of
whether the offi cers' actions appear to be within CDP policy and consistent
with state and federal law; and an assessment of the incident for policy,
training, tactical or equipment concerns, including whether the use of force
may have been avoided through the use of de-escalation techniques or lesser
force options; and

e. documentation of any non-disciplinary corrective action taken.

101. Investigatory supervisors will be subject to the disciplinary process for fa iling to
adequately investigate and document a use of force and material omissions or
misrepresentations in the supervisory investigation. An investigatory supervisor's
failure to adequately investigate a use of force will be addressed in their perfom1ancc
review.

102. Upon completion of the supervisor's Use of Force Report, the investigating supervisor
will fo rward the report through their chain of command to the District Commander,
who will review the report to ensure that it is complete and that the findings are
supported using the preponderance of the evidence standard. Each level in the chain of
command will review the report within 72 hours of receiving it. Reviewing supervisors
in the chain of command wi ll order additional investigation when it appears that there is
additional relevant evidence that may assist in resolving inconsistencies or improve the
reliability or credibility of the findings.

103. Where the findings of the Use of Force Report are not supported by a preponderance of
the evidence, the investigating supervisor's chain of command will document the
reasons for this determination and will include this documentation as an addendum to
the original investigation. The investigating supervisor's superior will counsel the
investigating supervisor regarding the inadequately supported determination and of any
investigative deficiencies that led to it. The District Commander will be responsible for
the accuracy and completeness of Use of Force Reports prepared by supervisors under
their command.

104. Where an investigating supervisor conducts deficient investigations, the supervisor will
receive the appropriate corrective action, including training or demotion, in accordance
with performance evaluation procedures and/or the disciplinary process.

105. Whenever an investigating supervisor, reviewing supervisor, or District Commander
finds evidence of a use of fo rce involving potential crim inal conduct by an offi cer, he
or she will suspend the force investigation immediately and notify Internal Affairs.
Internal Affairs wi ll immed iately notify FIT. which will take over both the criminal and
administrative investigation.

106. When the District Commander finds that the investigation is complete and the fi ndings
are supported by the evidence, the investigation fi le will be promptly fo rwarded to
Internal Affairs. Internal Affairs will review the investigation to ensure that it is
complete and that the findings arc supported by the evidence.

107. When Internal Affairs completes its review, it will forward the complete fi le to the
Chief of CDP for disposition.

108. At the discretion of the Chief, his or her designee, or Internal Affairs, a use of force
investigation may be assigned or re-assigned for investigation to FIT or to another
supervisor, whether within or outside of the District in which the incident occurred, or
may be returned to the District for further investi gation or analysis. This assignment or
re-assignment will be explained in writing.

109. Where, after investigation, a use of force is found to be out of policy, the Chief will
direct and ensure the appropriate disciplinary process. Where the use of fo rce indicates
policy, training, tactical, or equipment concerns, the Chief will ensure also that
necessary training is delivered and that policy, tactical, or equipment concerns are
resolved.

3. Force Investigation Team and Investigations of Level 3 Uses of Force

110. CDP may refer criminal investi gations of uses of force to an independent and highly
competent agency outside CDP where appropriate to ensure the fact and/or appearance
of impartiality of investigations.

111 . The Internal Affairs Unit will include CDP's Force Investigation Team ("FIT"). Each
FIT will be a team comprised of personnel from various units and will not be a new unit
to which officers are permanently assigned. The FIT will conduct administrative
investigations in all of the fo llowing instances and, where appropriate and where not
assigned to an outside agency as permitted above, will conduct criminal investigations
of: (1) all Level 3 uses of fo rce; (2) uses of force involving potential crim inal conduct
by an officer; (3) all instances in which an individual died while in, or as an apparent
result of being in, CDP custody; and (4) any uses of force reassigned to FfT by the
Chief or his or her designee. The FfT wi ll be designed to ensure that these incidents are
investigated fully and fai rly by individuals with appropriate expertise, independence,
and investigative ski lls to ensure that uses of force that are contrary to law or policy arc
identified; that training, tactical, and equipment deficiencies related to the use of force
are identified; and that investigations are of sufficient quality.

112. FlT will be comprised of personnel who have specialized training and expertise. The
FIT membership will be tailored to the circumstances of each investigation, but will
normally include one or more FIT detectives, the FIT sergeant, an Office of
Professional Standards investigator, an Internal Affairs investigator, and a Homicide
Unit supervisory officer, who will serve as the Team's leader. OPS investigators will
not participate in criminal investigations. At least one member of the FIT will be
available at all times to evaluate potential referrals from CDP supervisors.

113. Prior to performing FIT duties, FIT members will receive FIT-specific training that is
adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type, including FIT procedures, including
callout and investigative protocols; the differences between administrative and criminal
investigations and how each should be conducted; investigations of orticer-involved
shootings; investigative equipment and techniques; and proper roles of the fo llowing:
on-scene counterparts, such as crime scene technicians; the Monitor; any outside
investigating agency; the prosecutor's office; and OPS. The training also will address
techniques for objective fact-gathering and evaluation and the factors to consider when
evaluating credibility. FIT investigators also will receive annual in-service training that
is adequate in quantity, quality, type, and scope.

114. Within days from the Effective Date, CDP will identify, assign, and train personnel for
the FIT to fulfill the requirements of this Agreement.

115. FIT will respond to the scene of every incident involving a use of fo rce for which it is
required to conduct an investigation. The FIT leader will immediately notify the
appropriate prosecutor' s office. If the City elects to utilize an outside agency to
conduct the criminal investigation, the FlT leader will notify the designated outside
agency to respond to the scene to conduct the criminal investigation.

116. CDP will develop and implement policies to ensure that, where an outside agency
conducts the criminal investigation, FIT conducts a concurrent and thorough
administrative investigation.

117. Before using an outside agency to conduct criminal investigations, CDP will develop a
memorandum of understanding with the outside agency to ensure lhat, after an
appropriate prosecutor review, completed criminal investigations are provided to FIT
and the Monitor, and that information obtained from or as a result of any compelled
interviews of officers is not provided to criminal investigators. The memorandum of
understanding also will delineate responsibilities between the two agencies and
establish investigative protocols to ensure, to the extent possible, thorough, objective
and timely administrative and criminal investigations.

118. FIT will:

a. assume control of the use of force investigation upon their arrival, unless an
outside agency is conducting the criminal investigation and control of the
scene by the criminal investigating body is appropriate;

b. ensure that a canvass for, and interview of, civilian witnesses is conducted by
FlT team members. FIT members will either record the interview or
encourage civilian witnesses to provide and sign written statements in their
own words, but will take information from civilian witnesses who have
pertinent information even if they refuse to be recorded or refuse to complete
or sign a formal statement;

c. arrange for photographing and processing of the scene;

d. ensure that all evidence that could establish material facts related to the use of
force, including audio and video recordings, photographs, and other
documentation of injuries or the absence of injuries is collected;

e. examine the subject for injury, photograph areas of injury or complaint of
injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain after advising the subject
that the interview pertains only to the use of force and not to any underlying
alleged crime and that the subject need not answer questions, and ensure that
the subject receives medical attention from an appropriate medical provider;

f. ensure that all officers witnessing the use of force by another officer complete
a use of force report regarding the incident;

g. review all use of force reports to ensure that they include the information
required by CDP policy;

h. consistent with applicable law, interview all officers who witness or arc
otherwise involved in the incident. To the extent possible, officers will be
separated until interviewed. Group interviews will be prohibited. FIT will not
ask officers or other witnesses leading questions that suggest legal
justifications for the officers' conduct, when such questions are contrary to
appropriate law enforcement techniques. FIT wi ll record all interviews. FIT
will ensure that all FIT investigation reports identify all offi cers who were
involved in the incident, witnessed the incident, or were on the scene when it
occurred;

i. arrange for body worn camera video downloads;

k. provide an initial briefing to a training representative at the start of the
investigation to ensure that any training issues that require immediate
attention are identified, and continue to consult as appropriate with the
training representative; and

k. make all reasonable efforts through the investigation to resolve material
inconsistencies between the officer, subject, and witness statements, as well as
inconsistencies between the level of fo rce claimed by the officer and the
subject's injuries.

119. On at least an annual basis, the Monitor will determine whether the criminal
investigations conducted by the outside agency are consistently objective, timely, and
comprehensive. If the Monitor determines that they are not and the City disagrees, the
Court will resolve the disagreement. If a determination is made that the investigations
arc not consistently objective, timely, and comprehensive, the memorandum of
understanding will be terminated and the FIT will assume responsibi lity for conducting
all criminal investigations of uses of force.

120. Ir the FfT leader determines that a case has the potential to proceed criminally,
compelled interviews of the subject offi cer(s) will be delayed. No other part of the
investigation will be held in abeyance unless specifically authorized by the Chief in
consultation with the agency conducting the criminal investigation and the appropriate
prosecutor's office.

121. The FIT leader will complete a preliminary report that will be presented to the Chief of
Police or the Chier s designee as soon as possible, but absent exigent circumstances, no
later than 24 hours after learning of the use of force.

122. With the exception of compelled interviews as described inparngraph 120, FIT will
complete its administrative investigation within 60 days. Any request for an extension
of time must be supported by a writlen j ustification and approved in writing by the
Chief or the Chiers designee. CDP's inability to complete the investigation because it
is awaiting information from an outside agency, such as the medical examiner's office,
will constitute sufficient basis for such an extension for that portion of the
investigation. Within seven days of the conclusion of each use of force investigation,
FIT will prepare an investigation report and recommend whether the preponderance of
the evidence establishes that the involved officer(s) violated CDP policy, and whether
any training or policy concerns are presented. FIT's investigative report and
recommendations will be reviewed by the head of Internal Affairs. Within three
business days, the head of Internal Affairs will approve or disapprove FTT's
recommendations, or request that FIT conduct additional investi gation. Any request for
additional investigation and the FIT's response will be documented and maintained in
the investigatory file. Internal Affairs will fo rward the investigative report to the Chief
of Police for review and approval.

123. CDP will revise the FIT manual to ensure that it is consistent with the force principles
outlined in this Agreement and includes the following:

a. guidance on an appropriate approach when providing Garrity warnings and
protections to officers for answering questions regarding their uses of force;

b. clear procedures to ensure appropriate separation of criminal and
administrative investigations in the event of compelled subject officer
statements;

c. definitions of all relevant terms

d. clear statements of the mission and authority of FIT;

e. procedures for report writing;

f. procedures for objective fact-gathering and evaluation and the factors to
consider when evaluating credibility;

g. procedures for collecting and processing evidence;

h. procedures for consul ting with the law department, including ensuring that
administrative investigations are not unnecessarily delayed while a criminal
investigation is pending; and

i. scene management procedures.

F. Force Review Board

124. CDP wi ll develop and implement a Force Review Board ("FRB") to serve as a quality
control mechanism for uses of force and force investigations, and to appraise use of
force incidents from a tactics, training, policy, and agency improvement perspective.
The FRB will review all FIT investigations, all Level 2 investigations where there was
a determination of force related misconduct, and a sample of Level 2 use of force
investigations. The Force Review Board ("FRB") will be comprised of the Chief of
Police or his or her designee, who will chair the FRB; a supervisor from the training
section; a representative from Office of Professional Standards; and a representative
from Internal Affairs. One representative from each District, to be selected by the
District Commander, will participate in all Force Review Board reviews involving a use
of force in that District. The Chair may include any subject matter experts the Chair
fee ls would be helpful in reviewing particular incidents. The FRB also may consult
with other advisors as necessary.

125. Each member will receive training on legal updates. updates to CDP's policies, and
CDP training curriculum related to the use of force.

126. The Force Review Board will conduct comprehensive and reliable reviews of
investigations within 90 days of submission to the FRB. The scope of the Board's
review will not be limited to assessing an officer's decision-making at the moment the
officer employed force. Rather, the FRB's review will include the.circumstances
leading up to the use of force, tactical decisions, info1mation sharing and
communication, adequacy of supervision, equipment, training, CDP's medical
response, when applicable, and any commendable actions. The review wi ll include the
actions and inactions of all officers, supervisors, comrnanders, and dispatchers involved
in the incident, as appropriate.

127. In conducting these reviews, the Force Review Board will:

a. ensure that it is objective and complete and that the findings are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence. Where the findings are not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, the FRB will document the reasons for this
determination, including the specific evidence or analysis supporting its
conclusions, and fo rward its determination to the Chief of Police;

b. hear the case presentation from the lead investigator, or for supervisory
investigations, the representative from the District where the force occurred;

c. review any written or recorded statements from the officer, and discuss the
case as necessary with the investigator or District representative to gain a full
understanding of the facts of the incident;

d. order additional investigation when it appears that there is additional relevant
evidence that may assist in resolving inconsistencies or improve the reliability
or credibility of the force investigation;

e. determine whether the inc.ident raises concerns regarding policy, training,
equipment, supervision, medical response by officers on the scene,
communication, or tactics, and refer such incidents to Lhe appropriate unit
within CDP to ensure they are resolved;

f. recommend non-disciplinary conective action to enable or encourage an
officer to improve his/her performance; and

g. document its findings and recommendations in a report within 15 days of each
FRB case presentation.

128. The FRB will assess the quality of the investigations it reviews, including whether
investigations are objective and comprehensive and recommendations are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence. The FRB will identify and document any deficiencies
that indicate a need for corrective action.

129. Annually, the FRB will examine the data related to use of force provided by the Data
Collection and Analysis Coordinator pursuant to paragraph 261, to detect any patterns,
trends, and training deficiencies and make recommendations for correction, as
appropriate. The analysis will be provided to the Monitor. To avoid duplication of
effort in developing the public report required by paragraph 266, this analysis wi ll be
conducted in conjunction with the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator.

130. The FRB will work with the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator to develop a
tracking system to ensure that each of its recommendations has been forwarded to the
appropriate personnel. The Chief and his or her designee wi ll ensure that the FRB's
recommendations, including non-disciplinary corrective action, are implemented as
appropriate.

Post by **admin** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:56 am

VII. CRISIS INTERVENTION

131. CDP will build upon and improve its Crisis Intervention Program with the goal of: (a)
assisting individuals in crisis; (b) improving the safety of officers, consumers, family
members, and others within the community; (c) providing the foundation necessary to
promote community and statewide solutions to assist individuals with mental illness;
and (d) reducing the need for individuals with mental illness to have further
involvement with the criminal justice system. The Crisis Intervention Program will
provide a forum for effective problem solving regarding the interaction between the
criminal justice and mental health care system and create a context for sustainable
change.

A. Mental Health Response Advisory Committee

132. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, CDP and the City will ensure that a Mental
Health Response Advisory Committee ("Advisory Committee") is developed to foster
relationships and build support between the police, the community, and mental health
providers and to help identify problems and develop solutions designed to improve
outcomes for individuals in crisis.

133. The Advisory Committee will include the Crisis Intervention Coordinator and
representation from specialized CIT officers. CDP also will seek representation from
the Cleveland Municipal Court's Mental Health Docket, the Ohio Criminal Justice
Coordinating Center of Excellence. Cuyahoga County's Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and
Mental Health Services Board ("ADAMHS Board''), FrontLine Services, and any other
relevant Cuyahoga County mental health organizations, such as advocacy
organizations, homeless service providers, area hospitals, and interested community
members.

134. The Advisory Committee will meet regularly and provide guidance to assist COP in
improving, expanding, and sustaining its Crisis Intervention Program.

135. On an annual basis, the Advisory Committee will conduct an analysis of crisis
intervention incidents to determine whether CDP has enough specialized CIT officers,
whether it is deploying those officers effectively, and whether specialized CIT officers,
call-takers, and dispatchers arc appropriately responding to people in crisis, and will
recommend appropriate changes to policies, procedures, and training regarding police
contact with individuals in crisis.

136. The Advisory Committee's reports and recommendations will be provided to the
Commission, will be publicly available, and will be posted on the City's website.

B. Crisis Intervention Coordinator

137. Within I 80 days of the Effective Date, CDP will designate an officer, at the rank of
captain or above, to act as a Crisis Intervention Coordinator to better faci li tate
communication between CDP and members of the mental health community and to
increase the effectiveness of CDP's Crisis Intervention Program.

138. The Coord inator will develop and maintain partnerships with program stakeholders and
serve as a point of contact for advocates, individuals, families, caregivers,
professionals, and others associated with the mental health community. The
Coordinator will be available as a resource at all times during normal business hours.

139. The Coordinator will participate in the Advisory Committee and on a regular basis
solicit feedback from the mental health community and specialized CIT oflicers, calltakers,
and dispatchers regarding the efficacy of CDP's Crisis Intervention Program.

140. The Coordinator will be responsible for coordinating implementation of the changes
and recommendations made by the Advisory Committee, as appropriate.

141. The Coordinator will be responsi ble for ensuring the selection of appropriate candidates
for designation as specialized CIT officers. The Coordinator also will be required to
ensure that officers, call-takers, and dispatchers are appropriately responding to CITrelated
calls.

142. The Coordinator will create ways to recognize and honor specialized CIT officers, call takcrs,
and dispatchers, where appropriate.

C. Crisis Intervention Training

143. CDP will provide training on responding to individuals in crisis to all of its officers and
recruits. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, officers wi ll be provided with at least
eight hours of initial training, and all officers will receive annual in-service training
thereafter. The initial and annual training wi ll be adequate in quality, quantity, type,
and scope, and will include the circumstances in which a specialized CIT officer should
be dispatched or consulted and how situations involving individuals in crisis should be
addressed if a specialized CIT officer is not immediately available. All new recrui ts
will receive at least 16 hours of training in the academy that meets these same
requirements.

144. Within 365 days or the Effective Date, and annually thereafter, all CDP call-takers,
dispatchers, and their supervisors will receive cri sis intervention telecommunicators
training that is adequate to enable them to identify, dispatch, and appropriately respond
to calls for service that involve individuals in crisis. The training will include
identification of individuals in crisis; telephonic suicide intervention; crisis
management, de-escalation and scenario-based exercises; interactions with individuals
with mental illness; information that should be gathered when the call-taker suspects
that the call involves an individual in crisis; and the types of calls that require a
specialized CIT response. Any crisis intervention training that already has been
provided to call-takers, dispatchers, and their supervisors may be considered to fulfill
training requirements under this Agreement for those individuals, if appropriate.

D. Specialized Crisis Intervention Trained Officers

145. CDP will provide enhanced specialized training in responding to individuals in crisis to
certain officers ("specialized CIT officers"). Specialized CIT officers will continue to
be assigned to the patrol division and will maintain their standard patrol duties, except
when called upon to respond to incidents or calls involving indi viduals in crisis.

146. The enhanced training for specialized CIT officers will be at lease 40 hours. This
enhanced training will be adequate in quality, scope, and type and will include how to
conduct a field evaluation, suicide intervention, community mental health resources,
common mental health diagnoses, the effects of drug and alcohol abuse, perspectives of
individuals with mental health issues, family members, the rights of persons with
mental illness, civil commitment criteria, crisis de-escalation, and scenario-based
exercises. This training must include on-site visitation to mental health and substance
abuse fac ilities and interaction with indi viduals with mental illness and substance abuse
disorders. Officers who arc designated as specialized CIT officers who already have
received 40 hours of appropriate crisis intervention training may be considered to have
fulfilled these training requirements.

147. Specialized CIT officers do not have to receive the initial eight hours of training
provided to all officers, but must receive eight hours of annual in-service crisis
intervention training, which can be the same training provided to all officers, if
appropriate.

148. Training and designation as a specialized CIT officer will be voluntary. To be eligible
for consideration, officers must have at least three years of experience as a CDP officer.
CDP will provide an in-depth assessment of each applicant to determine the appl icant's
fitness to serve as a specialized CIT officer. This assessment will include an
examination of the officer's written application, supervisory recommendations,
disciplinary tile, and an in-person interview. Offi cers with a history of complaints of,
or who have been disciplined for, excessive use of force against individuals in crisis
will be presumptively ineligible to be specialized CJT officers.

149. Supervisors wi ll identify and encourage qual ified officers across all shifts and all
Districts to serve as specialized CJT officers.

150. All Field Training Officers will receive the enhanced specialized crisis intervention
training described in paragraph 146. Despite having received this training, an FTO will
not be designated as a specialized CIT officer unless that FTO has volunteered to be a
specialized CIT officer and has been selected by the Coordinator.

151. Specialized CIT officers who arc dispatched to an incident involving an individual in
crisis will have primary responsibility for the scene. If a supervisor has assumed
responsibi lity for the scene, the supervisor will seek the input of a specialized err
officer regarding strategies for reso lving the crisis where it is reasonable for them to do
so.

152. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, the Coordinator will develop an effoctive
specialized crisis intervention plan ("Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan"). The goal
of the Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan will be to ensure that a specialized CIT
officer is available to respond to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an
individual in crisis. The Specialized Crisis [ntervention Plan will include an assessment
of the number of offi cers necessary to achieve this goal; identification of gaps in
coverage of particular shifts or Districts and development of mechanisms to fill those
gaps; identification of any barriers to ensuring full coverage and steps to overcome
those barriers; and ways to identify qualified officers and to encourage them to apply.
CDP will continually review and revise this plan as barriers to full coverage are
identified and addressed. The Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan will take into
account the seniority provisions of the Collectively Bargaining Agreement and that
CDP may not immediately be able to ensure that a specialized CIT officer is available
to respond to all call s or incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis. Within
these constraints, the City will use its best efforts to ensure that a specialized CIT
officer responds to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an indi vidual in crisis.
The Monitor will assess the Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan and report to the
Parties whether it is appropriate and effective, and whether the City is using its best
efforts to implement it.

E. Crisis Intervention Policies and Procedures

153. The Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating Center of Excellence currently is conducting a
peer review of the crisis intervention program in Cuyahoga County. The results of the
peer review assessment will be provided to the Advisory Committee, DOJ, and the
Monitor. In developing its policies and procedures and the plan req uired by paragraph
152, the City will consider this assessment and any recommendations contained within
it.

154. CDP, with recommendations from the Advisory Committee, will revise its policies to
make clear that a crisis intervention response may be necessary even in situations where
there has been an apparent law violation.

155. CDP, with recommendations from the Advisory Committee, will revise its current crisis
intervention policy to ensure that specialized CIT offi cers have appropriate discretion to
direct individuals with mental health and substance abuse issues to the health care
system, rather than the j udicial system, in those instances where it is appropriate to do
so.

156. CDP's policies and procedures will make clear that specialized CIT officers, when
available, must be dispatched to all calls or incidents that appear to involve an
individual in c1isis. CDP will track incidents in which a specialized officer was not
dispatched to such calls. In developing and revising the plan required by paragraph
152, CDP will identify any barriers to ensuring that specialized CIT officers were
dispatched to these calls, and will include steps to overcome these barriers.

157. CDP will track calls and incidents involving individuals in crisis by gathering, at a
minimum, the following data:

a. date, time, and location of the incident;

b. subject's name, age, gender, race, ethnicity, and address;

c. whether the subject was armed, and the type of weapon;

d. whether the subject is a United States military veteran;

e. name and address of individual calling for service;

f. the reason for the interaction, i.e., suspected criminal conduct or call for
assistance;

g. name(s) and badge number(s) of the officer(s) on the scene;

h. whether a supervisor responded to the scene;

i. techniques or equipment officers used;

j. any injuries to officers, subject, or others;

k. disposition of the incident (e.g., defuse, arrest, citation, referral); and

I. brief narrative of the event (only if not included in another document).

158. CDP must publicly report this outcome data annually and provide it to the Advisory
Committee, aggregated as necessary to protect privacy.

159. CDP will utilize this outcome data to identify training needs and develop case studies
and teaching scenarios for crisis intervention training as well as primary and in-service
crisis training; to make changes to the crisis training curriculum; to identify safety
issues and trends; to recognize and highlight successful individual officer performance;
to develop new response strategies for repeat calls for service; and to identify systemic
issues that impede CDP's ability to provide an appropriate response to an incident
involving an individual in crisis.

Post by **admin** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:58 am

VIII. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

160. CDP will conduct all investigatory stops, searches, and arrests with the goal of ensuring
that they are conducted in accordance with the rights secured and protected by the
Constitution and state and federal law. CDP will conduct investigatory stops, searches,
and arrests fairly and respectfully as part of an effective overall crime prevention
strategy that takes into account community values. To achieve this goal, CDP will
revise, develop, and implement search and seizure policies that comply with applicable
law, and include the requirements below.

161. Officers will not use an individual's gender. race, ethnicity, national origin, or
perceived sexual orientation as a factor, to any extent or degree, in establishing
reasonable suspicion or probable cause, unless such information is part of an actual and
credible description of a specific suspect in an investigation that includes other
identifying factors.

162. Officers will not conduct investigatory stops when they lack reasonable suspicion.

163. Officers will not conduct pat down searches without specific and articulable facts to
reasonably suspect that a particular person is armed and dangerous. This docs not
restrict an officer's abi lity to conduct a search incident to arrest or prior to transport.

164. Where an officer seeks consent for a search, the officer will inform the person of his or
her right to refuse and to revoke consent at any time and document the person's
consent.

165. CDP officers will not rely solely upon an individual's geographic location, or presence
in a high crime area without any other specific and articulable facts indicating that the
individual has been, is, or is about to engage in criminal activity, as the basis for an
investigatory stop.

166. Officers will immediately notify a supervisor when effectuating a custodial arrest for
obstructing official business, resisting arrest, or assaulting an officer and no other
substantive violation is alleged. Upon notification, the supervisor will respond to the
scene.

167. Officers will not use "canned" or conclusory language without supporting detail in
documents or reports documenting investigatory stops, searches, or arrests.

168. Officers will articulate the justification for an investigatory stop, search, or anest in a
specific and clear manner in their reports. CDP will train officers to use specific and
individualized descriptive language in reports when documenting investigatory stops,
searches, and arrests. Supervisors will review all documentation of investigatory stops,
searches, and arrests for completeness and adherence to law and CDP policy.

169. CDP supervisors will review each arrest report by officers under their command,
whether or not they involve the seizure of contraband, and will sign off on those reports
to memorialize their review within 24 hours of the arrest, absent exceptional
circumstances. Supervisors will review reports and forms for deficiencies including:

a. "canned" or conclusory language without supporting detail, inconsistent
information, insufficient articulation of the legal basis for the action, or other
indicia that the information in the reports or forms is not conect or complete;

b. arrests following stops that were not supported by reasonable suspicion;

c. arrests that are not supported by probable cause, or are otherwise in violation
of the law or CDP policy; and

d. for every search or arrest involving the recovery of contraband evidence,
whether the circumstances by which the evidence was recovered and/or
probable cause for arrest was established are plausible and complete.

170. Within seven days, CDP supervisors will separately document and report:
(1) investigatory stops and pat-down sea rches that appear unsupported by reasonable
suspicion, or that are otherwise in violation of CDP policy; (2) arrests unsupported by
probable cause or that are in violation of CDP policy; or (3) investigatory stops,
searches, and arrests that, while comporting with law and policy, indicate a need for
corrective action or review of agency pol icy, strategy, tactics, or training.

171. CDP supervisors will take appropriate action to address all apparent violations or
deficiencies in investigatory stops, searches, and arrests. Appropriate action may
include recommending non-disciplinary corrective action for the involved officer, or
referring the incident for administrative or criminal investigation. The supervisor will
ensure that each violation or deficiency is addressed in the officer's performance
evaluations.

172. A command-level official will review, within seven days of their completion, all
supervisory reports of investigatory stops and pat-down searches not suppo1tcd by
reasonable suspicion, all searches and arrests not supported by probable cause, and all
investigatory stops, searches, and arrests that were in violation of CDP policy, or that
indicated a need for collective action or review of agency policy, strategy, tactics, or
training. The commander will evaluate the supervisor's assessment and
recommendations and ensure that all appropriate corrective action is taken, including
referring the incident to Internal Affairs for investigation, if warranted. The
commander also will take appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or will
initiate the di sciplinary process against supervisors who fail to conduct complete,
thorough, and accurate reviews of officers' investigatory stops, searches, and arrests.
CDP will take into account the quality and completeness of these supervisory and
commander reviews of officers' investigatory stops, searches, and arrests, in
supervisory and commander perfomiance evaluations.

173. CDP will provide all ofl:icers with initial training that is adequate in quality, quantity,
scope, and type on investigatory stops, searches, and arrests, including the requirements
of this Agreement. The training will be taught by a qualified instructor wi th significant
experience in Fourth Amendment issues. The training will address the requirements of
Fourth Amendment and related law, CDP policies, and this Agreement, including:

a. the difference among the scope and degree of intrusion associated with
different types of police contacts; the difference between probable cause,
reasonable suspicion, and mere speculation; and the difference between
voluntary consent and the mere acquiescence to police authority;

b. the types of facts and circumstances that may be considered in initiating,
conducting, terminating, and expanding an investigatory stop;

c. the level of permissible intrusion when conducting searches. such as
"pat-downs'' or "frisks'';

d. the permissible nature and scope of searches incident to an arrest;

e. procedures for executing searches, including handl ing, recording, and taking
custody of seized property and evidence; and

f. the principles of procedural justice and the effect that differing approaches to
investigatory stops, searches, and arrests can have on community perceptions
of police legitimacy and public safety.

174. CDP also will provide officers with annual search and seizure in-service training that is
adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope.

175. CDP will incorporate the following elements in its training of officers: (1) if possible,
introducing themselves at the initiation of contact with a civillan; (2) stating the reason
for an investigatory stop as soon as practicable; (3) ensuring that an investigatory stop
is no longer than necessary to take appropri ate action; and ( 4) acting with
professionalism and courtesy throughout the interaction.

Altruistic World Online Library

DOJ Reaches Agreement to Reform Cleveland Police Brutality

DOJ Reaches Agreement to Reform Cleveland Police Brutality

Re: DOJ Reaches Agreement to Reform Cleveland Police Brutali

Re: DOJ Reaches Agreement to Reform Cleveland Police Brutali

Re: DOJ Reaches Agreement to Reform Cleveland Police Brutali

Re: DOJ Reaches Agreement to Reform Cleveland Police Brutali

Re: DOJ Reaches Agreement to Reform Cleveland Police Brutali

Re: DOJ Reaches Agreement to Reform Cleveland Police Brutali

Re: DOJ Reaches Agreement to Reform Cleveland Police Brutali

Re: DOJ Reaches Agreement to Reform Cleveland Police Brutali

Re: DOJ Reaches Agreement to Reform Cleveland Police Brutali