los angeles county sheriff’s department of force... · shootings in which a shot was...

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

JIM McDONNELL SHERIFF

May 31, 2017

USE OF FORCE AUDIT- EAST PATROL DIVISION

2016-14-A

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT Audit and Accountability Bureau

USE OF FORCE AUDIT – EAST PATROL DIVISION

Project No. 2016-14-A Audit Report

PURPOSE

The Audit and Accountability Bureau (AAB) conducted the Use of Force Audit – East Patrol Division under the authority of the Sheriff of Los Angeles County. The audit was performed to determine how the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Department) East Patrol Division (EPD) Sheriff’s Stations adhered to the Department’s policies and procedures related to the management, reporting procedures, and overall evaluation of use of force incidents.1

The AAB conducted this audit under the guidance of Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards.2 The AAB determined the evidence obtained was sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for the findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives.

BACKGROUND

The Department is committed to upholding lawful, professional, and ethical standards through assertive leadership and supervision before, during, and after use of force incidents. This includes force prevention efforts, effective tactics, dispassionate and objective review, and analysis of every incident.3

Department members are authorized to use only that force which is objectively reasonable to perform their duties. When force is applied, incidents are documented in order to conduct thorough, fair, and objective reviews. Department supervisors are required to respond to the location of a force incident, identify and secure evidence, gather all reports, document members who used or witnessed force, and follow-up with medical staff. Additionally, management evaluates force incidents to determine if the conduct of personnel was within policies and/or consistent with Department procedures, if the tactics involved were consistent with Department training, and whether Department members used/deployed proper safety equipment.

Uses of force incidents which are unreasonable or excessive, not only compromise the Core Values of the Department, but represent significant risk exposure for Los Angeles County.4 In reviewing force incidents, with an emphasis on the above, the Department

1The EPD Sheriff’s Stations include: Altadena, Crescenta Valley, Industry, San Dimas, Temple, and Walnut/Diamond Bar. 2 United States Government Accountability Office – By the Comptroller General of the United States, December 2011, Government Auditing Standards, 2011 Revision. 3 Manual of Policy and Procedures, §3-10/000.00, Preamble to the Use of Force Policy, July 2013. 4 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Core Values: “With integrity, compassion, and courage, we serve our communities--protecting life and property, being diligent and professional in our acts and deeds, holding ourselves

USE OF FORCE AUDIT – EAST PATROL DIVISION Project No. 2016-14-A

Page 2 of 29

increases its capacity to mitigate liability concerns that arise from the amount or type of force used.

Reportable force incidents are distinguished into three categories, depending on the type of force used and the injuries sustained by the suspect(s). Category 1 involves Department personnel using force techniques to overcome the resistance of a suspect which does not result in injury to the suspect.5 Category 2 involves the application of force to overcome the resistance of a suspect, which results in identifiable injury or complaint of pain.6 Category 3 force incidents are not investigated at the station level and are conducted outside the scope of the EPD.7 Auditors evaluated Category 1 and Category 2 force in this audit.

PRIOR AUDITS

This was the first Use of Force Audit – East Patrol Division conducted by the AAB.

METHODOLOGY

Scope

The audit encompassed seven audit objectives regarding the investigation of use of force incidents occurring at the EPD Sheriff’s Stations. The applicable Manual of Policy and Procedures (MPP) sections were used in reviewing selected reports to determine if the use of force incidents were properly managed and investigated.

and each other accountable for our actions at all times, while respecting the dignity and rights of all. Earning the Public Trust Every Day!” 5 As defined in the MPP, §3-10/100.00, Category-1 Uses of Force, September 2014, involves any of the following: searching and handcuffing techniques resisted by a suspect, hobbling resisted by a suspect, control holds or come-alongs resisted by a suspect, take downs, and/or use of Oleoresin Capsicum spray, Freeze +P or Deep Freeze aerosols, or Oleoresin Capsicum powder from a pepperball projectile (when a suspect is not struck by a pepperball projectile) if it causes only discomfort and does not involve injury or lasting pain. 6 As defined in the MPP, §3-10/100.00, Category-2 Uses of Force, September 2014, involves any of the following: any identifiable injury, a complaint of pain that a medical evaluation determines is attributable to an identifiable injury, and any application of force other than those defined in Category 1 Force, but does not rise to the level of Category 3 Force. 7 As defined in the MPP, §3-10/100.00, Category-3 Uses of Force, September 2014, involves any of the following: all shootings in which a shot was intentionally fired at a person by a Department member, any type of shooting by a Department member which results in a person being hit, force resulting in admittance to a hospital, any death following a use of force by any Department member, all head strikes with impact weapons, kick(s), delivered from a standing position, to an individual’s head with a shod foot while the individual is lying on the ground/floor, knee strike(s) to an individual’s head deliberately or recklessly causing their head to strike the ground, floor, or other hard, fixed object, deliberately or recklessly striking an individual’s head against a hard, fixed object, skeletal fractures, with the exception of minor fractures of the nose, fingers or toes, caused by any Department member, all canine bites, or any force which results in a response from the IAB Force/Shooting Response Team, as defined in the MPP, §3-10/130.00.

http://intranet/Intranet/MPP/Vol3/3-10/3-10-130.00.htm


Page 3 of 29

Force Prevention Principles - De-Escalation Efforts – To determine if reasonable efforts were made to de-escalate confrontations by using tactical and/or verbal communication.

Video Review and Admonishment – To determine if the involved personnel adhered to the video review protocol.

Use of Force Procedures – To determine if medical transportation, examination, and treatment procedures were adhered to.

Total Appendage Restraint Procedure (TARP) – To determine if protocols for the use of the TARP were followed.

Electronic Immobilization Device (TASER) – To determine if protocols for the use of the TASER were followed.

Use of Force Reporting - Notification to Supervisor – To determine if Department personnel, who used reportable force, made a verbal notification to their immediate supervisor.

Use of Force Investigations – To determine if supervisors met all of the required investigative responsibilities.

The audit included an evaluation of Use of Force Packages which were reviewed and completed at the station level. The MPP, Section 3-10/110.00, Use of Force Review Procedures, states, Use of Force Packages consist of the following: a Supervisor’s Use of Force report, Incident Report (SH-R-49) forms, In-Service rosters, supplemental reports, audio files, video files, memorandums, photos, and medical forms. For purposes of this audit, the Use of Force Package will be referred to as the Force Package. Additionally, the term “suspect” is used to refer to any individual upon whom force has been used.8

Audit Time Period

The time period for this audit was from June 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.

Audit Population

Auditors were provided a list of use of force incidents from each of the EPD Sheriff’s Stations. Auditors verified these use of force incidents in the Personnel Performance Index (PPI)9 and the Station/Bureau Administration Portal (SBAP).10 Force Package

8 As defined in the MPP, §3-10/100.00, Use of Force Reporting Procedures, September 2014, found in the “NOTE” section. 9 As defined in the PPI User’s Guide, March 2015, the PPI is a web-based application that provides systematic recording of data relevant to incidents involving uses of force, shootings, and commendations/complaints regarding Sheriff’s Department personnel. The PPI was used for the purposes of this audit. Performance Recording and Monitoring System (PRMS) replaced the PPI system prior to this report being written, and was not in place during evidence testing for the audit. 10As defined in the Station/Bureau Administration Portal User’s Manual, December 2012, “The Station/Bureau Administration Portal was designed for the primary purpose of being an access point for multiple applications. It was


Page 4 of 29

documentation was retrieved from the EPD Sheriff’s Stations. Documentation not obtained at the stations were retrieved from the Risk Management Bureau’s Discovery Unit.

Auditors identified 231 use of force incidents occurring among the EPD Sheriff’s Stations during the audit time period. For purposes of this audit the population was a combination of Category 1 and Category 2 use of force incidents. A stratified statistical sample was drawn yielding 70 Force Packages for review.11

SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGS

The management and staff at each of the audited Sheriff’s Stations were accommodating and cooperative in providing the necessary information, and in validating the findings.

The EPD achieved excellent results in the following areas:

Force Prevention Principles - De-Escalation Efforts

Video Review and Admonishment

Medical Treatment And Transporting Suspects - Suspect Transport

Medical Treatment And Transporting Suspects - Suspect Refusal and Documentation

Electronic Immobilization Device (TASER) - TASER Download

Use of Force Reporting - Notification to Supervisor The EPD achieved varied results for the remaining objectives, which did not meet the desired standard. The results are summarized in Table No. 1 on the following page.

This space intentionally left blank

designed to better maintain, manage and deploy multiple application for multiple Stations and Bureaus. Additionally, it has placed all application in one centralized location.” 11 Using a statistical one-tail test with a 95% confidence level and a 4% error rate, a statistically valid sample was identified. Auditors obtained a statistically valid random sample of Category-1 (30) and Category-2 (40) Use of Force Packages for each of the six stations for review.


Page 5 of 29

Table No. 1 - Summary of Use of Force Audit Findings

Objective No.

Audit Objective Met the

Standard

1 FORCE PREVENTION PRINCIPLES - DE-ESCALATION EFFORTS

To determine if reasonable efforts were made to de-escalate confrontations by using tactical and/or verbal communication.

100%

2 VIDEO REVIEW AND ADMONISHMENT

To determine if the involved personnel adhered to the video review protocol. 100%

3 MEDICAL TREATMENT AND TRANSPORTING SUSPECTS

3(a) Suspect Transport 100%

3(b) Transport by Non-Involved Personnel or Justification 95%

3(c) Suspect Refusal and Documentation 100%

4 TOTAL APPENDAGE RESTRAINT PROCEDURE (TARP)

To determine if protocols for the use of the TARP were followed. 0%

5 ELECTRONIC IMMOBILIZATION DEVICE (TASER)

5(a) Verbal Warnings Preceding Activation 72%

5(b) TASER Download 100%

6 USE OF FORCE REPORTING - NOTIFICATION TO SUPERVISOR

To determine if Department personnel, who used reportable force, made a verbal notification to their immediate supervisor.

100%

7 USE OF FORCE INVESTIGATION

7(a) Immediate Supervisor’s Responsibilities - Initial Investigation 43%

7(b) Immediate Supervisor’s Responsibilities - Force Reporting 96%

7(c) Immediate Supervisor’s Responsibilities - Physician Interviews and Documentation 93%

7(d) Watch Commander Responsibilities - Interviewing Suspects 81%

7(e) Watch Commander Responsibilities - Suspect Injury Assessment 54%

7(f) Watch Commander Responsibilities - Directed Force 46%

7(g) Watch Commander Responsibilities - Completion of Investigations 84%

7(h) Watch Commander Responsibilities - Force Package Submitted No Later Than 21 Days After the Incident

37%


Page 6 of 29

Objective No. 1 – Force Prevention Principles - De-Escalation Efforts

Criteria

Manual of Policy and Procedures, Section 3-10/005.00, Force Prevention Principles, (July 2013), states:

Department members shall only use that level of force which is objectively reasonable, and force should be used as a last resort. Department members should endeavor to de-escalate confrontations through tactical communication, warnings, and other common sense methods preventing the need to use force whenever reasonably possible.

Audit Procedures

The Force Packages were reviewed to determine if de-escalation efforts were made by Department members. Auditors reviewed all written reports, documentation, and videos included in the Force Package and noted tactical communication, warnings, and other common sense methods used by Department members. All 70 use of force incidents were reviewed for this objective.

Findings

All 70 (100%) Force Packages met the standard for this objective.

Table No. 2 - Detailed Findings - Objective No.1


Station Findings Met the Standard

Altadena 6 of 6 100%

Crescenta Valley 3 of 3 100%

Industry 22 of 22 100%

San Dimas 10 of 10 100%

Temple 21 of 21 100%

Walnut/Diamond Bar 8 of 8 100%


Page 7 of 29

Objective No. 2 – Video Review and Admonishment

Criteria

Manual of Policy and Procedures, Section 3-10/115.00, Video Review and Admonishment, (July 2013), states:

Department members shall prepare all necessary written reports related to a force incident prior to reviewing a video recording of the incident.… Once the video tape has been reviewed, personnel will have the opportunity to acknowledge in their report that they observed the video and that it either refreshed their memory, adding any corrective language, or that the original written statements were accurate.

Audit Procedures

The Force Packages were reviewed to determine if the involved personnel adhered to the video review protocol which included preparing written reports prior to reviewing video, reading the video admonishment, and adding any corrective language. Of the 70 Force Packages, 68 Force Packages were excluded because the involved personnel did not review the video to complete their documentation. Therefore, two Force Packages were reviewed for this objective.

Findings

Both of the two (100%) Force Packages met the standard for this objective.

Table No. 3 - Detailed Findings - Objective No. 2

Video Review and Admonishment


Altadena N/A N/A

Crescenta Valley N/A N/A

Industry N/A N/A


Temple N/A N/A

Walnut/Diamond Bar N/A N/A


Page 8 of 29

Objective No. 3 – Medical Treatment And Transporting Suspects

Objective No. 3(a) – Suspect Transport

Criteria

Manual of Policy and Procedures, Section 3-10/105.00, Medical Treatment and Transporting Suspects, (July 2013), states:

Medical Treatment

A suspect must be transported to a medical facility for examination/treatment by qualified medical personnel…

suffers a gunshot wound;

strikes their head on a hard object, or sustains a blow to the head/face, as a result of the application of force by a member, regardless of how minor any injury to the head/face may appear. The member transporting the suspect shall inform the doctor that the suspect was struck on the head or struck their head;

is restrained with a carotid restraint, or any kind of neck/throat restraint, whether or not they are rendered unconscious. The member transporting the suspect shall inform the medical staff of the fact that the suspect was restrained with a carotid restraint and whether or not they were rendered unconscious;

is hit with a specialized weapon projectile (such as an Arwen round, Taser dart, Stunbag, Pepperball projectile, etc.);

is subjected to a Taser used in the drive stun mode;

sustains a canine bite resulting in any bleeding or penetration of the skin;

has injuries that appear to require medical treatment;

alleges any injury and requests medical treatment, whether or not they have any apparent injuries;

alleges that substantial force was used against them, whether or not they have any apparent injuries or requests medical treatment;

was wearing the electronic immobilization belt during its activation (unless qualified medical clearance is obtained in the field); or

has the Total Appendage Restraint Procedure (TARP) applied on them (unless qualified medical clearance is obtained in the field). Refer to MPP section 3-01/110.22, Total Appendage Restraint Procedure, for additional information.


Page 9 of 29

Audit Procedures

The use of force incidents were reviewed to determine if the Department member transported the suspect to a medical facility when required.12 This includes suspects that were transported for injuries as a result of a Category 2 use of force as well as suspects arrested with pre-existing medical conditions, or complications from the suspect’s intoxicated state.13 Of the 70 Force Packages, 12 use of force incidents were excluded because the suspect did not require transportation to a medical facility. Therefore, 58 Force Packages were reviewed for this objective.

Findings


Table No. 4 - Detailed Findings - Objective No. 3(a)

Suspect Transport








Objective No. 3(b) – Transport by Non-Involved Personnel or Justification

Criteria


Except in the most compelling of circumstances, personnel involved in a Category 2 or 3 Force, including participants, witnesses, and supervisors directing force, shall not transport the suspects. If compelling circumstances require that the suspect be transported by involved personnel, detailed justification shall be made in all supervisors’ subsequent reports.

12 The Station Jail Manual Volume 6, Booking Policy and Procedures, Medical Procedures for Booking Inmates, November 2012. 13 The Station Jail Manual Volume 6, Classification and Segregation, Intoxicated Inmates, November 2012.


Page 10 of 29

Audit Procedures

Of the 58 Force Packages from Objective 3(a), auditors reviewed all incidents where the suspects were transported for medical examination/treatment.14 Twenty-one Category 1 use of force incidents did not require medical transport by non-involved Department members and were excluded from this objective. Therefore, 37 Category 2 Force Packages were reviewed to determine whether a non-involved Department member transported the suspect or if detailed justification was provided in the supervisor report(s).

Findings

Thirty-five of the 37 (95%) Category 2 Force Packages met the standard for this objective. Two use of force incidents did not meet the standard because the supervisor did not provide a detailed justification for the involved personnel transporting the suspect to a medical facility.

Table No. 5 - Detailed Findings - Objective No. 3(b)

Transport by Non-Involved Personnel or Justification








Objective No. 3(c) – Suspect Refusal and Documentation

Criteria


If the suspect refuses medical treatment in any of the cases previously described, they shall be transported to a medical facility and required to personally inform the medical staff of their refusal to receive medical treatment. The member transporting the suspect shall include in the appropriate report or memorandum the name of the medical personnel to whom the suspect indicated

14MPP, §3-10/105.00, Medical Treatment and Transporting Suspects, July 2013. Policy only applies to transport by non-involved Department member in Category 2 use of force incidents.


Page 11 of 29

their refusal and the name of the medical staff member authorizing booking at the Station or regular jail housing. In addition, an effort should be made to have the medical staff complete an admission report on the suspect and to indicate the suspect’s refusal of medical treatment on that report.

Audit Procedures

Auditors determined if the Force Packages contained the name of the medical personnel to whom the suspect indicated their refusal of treatment and the name of the medical staff who authorized the booking. Among the 58 use of force incidents in which the suspect was transported for medical examination/treatment, 51 were excluded because the suspect did not refuse medical treatment. Therefore, seven Force Packages were reviewed for this objective.

Findings

All seven (100%) Force Packages met the standard for this objective.

Table No. 6 - Detailed Findings - Objective No. 3(c)

Suspect Refusal and Documentation


Altadena N/A N/A




Temple 2 of 2 100%


Objective No. 4 – Total Appendage Restraint Procedure (TARP)

Criteria

Manual of Policy and Procedures, Section 3-10/110.00, Use of Force Review Procedures, Immediate Supervisor’s Responsibilities, Responding to Force Incidents, (May 2015), states:

In incidents involving the Total Appendage Restraint Procedure (TARP), the supervisor shall ascertain and document the Incident Details section of the SH-R-438P with the following information, if possible:


Page 12 of 29

How long the suspect was restrained with the TARP;

The emergency medical services agency that responded to the scene of the TARPing;

How the suspect was transported and in what body position(s) they were placed during the transport;

The length of time of the transport phase; The observations of the suspect’s psychological/physical condition while

TARPed and during the transport phase; and

Any alleged recent drug usage by the suspect or indications by them that they suffer from cardiac or respiratory diseases (e.g., asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, etc.)

Audit Procedures

The Force Packages were reviewed to determine if the supervisor ascertained and documented the incident details involving TARP procedures, as stated above. If the Force Package did not contain all six of the above procedures in the Incident Details section of the SH-R-438P, then it did not meet the standard. Of the 70 Force Packages, 67 were excluded because the TARP was not applied. Therefore, three Force Packages were reviewed for this objective.

Findings

None of the three (0%) Force Packages met the standard for this objective because the supervisor did not document TARP procedures correctly.


Total Appendage Restraint Procedure (TARP)


Altadena N/A N/A


Industry 0 of 2 0%

San Dimas N/A N/A

Temple 0 of 1 0%

Walnut/Diamond Bar N/A N/A


Page 13 of 29

Objective No. 5 – Electronic Immobilization Device (TASER)

Objective No. 5(a) – Verbal Warnings Preceding Activation

Criteria

Manual of Policy and Procedures, Section 5-06/040.95, Electronic Immobilization Device (TASER) Procedures, (December 2012), states:15

Verbal Warning

Unless it would compromise officer safety or is impractical due to circumstances, a verbal warning of the intended use of the TASER shall precede the activation of the device…: The fact that a verbal and/or other warning was given or reasons it was not given shall be documented in any related reports.

Audit Procedures

The Force Packages involving a TASER were reviewed to determine if prior to the activation of the TASER, verbal warnings were given. Of the 70 Force Packages, 52 Force Packages were excluded because they did not involve the use of a TASER. Therefore, 18 Force Packages were reviewed for this objective.

Findings

Thirteen of the 18 (72%) Force Packages met the standard for this objective. Five Force Packages did not meet the standard because there was no documentation or reason that a verbal warning was or was not given, prior to the activation of the TASER.


15MPP, §5-06/040.95, Electronic Immobilization Device (TASER) Procedures was revised January 2016. However, these revisions were limited to punctuation and did not impact the criteria or findings.


Page 14 of 29


Verbal Warnings Preceding Activation


Altadena N/A N/A


Industry 7 of 8 88%


Temple 1 of 3 33%


Objective No. 5(b) – TASER Download

Criteria

Manual of Policy and Procedures, Section 5-06/040.95, Electronic Immobilization Device (TASER) Procedures, (January 2016), states:

Reporting the Use of the Electronic Immobilization Device (TASER) Whenever a use of a TASER requires force reporting, a download of the TASER stored data and video shall be conducted and submitted with the force package.

Audit Procedures

The Force Packages involving a TASER were reviewed to determine if a copy of the TASER download sheet was included. Of the 70 Force Packages reviewed, 52 Force Packages were excluded because they did not involve the use of a TASER. Therefore, 18 Force Packages were reviewed for this objective.

Findings




Page 15 of 29


TASER Download


Altadena N/A N/A




Temple 3 of 3 100%


Objective No. 6 – Use of Force Reporting - Notification to Supervisor

Criteria

Manual of Policy and Procedures, Section 3-10/100.00, Use of Force Reporting Procedures, (September 2014), states:

Responsibilities for Reporting the Use of Force

In all cases in which members use Reportable Force, they shall make a verbal notification to their immediate supervisor (with a minimum rank of Sergeant) as soon as safely possible.

When feasible, written reports shall be reviewed and approved by the supervisor to whom the force incident was initially reported. A reference to the verbal notification and the name of the supervisor to whom it was made shall be included in the first report.

Audit Procedures

The Force Packages were reviewed to determine whether Department members who used reportable force made a verbal notification to their immediate supervisor. All 70 Force Packages were reviewed for this objective.

Findings



Page 16 of 29


Use of Force Reporting - Notification to Supervisor








Objective No. 7 – Use of Force Investigation

Objective No. 7(a) – Immediate Supervisor’s Responsibilities - Initial Investigation

Criteria

Manual of Policy and Procedures, Section 3-10/110.00, Use of Force Review Procedures, (May 2015), states:

Immediate Supervisor’s Responsibilities Responding to Force Incidents section

Locate and interview all potential witnesses, including Department personnel and, in custody force cases, medical staff, chaplains, and any other civilians who may have been present, and document their statements, including those who could have witnessed but claim not to have witnessed the incident;

Photograph and/or record the scene in conditions as near as possible to those at the time of the force incident, if appropriate;

Determine if the force incident was recorded and secure any such recordings of the incident whenever able to do so;

Audit Procedures

The Force Packages were reviewed to determine if the supervisor completed all of the initial investigation responsibilities listed above. All three investigative responsibilities were required in order for the standard to have been met. All 70 Force Packages were reviewed for this objective.


Page 17 of 29

Findings

Thirty of the 70 (43%) Force Packages reviewed met the standard for this objective. Forty Force Packages did not meet the standard because the Force Packages did not contain evidence that one or more of the initial investigative responsibilities were completed by the immediate supervisor.


Immediate Supervisor’s Responsibilities - Initial Investigation


Altadena 2 of 6 33%




Temple 10 of 21 48%


Objective No. 7(b) – Immediate Supervisor’s Responsibilities - Force Reporting

Criteria


Immediate Supervisor’s Responsibilities

Responding to Force Incidents

Review first reports and separate supplemental reports or memorandums to ensure that, consistent with this section, they describe in detail the actions of the suspect necessitating the use of force and the specific force used in response to the suspect’s actions;

Force Packages …The Sergeant/immediate supervisor shall ensure that copies of such reports or memos are forwarded to the concerned Watch Commander/Supervising Lieutenant for inclusion in the force package.


Page 18 of 29

Audit Procedures

The Force Packages were evaluated to determine if first reports, supplemental reports, or memorandums were included in the Force Package. Additionally, auditors determined if copies of reports or memorandums were forwarded to the concerned watch commander. All 70 Force Packages were reviewed for this objective.

Findings

Sixty-seven of the 70 (96%) Force Packages reviewed met the standard for this objective. Three Force Packages did not meet the standard. In one Force Package, auditors found that the force was documented in a memorandum but an Incident Report (SH-R-49) was not written. In two Force Packages, the supervisor did not ensure copies of the reports and memos were forwarded to the concerned watch commander for inclusion in the Force Package.


Immediate Supervisor’s Responsibilities - Force Reporting


Altadena 5 of 6 83%






Objective No. 7(c) – Immediate Supervisor’s Responsibilities - Physician Interviews and Documentation

Criteria


Immediate Supervisor’s Responsibilities

Responding to Force Incidents section

Interview the attending physician or other qualified medical personnel, when the suspect is taken to a medical facility for examination, as to the extent and nature of the suspect's injuries, or lack thereof, and whether the injuries are consistent with the degree of force reported;


Page 19 of 29

Audit Procedures

The Supervisor's Report on Use of Force (SH-R-438P), “Medical Review” section of the Force Packages were reviewed to determine if the supervisor interviewed the attending physician or other qualified medical personnel, when the suspect was taken to a medical facility for examination. Of the 70 Force Packages reviewed, 12 Force Packages were excluded because the suspect was not transported to a medical facility for examination. Therefore, 58 Force Packages were reviewed for this objective.

Findings

Fifty-four of the 58 (93%) Force Packages reviewed met the standard for this objective. Four Force Packages did not meet the standard because the supervisor did not document that an interview was conducted with the attending physician or other qualified medical personnel, as to whether the suspect’s injuries were consistent with the force reported.

Table No. 13 - Detailed Findings - Objective No. 7(c)

Immediate Supervisor’s Responsibilities - Physician Interviews and Documentation






Temple 15 of 17 88%


Objective No. 7(d) – Watch Commander Responsibilities - Interviewing Suspects

Criteria


Watch Commander/Supervising Lieutenant’s Responsibilities, Interviewing Suspects The Watch Commander or Supervising Lieutenant shall, with extreme priority, personally examine any suspect upon whom force has been used and, except in Category 3 Force incidents, interview the suspect regarding the incident.


Page 20 of 29

Except in the most compelling of circumstances, personnel involved in a use of force, including participants, witnesses, and supervisors directing force, shall not be present when the interview is conducted. If compelling circumstances require their presence, detailed justification shall be made in all supervisors’ subsequent reports. When interviewing suspects regarding use of force incidents, the Watch Commander/Supervising Lieutenant shall ask the suspect if they have any injuries, the nature of the injuries, and if they want medical treatment. These questions must be asked whether or not the suspect has any apparent injuries (refer to MPP section 3-10/105.00 Medical Treatment and Transporting Suspects).

Audit Procedures

The Supervisor's Report on Use of Force (SH-R-438), “Suspect Interview” section of the Force Packages and the video recording of the suspect’s interview were reviewed to determine if the watch commander properly interviewed and examined the suspect after the use of force incident. The objective required that the responsibilities listed above were met. Of the 70 Force Packages, one Force Package was excluded because the suspect fled the location prior to the force investigation. Therefore, 69 Force Packages were reviewed for this objective.

Findings

Fifty-six of the 69 (81%) Force Packages met the standard for this objective. Thirteen Force Packages did not meet the standard because the watch commander did not complete the Suspect Interview responsibilities correctly.

Table No. 14 - Detailed Findings - Objective No. 7(d)

Watch Commander Responsibilities - Interviewing Suspects


Altadena 3 of 6 50%






http://intranet/Intranet/MPP/Vol3/3-10/3-10-105.00.htm


Page 21 of 29

Objective No. 7(e) – Watch Commander Responsibilities - Suspect Injury Assessment

Criteria


Watch Commander/Supervising Lieutenant’s Responsibilities If the suspect is taken to a medical facility for examination or treatment, the Watch Commander/Supervising Lieutenant shall ensure that a supervisor interviews the examining physician or qualified medical personnel as to the extent of the injuries, or lack thereof, and whether the injuries are consistent with the force reported. The Watch Commander/Supervising Lieutenant shall ensure that the interview of the suspect is recorded on video and, if appropriate, photographs are also taken, paying particular attention to any known or alleged areas of injury (obtain suspect consent for photographing injuries hidden by clothing)…. Prior to beginning the interview, the time, date and location of the interview shall be clearly stated, along with the names, ranks, and employee numbers of all persons present.

Audit Procedures

The Supervisor's Report on Use of Force (SH-R-438P), “Suspect Interview” and “Medical Review” sections of the Force Packages and the suspect’s video recorded interview were reviewed to determine if the watch commander ensured the responsibilities listed above were followed. The objective required that all items listed above were met. Of the 70 Force Packages, one Force Package was excluded because the suspect fled the location prior to the force investigation. Therefore, 69 Force Packages were reviewed for this objective.

Findings

Thirty-seven of the 69 (54%) Force Packages met the standard for this objective. Thirty-two Force Packages did not meet the standard because the watch commander did not complete the suspect interview responsibilities correctly.


Page 22 of 29

Table No. 15 - Detailed Findings - Objective No. 7(e)

Watch Commander Responsibilities - Suspect Injury Assessment


Altadena 4 of 6 67%




Temple 14 of 21 67%


Objective No. 7(f) – Watch Commander Responsibilities - Directed Force

Criteria


Completion of Investigations

After interviewing a suspect in incidents involving Directed Force,16 the Watch Commander/Supervising Lieutenant shall determine who should complete the initial investigation. When a Unit supervisor who did not direct the force is available, that non-involved supervisor should complete the initial investigation. If a non-involved supervisor is not available, the Watch Commander/Supervising Lieutenant should consider the totality of the initial factors, including the severity of the force and the suspect’s interview in determining whether the supervisor who directed the force should complete the initial investigation or, if necessary, the initial investigation should be completed by the Watch Commander/Supervising Lieutenant. In instances in which a non-involved supervisor is assigned to complete the initial investigation, the supervisor who directed the force shall prepare a supplemental report, or memo, detailing their actions for inclusion with the force package.

Audit Procedures

The Force Packages were reviewed to determine if the watch commander/supervising lieutenant properly chose a supervisor to complete the initial use of force investigation.

16As defined in the MPP, §3-10/050.00, July 2015, Directed Force is force used in the execution of one’s duties under the immediate direction of a supervisor.


Page 23 of 29

Additionally, auditors determined if the involved supervisor who directed force prepared a supplemental report, or memo, detailing their actions. The objective required that all items listed above were met. Of the 70 Force Packages, 57 were excluded because they did not involve Directed Force. Therefore, 13 Force Packages were reviewed for this objective.

Findings

Six of the 13 (46%) Force Packages met the standard for this objective. Seven Force Packages did not meet the standard because the Force Package was completed by the involved supervisor when a non-involved supervisor was available, or the watch commander did not ensure the Force Package contained required documentation.

Table No. 16 - Detailed Findings - Objective No. 7(f)

Watch Commander Responsibilities - Directed Force




Industry 1 of 3 33%

San Dimas 0 of 1 0%

Temple 3 of 6 50%


Objective No. 7(g) – Watch Commander Responsibilities - Completion of Investigations

Criteria


Watch Commander/Supervising Lieutenant’s Responsibilities Force Packages

…The force package shall include the following items:

Supervisor’s Report, Use of Force (SH-R-438P);

Copy of SH-R-49 and related supplemental reports and/or memos;

Copy of in-service rosters for the concerned shift(s);

Documentation showing suitable treatment from qualified medical personnel was sought and/or received;


Page 24 of 29

Photographs and/or video recordings of suspect’s injuries or areas of alleged injury (copies of booking photographs may also provide excellent documentation);

Copies of any recorded interviews conducted by supervisors during the investigation;

Any related material which is deemed significant or serves to further document the incident, such as dispatch or complaint telephone tapes, other photos, etc.

Audit Procedures

The Force Packages were reviewed to determine if the watch commander ensured the Force Package contained all items listed above. The objective required that all items listed above were met. All 70 Force Packages were reviewed for this objective.

Findings

Fifty-nine of the 70 (84%) Force Packages met the standard for this objective. Eleven Force Packages did not meet the standard because the watch commander did not ensure the Force Package contained all required documentation.

Table No. 17 - Detailed Findings - Objective No. 7(g)

Watch Commander Responsibilities - Completion of Investigations


Altadena 3 of 6 50%




Temple 20 of 21 95%




Page 25 of 29

Objective No. 7(h) – Watch Commander Responsibilities - Force Package Submitted No Later Than 21 Days After the Incident

Criteria


Watch Commander/Supervising Lieutenant’s Responsibilities

Force Packages The Watch Commander/Supervising Lieutenant shall prepare and submit a force package to the Unit Commander for all reviews of force not conducted by an IAB Force/Shooting Response Team as soon as possible, but no later than 21 days after the incident, unless otherwise directed.

Audit Procedures

The Force Packages were reviewed to determine if the watch commander submitted the Force Package to the unit commander no later than 21 days after the incident.

Findings

Twenty-six of the 70 (37%) Force Packages met the standard for this objective. Forty-four Force Packages did not meet the standard because the watch commander submitted the Force Packages past the 21 days of the incident.

Table No. 18 - Detailed Findings - Objective No. 7(h)

Watch Commander Responsibilities - Force Package Submitted No Later Than 21 Days After the Incident


Altadena 2 of 6 33%




Temple 3 of 21 14%



Page 26 of 29

OTHER RELATED MATTERS

Other related matters are pertinent issues discovered during the audit, but were not objectives that are measureable against Department policies and procedures.

Inconsistent and Non-Specific Areas within Policy


Department policy requires that Department members should endeavor to utilize de-escalation techniques. However, Department Policy does not specifically require members to document the efforts made to de-escalate potential force incidents, or the reasons that precluded Department personnel from employing de-escalation efforts, in their reports. Despite the fact that policy does not require the documentation of these efforts, auditors found the EPD achieved excellence in documentation.

Unit Commander’s Responsibilities Administrative Documentation/Materials - Storage of Documentation

Auditors had difficulty locating all required documents for several completed Force Packages. Auditors exhausted all efforts to retrieve any missing files from the EPD Sheriff’s Stations. In conversation with management from the EPD, the auditors found that many use of force files were not readily available and accessible in the station’s shared files or not stored at all. The auditors could not find any policy requiring units to securely store or retain Force Packages handled at the unit level.

Notification to the Watch Commander

The Department policy states, when a suspect is medically treated or examined, the sergeant shall immediately advise the watch commander. However, policy does not specifically require verbal/telephonic notification to be documented from the sergeant to the watch commander.

Inconsistent Data Tracking

Auditors contacted East Patrol Division Administration (Headquarters) to retrieve a list of the use of force incidents for the time period of the audit. Headquarters was unable to provide a consolidated list and referred the auditors to each of the EPD Sheriff’s Stations. Auditors discovered that each station utilized independent data tracking systems. While conducting a cross check of the PPI and the SBAP, auditors found inconsistencies with the Portal.


Page 27 of 29

Inconsistent/Unofficial Forms

Auditors found Force Packages contained supplemental report forms and SH-R-49 Continuation Report forms that were altered and/or custom and were not approved by the Department.

CONCLUSION

During the course of this audit, auditors assessed the policies, procedures, and practices related to use of force, and identified several areas in need of improvement.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The resulting recommendations coincide with the findings and conclusion from the objectives and other related matters. They are intended to provide Department management with a tool to correct deficiencies and improve performance.

1. Department policy requires personnel to make reasonable efforts to de-escalate potential use of force incidents by first using sound verbal communications, common sense efforts, or tactical communication. However, Department members are not specifically required to document in their reports the efforts made to de-escalate potential force incidents, or the reasons that precluded Department personnel from employing de-escalation efforts. It is recommended the Department policy be amended to require Department members to document in their reports the efforts made to de-escalate potential force incidents. (Objective No. 1, Other Related Matters)

2. Department policy does not specifically require all verbal/telephonic notification to be documented, including notifications made by field personnel to supervisors and supervisors to watch commanders in various areas of the policy. Therefore, it is recommended when policy mandates notifications be made to supervisors and watch commanders, the details of the notification should be documented in one or all reports. (Objective No. 3, 7, and Other Related Matters)

3. Department policy requires that in incidents involving the TARP, the supervisor shall ascertain and document all of the TARP protocols in the Incident Details section of the Supervisor’s Report on Use of Force (SH-R-438P). Therefore, it is recommended that supervisors ensure uniformity of the TARP procedure be briefed periodically to Department members. (Objective No. 4)

4. Department policy does not specifically require recurrent TASER training. It is recommended the Department provide recurrent training in the use of a TASER. (Objective No. 5)


Page 28 of 29

5. Department policy requires the watch commander ensures the examining physician or qualified medical personnel is interviewed, and the suspect’s interview is video recorded, photographs the suspect’s injuries, and follows interview protocol. It is recommended the watch commander documents aforementioned investigative procedures. (Objective No. 7)

6. When a supervisor directs a Department member to use force, Department policy states that a non-involved supervisor, if available, or the watch commander/supervising lieutenant should complete the use of force investigation. Therefore, when circumstances dictate that an involved supervisor complete the force investigation, it is recommended that Department policy be amended to require watch commanders/supervising lieutenants provide justification detailing the reason for the involved supervisor conducting the investigation. (Objective No. 7)

7. Force Packages not submitted to the unit commander no later than 21 days from

the date of the incident, delay the evaluation process. Therefore, it is recommended that watch commanders/supervising lieutenants document extension requests. (Objective No. 7)

8. To ensure uniformity, it is recommended that all stations use the same data

tracker and Department approved forms when tracking use of force incidents. This will ensure that the necessary information required to investigate and process the use of force incidents are complete and tracked accurately. (Objective No. 7 and Other Related Matters)

9. Documentation of Force Packages should be readily available for review at all Sheriff’s Stations. It is recommended that Patrol Administration Headquarters examine policies related to sufficient retention of Force Packages. (Other Related Matters)

Views of Responsible Officials

A copy of the audit report was provided to the East Patrol Division command staff and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to offer them an opportunity to comment. Management from the East Patrol Division generally agreed with the findings. The OIG did not provide any feedback.


Page 29 of 29

This audit was submitted on this 31st day of May 2017, by the Audit and Accountability Bureau.

Original signature on file at AAB ______________

VERONICA CHAU Project Manager Audit and Accountability Bureau Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

Original signature on file at AAB ____________________

M. ROWENA NELSON Head Compliance Officer Audit and Accountability Bureau Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

Original signature on file at AAB ____________________

STEVEN E. GROSS Captain Audit and Accountability Bureau Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

los angeles county sheriff’s department of force... · shootings in which a shot was...

Documents