SR 11-29-2022 8A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 29, 2022
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David White, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Request of the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission to Receive
and Review the Reports Provided by the Public Safety Reform and Oversight
Commission
Recommended Action
The Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission has prepared a series of reports
and recommendations concerning public safety in Santa Monica, most recently focused
on complaint investigations and the status of the Santa Monica Police Department’s
implementations of the reforms recommended by the OIR Group following their in-depth
after action report concerning the events of May 31, 2020. Staff recommends that the
City Council receive and review the reports provided by the Public Safety Reform and
Oversight Commission.
Prepared By: Christopher Smith, Assistant to the City Manager
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A: PSROC November 15 Council Presentation_
B. Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22
C. Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action
Status Final
D. Written Comment
8.A
Packet Pg. 26
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Derek Devermont, Chair of the Public Safety Reform and Oversight
Commission
Subject: Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission Annual Update
In February 2020, Council voted to create the Santa Monica Public Safety Reform and
Oversight Commission (PSROC). PSROC was designed to provide civilian oversight of SMPD
and to evaluate how the city approaches law enforcement. Since its inception, PSROC has
created numerous committees, held multiple hearings, and submitted six reports to Council,
two of which are attached to this memo. These reports were authored by either the
Commission or the Commission's Inspector General (IG).
These reports addressed the following:
1) SMPD's response to the OIR 5/31/2020 report-Commission Authored
2) SMPD's complaints process-Commission Authored
3) SMPD policy surrounding and use of bodycam technology-Commission Authored
4) SMPD's possession and use of military equipment pursuant to AB 481-Commission
Authored
5) OIR report on SMPD's progress in implementing IG proposed reforms-IG Authored
6) OIR audit of SMPD complaint process-IG authored
This memo will focus on a few of these topics.
POLICIES AND USE OF BODYCAM TECHNOLOGY
SMPD uses impressive bodycam technology. Perhaps most impressive is how a single officer
activating his camera will start the cameras of other officers in the area. This prevents officers,
intentionally or unintentionally, from failing to activate their cameras.
PSROC proposed reforms to remove undue officer discretion regarding what is recorded. The
Commission heard from officers that they are trained to decide when to turn a camera off in
situations involving witnesses or victims. PSROC feels this discretion should be eliminated.
SMPD responds with a genuine and valid concern for the privacy of witnesses and victims. This
privacy, however, is already protected under current law. Cases involving sex crimes, minors,
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Attachment A: PSROC November 15 Council Presentation_ (5495 : PSROC Reports)
etc., are not subject to public record requests. Additionally, such footage is usually subject to
a court's protective order preventing the distribution of protected materials.
PSROC also learned prosecutors prefer to have witness/victim interviews recorded. With the
passage of time, memories fade and become warped. Bodycam footage refreshes the memory
of those that would testify and prevents inconsistencies that defense lawyers will use. As
court cases drag on, a preserved video record prevents the downfalls of time.
There are instances when an officer should not have his camera running (bathroom breaks,
interacting with family, etc.), but PSROC feels the cameras should be running absent these
circumstances.
PSROC offers drafts of reports to SMPD for input. SMPD wrote a written response to PSROC's
report on bodycams and submitted it to Council. It is important to note they responded to a
PSROC draft never submitted to Council. Instead, SMPD replied to an initial PSROC draft
provided solely for input. The final PSROC draft submitted to the Council addressed many of
SMPD's concerns.
COMPLAINTS
PSROC had many hearings on SMPD's complaint process. Council was provided a report with
the Commission's findings. The work done in this area shows how SMPD and PSROC working
together can benefit the city.
In PSROC's hearings, it was discovered SMPD lacked a record-keeping/tracking system for
complaints that were handled informally or quickly dismissed by a supervisor. If an intended
complainer was turned away by an officer, a record was not kept of the interaction nor the
attempt to file a complaint. The absence of a system prevented effective auditing and
oversight.
To SMPD's credit, they have acknowledged the gap and taken great strides to fill it. SMPD has
acquired new software that will track every complaint and ensure interested parties within the
department and outside are notified of progress. Additionally, all complainers will be provided
a form with a reference number to draft their complaints. Once completed, the complainer is
provided a copy of the form for future reference,
SMPD and PSROC worked together in this specific circumstance, and the community
benefitted.
PSROC still believes areas of concern remain. The Commission tasked the IG with auditing ten
complaints to see if they were processed and adjudicated in a manner that was fair to the
complainer, the community, AND THE OFFICER. It is important to note that many of the
audited complaints were received under the leadership of a previous Chief of Police.
The IG wrote a report, attached to this memo, and found areas of concern. PSROC found the
time taken to process complaints to be inexcusably long. Most took ten months or longer.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Attachment A: PSROC November 15 Council Presentation_ (5495 : PSROC Reports)
Witnesses and complainers were only contacted then. As a result, the potential for faded
memories, interest, and loss of contact with relevant parties increases exponentially.
Also, relevant evidence was not obtained or kept in the file. Video footage, pictures, and other
records were inexplicably left out of the file preventing an accurate audit of the fairness of
SMPD's conclusions.
Perhaps most troubling is the limiting of the scope of the complaint. If an investigator found
misconduct by another officer not initially subject to the complaint during the investigation of
a complaint, no additional action was taken to hold the malfeasant officer accountable. A
glaring example is in the report of a seemingly intentional attempt to hide the use of force by
filing it inappropriately in an area where no one would notice. When it was discovered the use
of force wasn't filed as a "use of force," the officer who errored was not held accountable.
AB 481-POSSESSION AND USE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT
In response to Council's referral, PSROC investigated SMPD's possession and use of military
equipment. Commissioner Angela Scott and Vice Chair Centeno jointly wrote a report that
found possession of all AB 481 equipment in SMPD's arsenal appropriate.
Of particular concern was the famous "Bearcat." This is an intimidating vehicle, and the
Commission questioned whether a less militaristic alternative could serve the purpose and
function of the bearcat. It was discovered that alternative vehicles would cost twice as much
as the bearcat, require an additional vehicle, and couldn't provide the medical services of the
bearcat. SMPD was forthright and responsive.
MAY 31, 2020 OIR REPORT
Recently, the IG was tasked with auditing SMPD's progress in implementing the recommended
reforms found in the previous OIR 5/31/2020 report. Some recommended reforms were
implemented, progress was made on implementing more, and some still needed to be
satisfactory. The IG report is attached to this memo.
CONCLUSION
Recommendations: Council should direct the City Manager to work with SMPD to:
1. Eliminate officer discretion in the use of body cams when witnesses who are victims to a
crime are involved.
2. Implement all proposed reforms proposed in the Inspector General’s report on
complaints and processes.
3. Require all complaint investigations to be processed, investigated, and brought to
completion within 90 days.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Attachment A: PSROC November 15 Council Presentation_ (5495 : PSROC Reports)
4. Require all SMPD officer misconduct be investigated fully irrespective of how the
misconduct is discovered.
5. Implement all recommendations in the OIR Group’s After Action Report concerning the
events of May 2020.
PSROC looks forward to making a presentation on 11/15/2022 and will be open to answering
any questions. Please feel free to contact me in advance should a concern arise.
Derek Devermont
Chair-PSROC
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Attachment A: PSROC November 15 Council Presentation_ (5495 : PSROC Reports)
1
City of Santa Monica
Inspector General’s REPORT on SMPD
Complaint Investigation Process
October 2022
Michael Gennaco
Stephen Connolly
Teresa Magula
Julie Ruhlin
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
2
323-821-0586
7142 Trask Avenue | Playa del Rey, CA
90293
OIRGroup.com
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
3
Introduction
At its regular public meeting in February of 2022, the Santa Monica’s “Public Safety
Reform and Oversight Committee” (“PSROC”) endorsed an audit project that had been
recommended by Michael Gennaco of OIR Group, in his capacity as Inspector General.
The project was meant to supplement the work that the Committee had already initiated
in learning about the mechanics of the public complaint process as administered by the
Santa Monica Police Department (“SMPD”).
The Committee has produced a report and several recommendations as a result of
knowledge it gleaned from members’ interactions with SMPD personnel. These
interactions related to protocol and procedure with regard to intake, triage, and
investigation of complaints, and the Committee identified areas where it thought the
processes could become more effective. In proposing an audit of actual cases
completed recently by the Department’s Internal Affairs unit, the Inspector General
sought to add to the foundation that the Committee had established through its own
efforts.
Specifically, an audit by the Inspector General was intended to add two elements to the
Committee’s project. One was a perspective drawn from OIR Group members’
extensive experience with oversight and “best practices” for administrative
investigations. The other was a substantive, qualitative review, based on the IG’s
unique access to confidential SMPD files and records pursuant to the City Ordinance.
An assessment of recently completed cases offered a concrete way to evaluate the
effectiveness of the process through the prism of actual complaints and allegations of
misconduct involving SMPD personnel.1
Pursuant to the proposal and the Committee’s authorization, the IG reviewed 10
complete investigation files that were provided by the Department. These materials
included the following:
• The memo prepared by the investigator that summarized the evidence;
• The transcribed interviews of the complainants, witnesses, and subjects of each
case;
1 One aspect of the complaint process not addressed in this audit is how “complaints” that are
not referred for a formal administrative investigation are addressed by SMPD. As noted below,
that issue is sufficiently weighty to comprise a potential future IG audit project.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
4
• Any documents or other evidence relating to the underlying incident (including
police reports, photos, body-worn camera and other recordings); and
• The written analysis by SMPD executive-level decision makers as to outcomes.
We evaluated the cases along a range of criteria. These included investigative scope,
thoroughness, timeliness, objectivity, accountability, remedial steps (if necessary), and
overall legitimacy.
The following Report about those evaluations hopes to provide insight in a couple of
ways: first by offering a window into the specific allegations that SMPD addressed, and
then, based on those particular examples, by drawing larger conclusions – and
recommendations – about the process itself. Accordingly, we provide a factual summary
for eight of the ten investigations that we reviewed, in terms of both the incident at issue
and the Department’s administrative response.2 The ultimate point was not to validate
or question or otherwise re-litigate the actual outcomes of these complaints, though we
do share our impressions of the findings. Instead, it was to use the cases as a concrete
basis for assessing the process more broadly.
In doing so, we sought to identify systemic issues that may warrant attention or revision
for the sake of enhancing future effectiveness. Individual issues that arose, as well as
collective tendencies we saw across several cases, are discussed with accompanying
recommendations.
A few notes are warranted about our interactions with SMPD in conjunction with this
project. First, we appreciate the complete cooperation we received from Department
supervisory staff with regard to accessing the necessary materials. Next, it bears
mentioning that a prior administration was at the helm during the time these matters
were investigated. Our hope is that current leadership will reinforce the strengths we
identify and embrace opportunities to make positive adjustments, and we have reason
to believe this will occur. Finally, we are grateful for thoughtful feedback that the
Department provided, and that helped to clarify and otherwise improve this Report.
In terms of an “executive summary” of our findings, we noted a mix of strengths and
limitations that we discuss below. One striking aspect of the review was that
accumulating the cases for our evaluation required the Department to go back in time –
some of the complaints we assessed were raised in 2018.
2 After our initial review, we learned that two of the cases we examined were also the subject of ongoing
civil litigation. At the request of the City Attorney, our discussion of those cases will be deferred until
the conclusion of that litigation, but the intent is to discuss in an addendum to this public report what
we learned from those cases at that time.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
5
The potential causes of this low volume of formal investigations are various. The
simplest and most encouraging would be that SMPD rarely provokes the dissatisfaction
or grievance of the people it serves and encounters in Santa Monica. We don’t discount
this possibility, and agency leadership informs us that it is common for the Department’s
self-initiated misconduct investigations to exceed public complaints in the course of a
given year. At the same time, we know the pandemic reduced the number of overall
contacts by a considerable amount. And we have worked in jurisdictions in which a
higher number of complaints is at least partially a function of heightened engagement
and receptivity to public feedback as opposed to greater levels of dysfunction. In short,
SMPD’s numbers were objectively small, in a way that is best understood as a notable if
only partial metric of overall community satisfaction,
We also take note of the potential relevance to this issue of the Committee’s formal
findings about the complaint process in its report from earlier this year, particularly those
that relate to the initial screening that occurs at the outset of the process. This
sometimes results in the resolution of a complaint without the involvement of Internal
Affairs.3 We agree that this process merits further inquiry and potential adjustment to
existing protocols.
As for the investigations themselves, we noted several strengths. The completed files
were generally well-organized and reflected a methodical, thorough investigative
approach. Investigative work was often resourceful in gathering evidence from
available sources and reconstructing the events underlying the respective complaints.
Complainants were treated respectfully and interviewed with patience and objectivity.
Interviews of the officers who were the focal point of allegations were often impressive
in their depth and effectiveness in addressing the key issues. And the analysis that
went into consideration of completed cases was consistently thoughtful; it showed a
willingness to engage with the issues and reach appropriate conclusions in most of the
individual instances we studied.
We were also impressed that the Department goes to the time and trouble of
transcribing interviews. In our experience, most agencies are content to rely on
recordings and investigator summaries, but the transcripts make evaluation of the actual
content of statements much more efficient (and therefore more likely to happen when
decision-makers are assessing completed files).
3 Per the Committee’s report, this can be because the handling supervisor “defuses” the issue
without a formal complaint being filed, or because of a determination that the conduct as
described does not constitute a policy violation.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
6
Overall, we found that the complaints were taken seriously, investigated skillfully, and
evaluated thoughtfully by Department management. Naturally, we noted individual
concerns with specific elements of the reviews, but these often reflected the close
scrutiny of the review more than substantial problems that undermined the cases
themselves.
We also found some “common denominators” that were more substantive in nature, and
thus potentially applicable to future investigative effectiveness.
The first of these related to the time of completion for the investigations. All of them
took at least several months to finalize, and most ran up to – or over – the one-year
statute of limitation which constitutes the eligibility period for California agencies to
impose discipline against peace officers who have violated policy. As we discuss, this
is problematic in a few ways, even when officers are cleared of all allegations and
therefore not subject to disciplinary consequences. We note in fairness to the
Department that staffing challenges and COVID impacts have been a factor here, and
that the current leadership team has not only acknowledged that “sooner is better” but
has implemented steps to better monitor the progress of open cases. This is
encouraging, and we assume it will pay dividends.
The next concerns the completeness of the files. Specific evidence was sometimes not
included for review, even when it is referenced as having been in existence. The
Department’s ability to “show its work” is important to the soundness of its record-
keeping and the underlying process itself.
The third relates to the scope of the Department’s investigative inquiries. While the core
elements of individual citizen complaints were generally processed, it is often the case
that such investigations reveal other shortcomings or performance issues that were not
specifically mentioned by the complainant as a concern. (These might include a
deficient report or a failure to follow protocol for notifying supervisors – issues that the
complainant would not even be aware of.) These would sometimes be noted, but not
addressed within the context of the investigation itself. As we explain, even when such
matters don’t rise to the level of a policy violation, they often merit attention, and we are
not sure whether SMPD is taking full advantage of these opportunities to use the
complaint process as a “feedback loop” to improve future operations.
We hope this report and attendant recommendations will serve as a complement to the
PSROC’s work in this arena.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
7
Systemic Recommendations
Internal Deadlines for Completion of Internal Investigations
As noted above, another recurring issue within the cases we reviewed related to the
pace of completion. Investigative work itself often extended for months beyond the
intake of the complaint. In other instances, unexplained delays at the executive level
extended the process of final resolution. The year-long statute of limitations period for
administering discipline is a deadline, not a suggestion, and for many reasons the
appropriate investigation and response will occur in a much more efficient manner.
RECOMMENDATION 1: SMPD should develop internal deadlines for completion
of internal affairs investigations of no longer than 180 days and require approval
from chain of command for any extensions with reasons articulated for any delay.
RECOMMENDATION 2: SMPD leadership should commit to the timely review of
completed complaint cases and should engage in prompt decision-making and
remediation as needed.
Items missing in investigative files.
While the files that we reviewed were well organized, each was missing materials that
one would expect to find in them. As a result, we were not able to even know whether
such materials were generated, let alone review the quality of any materials produced.
It is incumbent that SMPD adjust their protocols and practices to ensure that such
materials are included in the investigative file.
With regard to closing letters, we were advised by the Department that they typically are
not included in the file but scanned and kept in a different file. Even if there may be
value in retaining copies of closing letters in another file, a copy should be inserted in
the investigative file as well.
RECOMMENDATION 3: SMPD must ensure that, pursuant to state law,
complainants are advised of the outcome of any complaint investigation and a
copy of the letter is included in the investigative file.
RECOMMENDATION 4: When SMPD takes photographs related to injuries or
other relevant aspects of the complaint investigation, it should retain such
photographs in the investigative file.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Body-worn camera footage of officers that is relevant to
the allegations should be included in the investigative file.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
8
Case Reviews and Recommendations
Case #1: Allegations of Excessive Force and Profanity During
Traffic Stop
The complainant alleged that, during the traffic stop that had ultimately led to her arrest,
the officer used profane language and assaulted her when he closed the driver’s door
on her leg. The complainant alleged that she had been subjected to excessive force by
both the arresting officer and by jail personnel. She further alleged that she was
wrongly denied her requests for medical attention or to make phone calls until after she
had been fingerprinted and booked.
According to SMPD reports, the complainant was read the Department’s complaint
policy and provided with a copy of the complaint process, but she was not formally
interviewed about her complaint. SMPD reported that when an investigator attempted
to interview her, she requested “immunity” from the incident and declined to cooperate
further.
According to SMPD reports, the complainant was stopped as a result of a defective tail-
light. When the complainant was advised of the reason for the stop, she asked if she
could see the tail-light and opened the car door. The body camera footage confirmed
this discourse and the officer’s response to “stay in the fucking car,” followed by the
slamming of the door. The complainant is heard to respond, “Why are you cursing me?”
According to SMPD reports, the complainant argued with the officer about signing the
citation that he intended to issue her and was advised that she would be arrested if she
failed to sign. The complainant eventually signed the citation but then threw the pen
she had used at the officer, striking him in the chest. As a result, the complainant was
charged with assaulting a police officer and taken into custody. The case was
presented to the City Attorney for filing consideration, but it was rejected.
The complainant further expressed unhappiness that her tongue stud piercing and her
hair extensions were removed. It was explained to the complainant that jail policy
required the removal of these accoutrements. SMPD records indicate that the
complainant was eventually examined by jail medical staff, and she was cleared for
booking. While these aspects of her treatment were problematic to her, they were
consistent with reasonable Department protocol and thus did not constitute misconduct.
The officer admitted that his use of profanity was vulgar and contrary to policy, but that it
was in reaction to a threatening situation when the complainant abruptly opened the car
door during the stop. SMPD conducted a thoughtful analysis of the incident and
determined that the involved officer was “short” with the complainant in a way that may
have contributed to escalating the encounter. For example, when the complainant
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
9
continued to argue with the officer, the officer responded by indicating that he was going
to give her another citation. It also found that the officer’s use of profanity violated
SMPD policy; appropriate remedial action was undertaken. While the complainant’s
reaction further escalated the situation that eventually led to her arrest, the Department
appropriately concluded that the officer’s initial behavior was not in accord with its
expectations.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
The Investigation
The investigation was thorough and detailed. A particularly impressive feature of the
investigation was that interviews were transcribed and included in the file.
However, while SMPD reports indicated that photographs had been taken of the
complainant’s injuries, no photographs were included in the investigative file.4
Moreover, while the report indicated that the nurse at the jail examined the complainant
for injuries, there were no jailer medical records.5. And while the investigation refers to
and relies on body-worn camera footage to make its determination, no body-worn
camera footage was included in the file, which initially prevented us from corroborating
what was reportedly depicted.6 Finally, state law requires that complainants be advised
of the outcome of any internal investigation, but no closing letter to the complainant was
located in the file.7
The report indicated that the involved officer was able to review body-worn camera
video of the incident prior to being interviewed. Best practices warrant that subjects of
internal investigations not be afforded the opportunity to review video prior to providing
a statement so that the “pure” state of mind of the officer can be obtained. After an
4 We were advised that the photographs were not included in the file because they did not
show any injuries. However, even evidence of “non-injuries” is relevant evidence and should be
included in the investigative materials. Upon our request, the photographs were retrieved; they
did not show any obvious injuries to the complainant.
5 In a recent discussion about this issue, SMPD raised privacy concerns of the complainant if
the records were included in the internal investigative file. We appreciate those concerns, and
encourage the Department to balance them appropriately with ensuring investigative
thoroughness. We suggest a reference in the internal investigative file as to where the medical
records have been lodged and that they have been reviewed as part of the investigation.
6 When we raised this issue with the Department, they were able to locate the relevant body-
camera footage, which we were then able to review. The footage is consistent with the
investigative findings.
7 It is possible that the proper notification was sent but not included in the investigation file.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
10
initial statement is obtained, the officer should then be afforded the opportunity to review
video footage to determine whether that review refreshed the recollection of the officer.
Finally, it took approximately 10 months to complete the investigation and review of this
complaint. We recognize that some – but not all – of this delay is attributable to the
challenges in gaining an interview with the complainant. Even so, SMPD could have
completed the investigation in a more timely fashion. While state law allows for one
year to complete the process, agencies should strive to complete investigations well
before that statutory deadline. Barring exceptional circumstances, police agencies
should strive to complete investigations between 60-180 days.
The Outcome
We concur with the outcome of the internal investigation that there was insufficient
evidence to sustain the majority of the complainant’s allegations. We further agree with
SMPD’s determination that the officer violated the Department’s profanity policy and the
remedial discipline imposed.
RECOMMENDATION 6: When there is evidence of medical treatment by jail staff
that is relevant to the allegations received, investigators should obtain and review
such records and include them in the investigative file.
RECOMMENDATION 7: When officers are the subject of an Internal Affairs
investigation, they should be required to provide a pure interview statement prior to
reviewing any body camera or other video footage, with a subsequent opportunity to
review recordings and amend their responses as needed (and based on refreshed
recollection).
Case # 2: Allegation of Missing Property
This case involved a claim filed by the complainant with the City that he had $1,000.00
in the sleeve of his MacBook carrier when he was arrested for domestic violence, and
that the money was missing when he was given back his property. The City’s Risk
Management group appropriately forwarded the claim to SMPD; to its credit, the
Department then initiated an investigation into the allegation.
Once the investigation was initiated, the SMPD investigator attempted on three
occasions to contact the complainant (who lived out of state) with no success. This
hampered the investigation. However, a review of the arrest report and related
materials noted that the MacBook sleeve in question was unattended and in a public
space for several minutes after the complainant’s girlfriend threw it out the window.
Moreover, while the complainant spoke to officers after his arrest of having $100.00 in
his personal possession (which was returned to him), he did not mention the larger
amount of money that he later claimed was missing.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
11
The Investigation
This investigation took ten months to complete, and efforts were not made to contact
the complainant until five months after the investigation was opened. Best investigative
practices teach that a complainant should be contacted promptly when an investigative
interview is needed to supplement a complaint. This not only assists with the effective
framing of issues and compilation of best available evidence, but it also reinforces the
notion that the Department is taking the matter seriously and prioritizing it appropriately.
Moreover, as we say repeatedly here, investigations should be completed well before
the statutory due date for that and other reasons – including timely resolution for
involved personnel and timely accountability and corrective action where warranted.
As with the previous case, there was no letter to the complainant in the investigative file
informing him of the results of the investigation nor was there any documentation of the
apparent rejection by the City of the claim.
SMPD’s Review
We concur with the determination that there was insufficient evidence to indicate any
violations of policy by involved SMPD personnel.
RECOMMENDATION 8: SMPD should strive to contact the complainant of any
investigation promptly – ideally within days of receiving the complaint.
RECOMMENDATION 9: SMPD should include any available documentation
regarding resolution of a legal claim that resulted in the initiation of the complaint
investigation.
Case # 3: Allegation of Excessive Force
The complainant in this matter alleged that he had been subjected to excessive force
after he was evicted from a bar, claiming that he had unnecessarily been taken to the
ground with his face pushed into concrete.
The investigation established the basic facts of the encounter in question. As a result of
a dispute, the complainant had been ejected from the establishment. When police
arrived the complainant was aggressively expressing unhappiness about the way he
had been treated in the bar. SMPD officers instructed the complainant to sit down, but
he declined to do so.
Because of his unruly behavior, a field training SMPD officer told her trainee to go
hands on with the complainant, and the trainee first grabbed the complainant’s arms.
When the complainant continued to resist, the officers used a leg sweep to take the
complainant to the ground. After he was handcuffed, the complainant was lifted back
into a standing position. The complainant was released from the scene after
representatives of the bar indicated that they had no interest in pursuing charges.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
12
During the investigation, the trainee admitted to using a leg sweep to take the
complainant to the ground. The senior officer stated that she did not know the trainee
had used a leg sweep until she reviewed the body-worn camera video after the fact.
The officer said she then asked the trainee why he did not tell her he had used a leg
sweep, and he replied he did not know. The field training officer did not take additional
action upon learning of this information. The sergeant who was on scene at the time of
the incident also said that he was not aware that a leg sweep had been used and
believed that the officer and subject had fallen to the ground.
Instead of preparing a formal report documenting the use of force, the force was
documented on a field interview card. The sergeant said that it was his decision to
document the force in that way.
Investigative Issues
As with other cases, there was no closing letter to the complainant nor any indication
that a closing letter was prepared and sent.
Review Issues
We reviewed the reports and body worn camera footage of this incident and concur that
there was insufficient evidence that the force used was contrary to SMPD’s use of force
policy. However, there were significant issues that were not considered relating to the
reporting and documentation of force.
SMPD policy requires officers who use force to report that force to a supervisor and to
document that force in a formal report.
300.14.1 NOTIFICATION TO SUPERVISORS
Notification to a sworn supervisor shall be made as soon as practicable following
the application of force in any of the following circumstances:
[…]
(j) An individual was struck, kicked, and/or otherwise forcibly taken to the ground.
300.14 REPORTING THE USE OF FORCE
Any use of force by a member of the Department shall be documented by the
involved member promptly, completely, and accurately in an appropriate
incident/crime report or supplemental incident/crime report before the member
completes their shift.
The first issue here is that the trainee had not properly reported the extent of his force
(specifically the leg sweep) at the time of the incident, either to his training officer or the
sergeant who was on scene. Because of the failure of the trainee to immediately report
the use of force to either the training officer or the on-scene sergeant and the way in
which the sergeant allowed the force to be informally documented, the use of force
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
13
mechanisms were not effectively activated. This would normally have included an
interview of the subject and other investigative steps by the supervisor, as well as
certain standardized review protocols as to compliance with force policy.
When that information did subsequently emerge, the field training officer took no action
to ensure that the use of force was fully reported and reviewed; instead, she simply
inquired of the trainee about his lack of full, accurate acknowledgment at the scene. The
field identification card that was originally – and questionably – used as documentation
by the sergeant was clearly inadequate to the more significant level of force that had
actually occurred, but it was not supplemented. In short, potential violations of the
Department’s reporting and documentation policies seem to have occurred, but were
not considered and assessed as part of the complaint investigation.
In the executive level review of the complaint investigation, the reviewer failed to identify
these deficiencies in force reporting, documentation and on-scene review. Moreover, in
discussing the reasons for the force, the reviewer spoke of the “furtive” movements of
the complainant in explaining the officer's actions. This sort of vague, catch-all
language has become disfavored in current policing, as a greater burden has shifted to
law enforcement to explain with precision why physical force was needed. Progressive
agencies teach their members that general words such as “furtive” do not provide the
level of detail necessary to evaluate the appropriateness of any subsequent actions by
officers. Rather, the force analysis should discuss with precision what the individual
was observed as doing or saying that became the basis for any subsequent application
of force.
RECOMMENDATION 10: In reviewing complaints relating to inappropriate use of
force allegations, the internal investigation should expand to include and address
potential issues that may emerge in the adequacy of reporting, documentation, and
supervisory review.
RECOMMENDATION 11: SMPD should advise its supervisory team that when
reviewing or analyzing force reports, it should avoid terms like “furtive movements”
and describe with detail what the subject did or said as a basis for any use of force
application.
Case # 4: Allegation of Poor Tactics and Excessive Force
Officers saw a residential burglary suspect on a bicycle and attempted to stop him;
instead, he fled. This prompted an additional response by another set of officers, who
soon encountered a different person on a bicycle and confronted him under the
mistaken impression that he was their target. The man was uncooperative and
eventually taken to the ground in the process of handcuffing him. The initial officers
arrived at the location and cleared up the misunderstanding; however, the man was still
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
14
(understandably) upset and claimed that some pre-existing injuries had been
exacerbated during the struggle.8
The administrative interview with the complainant was detailed and included affording
him the chance to review available BWC recordings. That opportunity prompted him to
acknowledge that some of his specific allegations (including the claim that a “chokehold”
had been used against him) were not supported by the evidence. He remained
adamant, however, that one of the four involved officers had been particularly excessive
and inappropriate. This officer had also failed to engage his body-worn camera – an
issue that was not pursued in the investigation, but which very much made a negative
impression on the complainant. The complainant also questioned the reasonableness
of the mistake by which officers had wrongly confused him for the suspect they sought.
The allegations of misconduct were ultimately unfounded. A detailed “Letter of
Transmittal” included a lengthy analysis that delved into the entirety of the incident.
(The force had been evaluated separately as part of other SMPD internal review
protocols; however, no materials relating to findings were included in the file). The
mistaken identity was recognized as unfortunate but not ultimately blameworthy to the
extent it constituted a policy violation. The lieutenant’s case analysis also pointed out
that the officer who had had the most direct contact with the complainant had come on
to the scene in way that compressed the timeline and left little room for de-escalation.
Appropriate counseling was recommended.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
There were strengths to the investigation, including the aforementioned thorough and
balanced interview with the complainant. The case also included interview statements
from civilian witnesses to the encounter – one of whom acknowledged the
complainant’s vocal anger but still had the impression that the officers were too quick to
engage physically. The interviews were transcribed, and the case file itself was well-
organized – for the most part. Importantly, it was missing the BWC evidence from one
of the involved officers that was supposedly a significant basis for the decision that no
policy violations had occurred. The file also did not include a copy of the notification
letter that should have been sent to the complainant pursuant to state law.
As for concerns, we noted that this case was consistent with the pattern of a protracted
timeline: the final signoff at the executive level occurred within days of the end of the
one-year limitations period for any potential imposition of discipline by a California police
agency. We were also curious about the lack of any formal intervention with regard to
8 He had been afforded medical care at the scene but not transported to the hospital.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
15
the primary officer’s failure to engage his BWC – a deficiency that was certainly noted
by, and understandably bothersome to, the complainant himself.9
Perhaps more significantly, the review and decision-making process (as opposed to the
investigation itself) seemed to underplay aspects of the complaint that appeared to have
some legitimacy. The complainant questioned how well he “fit the description” of the
suspect whom the officers were seeking, and he seemingly had a fair point. Apart from
the fact that both men were on bicycles, wore an article of clothing that was the same
color (though it was a hat on one and a shirt on the other), and were persons of color
(one Black, and one Hispanic), the resemblance was limited. The complainant’s chafing
at the supposed justification was accordingly understandable in our view. Even
assuming the sincerity of the officers’ confusion and acknowledging the dynamic nature
of the encounter, the issue is sensitive enough to have warranted further attention.
Ideally, the complaint process ensures not only appropriate accountability, but also a
deeper reckoning with performance or training issues that could lead to improvement for
involved personnel and the agency as a whole. The “mistaken identity” problem that
leads to the detention of innocent Black people is a notorious source of distrust and
resentment. The anger and physical resistance that complicated this specific incident
should not completely overshadow the underlying mistake by the officers that started
things. While the lieutenant’s analysis made a useful gesture in the direction of
improving use of time and distance prior to physical engagement, our sense is that a
further exploration would have been beneficial.
Case # 5: Allegation of Parking Officer Rudeness
A woman initiated this complaint against a parking officer after what she alleged was a
negative encounter. She said she was with a small group of family and friends in a
metered parking area when they were approached and scolded by an SMPD parking
officer. He apparently seemed to think someone in the group was adding money to
expired meters to thwart his ability to ticket cars, and made a sarcastic remark about the
person apparently wanting to work for the Department. The woman found it extremely
off-putting and an “abuse of authority” – not least because she asserted that this was
not what they were doing in the first place.
The allegation was ultimately “not sustained” in the aftermath of the investigation. The
officer claimed not to have a specific recollection of the incident. He also claimed that,
even if he had suspected people of the conduct at issue, his practice is to provide
education (as opposed to chastising). Although the officer was equipped with a body-
worn camera, he did not record the encounter. This was within his discretion at the time
that the incident occurred (the policy has since been made more definitive).
9 This is a different problem than the aforementioned non-inclusion in the file of another officer’s
recording that was apparently created and relied upon.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
16
Given the differing versions of the encounter, and the lack of definitive proof that
improper conduct had occurred to the level of a policy violation, the Department
determined that a “not sustained” finding was the appropriate choice.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
The investigation file was well-organized and thorough, though it did not include a copy
of the notification letter. This case also showed examples of resourcefulness and due
diligence on the part of the investigator, including interviews with other parties who had
been with the complainant at the time of the encounter. (Their stories essentially
matched hers in terms of the key components). The complainant chose the parking
officer from a “six-pack” identification package, and records of his activity established
that he had been on-duty and in the area at the time alleged.
Still, although his denial was more theoretical than adamant (since he said he didn’t
remember the incident but doubted that he would have treated people like that), the
Department decided that the requisite preponderance of the evidence against him had
not been established. This, in our view, was at least arguable. It also illustrated the
value of relatively prompt interviews (so as to lessen the likelihood that an “I don’t recall”
response will credibly occur)10 and the value of body-worn camera recordings (which
would be expected per policy to exist in a similar scenario today).
We do have the sense that the Department took the investigation seriously. And it
strikes us as an example of a scenario in which the process presumably sent a
message that influenced behavior as much or more as the minor discipline that a
sustained violation would have warranted.
Case # 6: Failure To Take a Report
The complainant in this case alleged that he had been a victim of a battery while
exercising outside, and was frustrated by what he perceived to be the inadequacy of the
initial SMPD response. Two officers did respond to the location, but eventually declined
to file a report after locating the suspect, finding him to be somewhat incoherent, and
lacking a definitive sense that a crime had occurred.
The complainant contacted SMPD again the next day, upset that no action had been
taken. Meanwhile, the suspect had been arrested for a separate burglary allegation; he
was ultimately cited for the previous day’s encounter as well. The complainant thought
that the initial responding officers had underperformed in not taking appropriate
enforcement action at the time of the incident.
The investigation established that one of the officers had in fact fallen short of
expectations in terms of the diligence of his investigative efforts and documentation.
The other, meanwhile, was relatively new to the job, had deferred to the more
10 This case was not finalized for some ten months after the complaint was lodged, another
extended timeline for a relatively straightforward matter.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
17
experienced officer who took charge of the call, and had done due diligence before
being released from the scene by his colleague. Accordingly, he was exonerated of any
culpability.
As for the first officer, he was forthright in acknowledging shortcomings in his
performance and accepted responsibility. (It should also be noted that there were
significant mitigating circumstances, including some ambiguity in the complainant’s
original information to officers.)
While the Department determined that the senior officer’s performance had constituted
a violation of policy, it was ultimately not able to administer formal discipline. This is
because the case was not finalized until after the end of the one-year limitations period.
The problem partly stemmed from the two-week gap between the man’s initial complaint
and his more thorough, formal interview with an investigator; the latter date was
incorrectly relied upon. Accordingly, the Department characterized the ultimate finding
as “miscellaneous.” It was precluded from disciplining the officer, but the record of the
case nonetheless was included in his personnel file for future reference.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
This investigation file had many of the strengths of others we looked at, in terms of the
organized file, thorough interviews, and meticulous efforts to reconstruct events. The
notification letter to the complainant was also included here. Clearly, though these
attributes were overshadowed by the failure to process the completed investigation in
time to impose an appropriate disciplinary consequence. The actual discipline here
would likely have been at a minor level -- perhaps only a written reprimand and at most
a one-day suspension. The issue is therefore less about the officer’s avoiding a severe
outcome than about the ineffectiveness of the process itself.
Establishing a correct limitations date is as fundamental as any element of a functioning
discipline process. But the fact that the error in calculation was relevant at all is itself an
indication that the Department was extending the process to a detrimental extent.
Case # 7: Allegation of Intentional Provocation of Third Parties
and Other Misconduct
The complainant in this case was the newly divorced wife of a Santa Monica officer.
She contacted the Department to express concern about an incident that had occurred
approximately 12 years earlier, when she and the officer were still married. She
described being at a Christmas party attended by several SMPD officers and family
members, at which a disturbing video had been shown.
The on-duty video was taken by an officer who was not her then-husband, but it did
involve him and other members of the “Special Policing District” unit that was assigned
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
18
to the beach in Santa Monica. Per the complainant’s version of events, the video
showed a clash between two apparently homeless individuals – a male and female.
The complainant alleged that the officers had in fact goaded the two into conflict in order
to film the result for their entertainment.
The investigation was largely able to reconstruct events in spite of the passage of time.
There were records of what was apparently the incident in question – a call for service
that had involved a dispute between a male and female on the beach who knew each
other. Per the recollection of the involved officers (most of whom were still with the
agency and were interviewed as part of the investigation), the woman had defecated on
the man while he was sleeping in the sand in retaliation for his owing her money. The
officers recalled finding the man to be somewhat confused and non-desirous of officer
involvement. They remembered assisting him in cleaning up and then clearing the call.
The officers also acknowledged the accuracy of some elements of the complainant’s
story. This included the existence of the video, which one of the officers had created
with a personal recorder that he sometimes brought on patrol under his own initiative.
(The video itself was apparently no longer available.) It also included the fact of that
year’s holiday party, and the showing of the video as part of the evening’s events. They
denied, however, that the video depicted them engaging at all inappropriately with the
two principals whose conflict had generated their response to the scene. Instead, their
collective memory was that video had been shared because the situation itself was
humorously bizarre – and not because they had played a role in instigating anything.
Though the propriety of the video’s being taken in the first place, and then being shown
in a non-work context, remained open questions (to say nothing of the potential
legitimacy of the complainant’s allegations as to what it actually portrayed) the
investigation eventually became truncated by a procedural matter. This was the
realization that a sergeant had been in attendance at the party.
This individual, now retired, was interviewed for the case. He verified that he had seen
the video and was aware of its contents. This meant that, as a technical matter, the
statute of limitations for imposing discipline could be said to have begun no later than
the date of the party. From that starting point, the end of the one-year limitations period
had also long since passed. Accordingly, SMPD decided to reach no conclusions as to
the evidence with regard to any of the potential allegations.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
The Department’s “rescinding” of the case left several loose ends. In fairness to SMPD,
it should be noted that some of these were unavoidable. For example, though the
sergeant’s failure to take action with regard to the video was still potentially actionable
(since others in a position to initiate an investigation were not aware), he had retired.
Moreover, the extreme passage of time and the tension between the complainant and
her former spouse made it difficult to establish which version of the underlying call for
service was the more accurate.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
19
At the same time, the allegations – and the undisputed behavior that was related to
them – were attention-getting in a way that merited the Department’s follow-up. Even if
there was not a basis for formal disciplinary action, the administration could and should
have clarified with those involved parties that the conduct at issue reflected poorly on
the agency. Additionally, the complainant raised other concerns about more recent off-
duty conduct involving her former husband. These were peripheral to her original
complaint. To the investigator’s credit, he solicited information and sought assurance
that she was getting any assistance that she needed in handling ongoing interactions.
However, as with the main complaint, the file gave no indication of achieving resolution
or intervention as to these matters.
The distinctive circumstances of this case certainly posed challenges to the Department
with regard to fair or meaningful investigation and/or remediation. That said, there
appeared to be enough actionable information for some due diligence and a
constructive response to have occurred. We hope but have no evidence that SMPD
took advantage of this opportunity. More broadly, we encourage the Department to look
at the complaint process as an opportunity for improvement at the individual officer or
agency-wide levels, with potential that extends beyond the kind of formal accountability
measures that were precluded for this complaint. We also recommend that SMPD add
to the relevant case file documentation of any actions taken in response to complaint-
generated issues.
RECOMMENDATION 12: SMPD should work to ensure that it maximizes the
potential benefits of rigorous complaint review by addressing identified issues
through counseling, training, or other relevant non-disciplinary measures, even when
formal accountability is not appropriate or possible.
RECOMMENDATION 13: SMPD should be pro-active in responding to peripheral
concerns that emerge in the context of a complaint investigation, and should
document any resulting interventions as part of the case file.
Case # 18: Allegations of Excessive Force and Unjustified Arrest
A man was arrested after allegedly attempting to shoplift goods and then getting into an
altercation with the employee of the sunglasses store where the alleged theft had
occurred. The employee said that the man punched him in the face as he tried to block
him from leaving so he could summon police. The man ultimately became the
complainant when he was encountered by multiple SMPD officers a short time later in
response to the call for service. He claimed that the arrest had been unjustified, and
that the officers had used excessive force in the process of taking him into custody.
Certain facts were not in dispute. The man was indeed arrested on the day in question,
and three officers had engaged with him physically in an effort to place him in
handcuffs. The first two officers on scene were struggling when the third officer arrived
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
20
with his K-9 partner – which he quickly deployed in an effort to assist his colleagues.
The dog bit the man in the calf, which was a precursor to the end of the struggle and the
successful handcuffing. The bite required several staples to close.
As to whether the officers had been justified in detaining him, he did meet the
description of the suspect in the shoplifting/assault case and was proximate to the store
when officers first engaged with him.11 Moreover, the officers were consistent in their
reports that the man was confrontational and resistant from the outset, and asserted
that their struggle to get the man into handcuffs was a function of his refusal to submit.
These assertions were reportedly corroborated by body-worn camera evidence, but
there were limitations to this. One of the three involved officers did not turn on his
camera. The K-9 officer did, but arrived late to the scene and inadvertently ended up
facing in a direction that did not capture significant aspects of the bite. (Nor did his
recording establish any of the actions by the complainant that prompted the officers’
initial physical response. It did, however, show the extent of the original two officers’
difficulty in controlling the man.) The third officer reportedly did activate his camera
appropriately and to useful effect.
The deployment of the dog to assist in taking the man into custody was perhaps the
most significant aspect of the force analysis, insofar as two officers were already
“hands-on” with the subject and the resultant bite was responsible for his most
significant injury. However, the memo that summarized the case and exonerated all
three officers noted that the circumstances did fall within the permissible parameters for
“apprehension” under the operative K-9 policy.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
This investigation matched several of the strengths we saw in other cases, including a
well-organized file and a resourcefulness in gathering evidence to assess the particular
claims. While this did not feature the comprehensive interview with the complainant that
we noted in other examples, this was apparently the function of a lack of response by
the complainant subsequent to his initial outreach to the Department. the available
evidence seemed to refute the complainant’s assertions about his actions prior to being
contacted by police, and he in fact showed assaultive behavior just prior to their arrival
that is consistent with their assertions about his resistance. SMPD also disagreed with
his complaint about the “excessive” nature of the force; this too, seems to have been
supported by available evidence.
Our ability to corroborate was limited by technical difficulties with regard to one of the
videos. Beyond that, though, this proved to be another case in which the potential “pool”
of video evidence was reduced by one of the involved officer’s failure to activate his
11 The reporting party was brought to the site of the arrest and made a positive identification of
the complainant.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
21
camera in this first place. SMPD does not appear to have addressed this issue within
the investigation. While these events transpired more than three years ago, and while
we hope evolutions in policy and Department expectations have increased both
compliance and accountability, we accordingly reiterate our encouragement that SMPD
focus on this issue. In particular, we recommend the Department address such lapses
formally in the context of complaint cases, even if the issue is not a part of the
complainant’s original concerns.
While no discipline attached in this case (thereby lessening the impact of any failure to
meet the one-year deadline), we noted that the final “sign-off” for the investigation
appears to have been some thirteen months after the incident. This is consistent with
the timeliness concerns that we have cited above, and which we encourage SMPD to
address.
Conclusion
The proper investigation of public complaints is a hallmark of police agency
effectiveness. Ideally, these investigations ensure that officers are accountable for their
misconduct, that community members are confident about law enforcement legitimacy,
and that the feedback from specific incidents leads to relevant interventions for
improvement of future performance.
As explained above, our review of the most recent completed SMPD investigations
showed them to be fundamentally sound in ways that correspond to achievement of
those positive results. At the same time, we noted recurrent – and readily fixable –
issues that merit the Department’s attention; we hope our recommendations will provide
useful ideas for strengthening its approach in this important area of operations.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5495 : PSROC Reports)
Santa Monica Police Department
Office of Inspector General
INTERIM REPORT ON THE STATUS OF
IMPLEMENTATION OF OIR GROUP MAY
31, 2020 AFTER-ACTION
RECOMMENDATIONS
September 2022
Michael Gennaco
Steve Connolly
Julie Ruhlin
Teresa Magula
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
323-821-0586
7142 Trask Avenue | Playa del Rey, CA
90293
OIRGroup.com
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
Introduction
On May 11, 2021, OIR Group presented an independent After-Action report on the
events of May 31, 2020, to the Santa Monica City Council. This report included 44
recommendations to improve the City and Santa Monica Police Department’s response
to future incidents and increase transparency and accountability.
In response, the Council directed the Santa Monica Police Department (SMPD) to
report on the status of acceptance and implementation of these recommendations. The
Department provided its first response to Council on July 29, 2021, in an “Information
Item” that outlined the Department’s response to and plans to implement each of the 44
recommendations. In short, the Department reported that it had accepted all of OIR
Group’s recommendations and expressed its commitment to rebuilding trust with the
community by implementing them.
The Department also experienced changes in leadership with the appointment of a new
Chief of Police in October of 2021.
And, in the interim, the City established two new mechanisms for oversight of SMPD:
• The Public Safety Reform and Oversight Committee (PSROC) is a committee of
11 community members, appointed by the City Council to evaluate and make
recommendations regarding public safety reform and promote interaction,
collaboration, and trust between the community and SMPD.
• The Inspector General supports PSROC by reviewing, analyzing, and reporting
on policies and practices of SMPD. The City retained OIR Group as its Inspector
General.
The PSROC requested OIR Group to report on the Department’s progress of the 44
recommendations. We are pleased to report that the Department has completed 29
recommendations and is making progress toward implementation of the remaining 15.
This interim report will discuss the recommendations and outline the Department’s
progress to date.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
2 | P a g e
Recommendation Overview
OIR Group’s 44 recommendations covered various topics, including:
• Department leadership considerations
• Policy changes or updates
• Necessary training
• Technology updates
• Review and accountability mechanisms
• Community engagement
Of these, some were immediately actionable by Department personnel, such as adding
new language to its crowd dispersal order, while others required longer-term
considerations or actions by the Department, such as development and delivery of
training. Still others required collaboration and feedback from external parties, such as
other City agencies like Public Works or the City Attorney, or from the community at
large.
Audit Findings
As noted above, the Department committed to implementation of all 44
recommendations. While the Department self-reported significant progress in its initial
report to Council, our charge was to validate that progress through the review of related
materials that supported completion of each item.
To that end, we met with various “subject matter experts” from the Department who
provided extensive information for our review. After reviewing this evidence, our review
found that:
• 29 of the recommendations have been completed by the Department
• 15 of the recommendations are in progress
The audited recommendations are listed below by category. OIR Group’s specific
findings regarding each recommendation follow the summary table.
Planning and Intelligence Recommendations
Several of the recommendations were related to intelligence, planning, and
communication lapses identified in the OIR Group report. To address many of these
recommendations, the Department created a formal “Planning and Intelligence Cadre”
within the Professional Services Division in October of 2020. The Cadre is considered
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
3 | P a g e
as collateral duty1 for 15 members, who schedule shifts to constantly monitor
intelligence sources, such as social media, and create Incident Command plans for
planned events.2 These recommendations and their status are summarized in the table
below.
1 “Collateral duty” means an assignment that personnel take on or are assigned in addition to
their regular duties. Because SMPD is a smaller agency, many officers take on one or more
collateral duties. This is commendable but can also lead to burn-out as officers take on multiple
roles and responsibilities. And we advise that the Department carefully consider assignments to
roles that might conflict; for example, a member of the Planning and Intelligence Cadre is also a
highly-trained member of SWAT. When he is assigned to Intelligence during an event, he does
not respond to the field with his team.
2 The Department plans to reduce the size of this Cadre and place it under the direction of new
command staff. The Department contends that a smaller size will allow for closer collaboration,
better communication, and more specific responsibilities among Cadre members.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
4 | P a g e
Rec # Recommendation Policy or Evidence Status
2
The Chief of Police should make clear
to the Department and City leadership
when they will be out of town and
clearly designate an Acting Chief in her
or his absence.
204.5 - Electronic
Mail
701 - Personal
Communication
Devices Completed
3
SMPD should develop written protocols
to ensure that an operations plan is
developed in advance of all potential
crowd control situations, establishing
expectations for the depth and inclusion
as well as a chain of command
approval mechanism.
433.5 - Planned
Event Preparation
Ops Plans are
prepared routinely
now; length and
detail are
determined by the
nature of the event Completed
4
SMPD should develop written protocols
to ensure timely and thoughtful
designation of an incident commander
for special operations.
433.5.2 -
Operational Plans.
IC designation is
part of new plans.
Rank depends on
nature of event,
scope, etc. Completed
5
SMPD should ensure that critical
personnel, including those tasked with
intelligence gathering and other crucial
functions, remain in the City prior to a
major incident and are not sent out as
part of a mutual aid response or
otherwise assigned supplementary
duties.
Intelligence Cadre
schedule in place to
show who is
responsible at each
time of day. That
person does not
report out to field
even if part of their
regular duties. Completed
6
SMPD should establish a dedicated
listserv with “read receipt” functionality
for command to receive intelligence
briefings in a formal and timely manner
and confirm receipt of such information.
Reviewed and
discussed. Completed
26
SMPD should consider who from
command-level staff will take on the
role of Overall Field Incident Command
if the Civil Unrest Annex is activated
and train this/these personnel on the
requirements and expectations of the
plan.
Reviewed ICS
plans; overview from
Intelligence/Planning
Cadre Completed
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
5 | P a g e
27
City leadership, in collaboration with
Public Works, should consider
determining guidelines for use of
barriers in advance of civil unrest, both
protective fencing on public and private
property and for traffic control, that are
practicable and effective.
Reviewed plans
from Public Works Completed
28
City leadership, in collaboration with
Public Works, should consider
establishing guidelines for use of heavy
equipment to support defensive
enforcement action.
Reviewed plans
from Public Works Completed
29
SMPD leadership should work with
Area A partners to develop solutions to
address the bureaucratic challenges
exposed on May 31 and ensure an
equitable distribution of National Guard
assets in future situations involving civil
unrest.
Reviewed currently
used ICS and Ops
Plans showing
advanced calls to
Area A partners. Completed
30
SMPD should reach out to other law
enforcement agencies who confronted
violence and looting in the summer of
2020 and review after action reports
from other jurisdictions to identify best
practices that could be imported to
Santa Monica in responses to future
protest activity.
Reviewed and
discussed. Completed
33
The City and SMPD should continue to
evaluate and refine the ways it
communicates with the Santa Monica
community following any significant
event involving a police response,
guided by principles of transparency,
accuracy and objectivity.
Crisis
Communication
Plan;
Community
Conversation;
Coffee with a Cop
series In Progress
Recommendation 2 deals with communication for intelligence and planning. It requires
that the Chief designate and communicate, via email, an Acting Chief. The Department
provided an example of an email whereby such a designation was made. SMPD now
has the appropriate policy and procedures in place. We consider this recommendation
to be completed.3
As detailed in the table above, the majority of these Planning and Intelligence
recommendations relate to essential aspects of incident planning and command. The
3 Of course, as with any changed protocol or policy, continued adherence to those written
expectations rest with SMPD.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
6 | P a g e
Department provided us with exemplar Operational Plans created and used for various
recent events. These included plans for spontaneous events, such as the possibility of
unrest after the Derek Chauvin verdict in April of 2021, and plans for pre-planned
events, such as an anti-vaccination rally. The Department also provided a plan for a
day when multiple events were scheduled to show how resources were assigned to
different locations in the City (namely, a pro-Ukraine rally and a Human Rights rally in
February of 2022). Finally, the Department provided a plan based on intelligence
gathered by the Cadre from social media (posts related to possible looting in the City).
We found these plans, and related written policies, to be responsive to the
recommendations as follow:
Recommendation 3 recommends written protocols to ensure that operations plans are
developed. These protocols are now explicitly listed in the Department Policy 433.5,
“Planned Event Preparation.” The Department reported and the sample plans
exemplified that Operations Plans are now prepared routinely. These plans range in
length and detail from formal FEMA Incident Command Structure (ICS) plans, which are
extremely detailed and include external agencies, to “Event Action Plans” (EAPs) that
cover SMPD-specific deployment, such as identification of an incident commander, a
briefing, the mission/objectives, communication, location of Command Post, necessary
equipment, and assigned personnel. We consider this recommendation to be
completed.
Recommendation 4 recommends written protocols to ensure designation of an incident
commander. These protocols are now explicitly listed in Department Policy 433.5.2,
“Operational Plans.” Here, the designation of “Incident Commander” is explicitly
required. The Department shared that the rank of the assigned Incident Commander
will vary depending on the nature and scope of event. We consider this
recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 5 recommends that individuals tasked with intelligence gathering
remain in the City. The Department shared their current Intelligence Cadre scheduling
matrix, which assigns members to the Intelligence function on a rotating basis. The
assigned personnel, regardless of his/her regular duties, does not report to the field.
Anecdotally, a sergeant from the Cadre who also serves on the SWAT team shared a
recent time when he was assigned to the Intelligence Cadre at a time when the SWAT
team was called out; he did not deploy with his team but remained in the Intelligence
function. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 6 asked the Department to consider “read receipts” for all
intelligence briefings. The Department reported that they did implement this
functionality for several months. However, it created two challenges: first, a large
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
7 | P a g e
volume of “read receipt” emails were generated, clogging the inboxes of those who sent
them; second, the relative importance of the intelligence briefing was diminished over
time. The Department advised that as a result of these difficulties, it currently limits the
“read receipt” functionality for intelligence briefings of high importance. OIR Group will
continue to monitor this recommendation and how/when intelligence briefings are rated
as “high importance.” We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 26 recommended that SMPD consider who would be assigned to
Overall Field Command if the City’s Civil Unrest Annex is activated. The Department
provided sample plans showing that specific command level staff were assigned to the
Incident Commander role in advance, and that a back-up “on-call” commander was also
defined if the Civil Unrest Annex were to be implemented. We consider this
recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 27 was one of two recommendations (along with Recommendation
28, below) that directed to City leadership to address some of the Department’s
challenges in collaborating with Public Works; Recommendation 27 specifically
requested that the City, in collaboration with the Department, determine guidelines for
use of barriers in advance of civil unrest, both protective fencing on public and private
property and for traffic control, that are practicable and effective. Public Works reported
that, for every City-wide event, the “Unified Command” (Office of Emergency
Management, Public Works, Fire, and Police) collaborates to prepare an Event Action
Plan in which each department details their responsibilities. We reviewed these
documents outlining assignments of personnel and resources in advance of possible
unrest associated with the trial of Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis and saw evidence of
the type of planning and advance coordination needed to mitigate the type of harms
experienced on May 31st. In the plans for these incidents, Public Works committed to
providing K-rails for barricading, boarding up facilities, performing traffic control, and
cleaning up after the events. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 28 specifically recommended that the City, in collaboration with the
Department, should consider establishing guidelines for use of heavy equipment to
support defensive enforcement action. Here again we reviewed the Event Action Plans
for four events. Public Works committed to providing fleet disposal vehicles (that may
be used for barricading) and emergency activation vehicles from Public Works that may
be used for barricading as a last resort. We consider this recommendation to be
completed.
Further, the Department’s response to Recommendations 27 and 28 acknowledged
the need for greater collaboration to obtain resources and access to Public Works
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
8 | P a g e
equipment for use in incidents of civil unrest. This was evidenced in the collaborative
nature of the Event Action Plans reviewed.
Recommendation 29 recommended that leadership work with Area A partners to
develop solutions to any bureaucratic challenges related to equitable resource
deployment. The Department reported that these meetings have occurred, with more
planned for the future. We reviewed the newest Area A Mutual Aid agreement and
found it to be sufficient. The Department also showed currently used ICS and smaller-
scale Ops Plans where Area A partners had been called in advance of operations so
that mutual aid was “at the ready” in case of need. We consider this recommendation to
be completed.
Recommendation 30 recommended that the Department reach out to other law
enforcement agencies to review After-Action Reports. The Department reported that it
collected and reviewed the After-Action Reports from the New York, Los Angeles, and
Chicago Police Departments and the Portland Police Bureau. We consider this
recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 33 recommended that the Department work with the City to continue
to evaluate and refine communication. The Department reported that this
recommendation is in progress. While they have established a Crisis Communication
Plan and re-engaged with community through sessions such as “Coffee with a Cop,” the
Department acknowledged that there is more to do with regard to transparency. In an
effort to increase transparency, the Department reported that it is actively seeking to
make more information available to the public on their Department website. Like other
agencies, SMPD would like to post real-time dashboards with data on calls for service,
uses of force, complaints, OIR reports, and other categories of interest. We highly
support this effort as it directly ties to Recommendation 33 and the increased need for
transparency. We consider this recommendation to be in progress.
Training Recommendations
The training recommendations varied from Department-wide to command-level, and
SMPD has responded by providing training to personnel, both that which is required by
Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) and developed in-house to respond to
specific needs. These recommendations and their status are summarized in the table
below.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
9 | P a g e
Rec # Recommendation
Policy or
Evidence Status
13
SMPD should conduct regular and
ongoing training on use of impact
munitions in crowd situations so that all
officers trained in the use of these
munitions are advised of how to most
effectively deploy them and have a clear
understanding of Departmental
expectations.
Training
documents &
Attendance log Completed
16
Training for supervisors on unlawful
assembly should emphasize the need to
follow Department policy and reach out to
event organizers or participants with the
goal of gaining voluntary dispersal prior to
issuing formal dispersal orders.
Training
documents &
Attendance log Completed
19
SMPD should continue to impress upon its
supervisors the need to follow all dispersal
order protocols before any introduction of
less lethal munitions.
433, First
Amendment
Assemblies Completed
21
SMPD should continue to provide
command level staff with updated training
on the ICS so that command staff is
knowledgeable about its use and benefits.
Training
documents Completed
22
SMPD should ensure that all command
staff personnel are well versed in
contemporary crowd control responses,
particularly in the First Amendment
context.
Training
documents, list
of organizations Completed
23
SMPD should continue to regularly train all
officers in Mobile Field Force tactics, to
include the newest techniques with live,
hand-on scenario training and new laws
related to First Amendment Assemblies
and civil unrest.
"SMPD Training
Announcement,"
SMPD April
2021 Training
Curriculum In Progress
24
SMPD should consider additional
Department-wide trainings on topics such
as use of de-escalation techniques and
other tactics to reduce tension in civil
unrest or other similar scenarios.
Training
documents &
Attendance log In Progress
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
10 | P a g e
25
City leadership (specifically, the Office of
Emergency Management) should hold a
City-wide training event with all relevant
City agencies to review the Civil Unrest
Annex so that all agencies are aware of
their role and expectations during times of
spontaneous civil unrest. In Progress
36
SMPD should complete the two
Department-wide training items identified
in the Internal Review Board memo related
to uses of force on May 31: (1) review of
body-worn camera policy and (2) review of
the Department use of force reporting
policy.
"Training
Bulletin: Body
Worn Cameras"
425, Portable
Audio/Video
Recorders Completed
37
SMPD should develop and deliver on-
going Department-wide training related to
documenting and reporting use of force in
civil unrest situations or other large-scale
incidents, and incorporate body-worn
camera procedures and use of force
reporting into all department tactical
training.
Scribe position
assigned and
tested In Progress
38
SMPD should remind all officers – in daily
briefings, a Department-wide training or a
Training Bulletin, and specifically in
briefings prior to any protest activity – of
the requirement to activate their body-
worn camera generally per policy and
during crowd control incidents in specific.
"Training
Bulletin: Body
Worn Camera" Completed
42
SMPD should review its systems for
supporting officer wellness, including the
availability of counselors and other
professionals, and should consider ways
to encourage officers to take advantage of
those programs who may be struggling
with the trauma of the events of May 31
and other events of the past year.
Wellness
presentation Completed
Recommendation 13 recommends regular and ongoing training on the use of impact
munitions in crowd situations. The Department responded by recruiting and training a
new Mobile Field Force “cadre,” to join and supplement its Use of Force Cadre. These
Cadres serve two functions.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
11 | P a g e
• Deployment. These specialized units deploy to incidents and calls for service
where their specific skill-sets are needed (for example, members of the Use of
Force Cadre are trained and certified in use of certain less lethal munitions).
• Train-the-trainer. Members regularly attend specialized instructor-level training
sessions offered nationwide, such as the “Less Lethal and Chemical Agents”
training from the National Tactical Officers Association (September 8, 2020) and
a “Lessons Learned” presentation from a nationwide expert about the 2020 civil
unrest (Winter 2021). Once certified as trainers, the officers train the Department
personnel in-house.
Using the “train-the-trainer” model, Department then delivers training to personnel at all
levels related to use of less-lethal impact munitions in its on-going Advanced Officer
Training detailed below (see Recommendations 23). We received and reviewed
anticipated and current course outlines for these topics and found them to be aligned
with current best-practices related to these topics. We consider this recommendation to
be completed.
We did identify one area of possible concern in a 2011 training outline from the National
Tactical Officers Association, which discussed firing “skip rounds” into the crowd, noting
that it is “difficult to control skip shots.” When asked, the SMPD Training Division
responded that the Winter 2021 training did not advise use of any skip rounds. Further,
SMPD Training Division reported that SMPD does not have any less-lethal munitions
that are intended for use as “skip rounds” – commonly called “wood batons” or “foam” --
in their current less-lethal inventory nor do they train officers to skip fire any type of
munition off of the ground.
Recommendation 16 recommended that the Department train supervisors in the need
for reach out to event organizers or participants in advance of dispersal orders. First, we
saw this requirement in the “Crowd Management and Intervention Control Strategies”
matrix, a training document related to Policy 433, “First Amendment Assemblies,” that
lists the different actions to be taken, step by step, when managing a crowd event.
(e.g., “use organizers and monitors to gain voluntary compliance” is one step in the
matrix). We also saw this in practice: several of the example Operation Plans listed
above (see Planning and Intelligence) had contact information for organizers and/or a
designated “Liaison Officer” and Public Information Officer role. The Department also
covered the topic in MFF training and in the Advanced Officer Training detailed later
(see Recommendation 23, below). We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 19 recommended that the Department continue to train supervisors
on the need to follow all dispersal order protocols prior to deployment of less lethal
munitions. In addition to including this language explicitly in Policy 433, “First
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
12 | P a g e
Amendment Assemblies,” the Department also covered the topic in MFF training and in
the Advanced Officer Training detailed later (see Recommendation 23, below). We
consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 21 recommended that the Department continue to provide command
level staff with updated training on the ICS so that command staff is knowledgeable
about its use and benefits. The Department reported that it directed all command level
personnel, sergeants and above, to attend Incident Command training sessions offered
in the Los Angeles area and taught by FEMA and the Los Angeles Police and Fire
Departments. It also recommended that command staff become members in national
organizations; the Department reported that command staff are members of
organizations such as the California Police Officers’ Association (CPOA), the California
Police Chiefs Association (CPCA), Peace Officers Research Association of California
(PORAC), Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), The International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Tactical Officers Association (NTOA). We consider
this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 22 recommended that the Department ensure that all command staff
personnel are well versed in contemporary crowd control responses, particularly in the
First Amendment context. Here again, the Department reported that all command staff
attend the Incident Command training sessions regularly, where contemporary crowd
management responses are trained and discussed. Membership in national
organizations (see Recommendation 21, above) and participation in their respective
conferences will further their training. We consider this recommendation to be
completed.
Recommendation 23 was the most directly relevant to the May 31st unrest and
recommended delivery of Department-wide Mobile Field Force (MFF) training. This
training was delivered in-person June of 2020 and April of 2021 to 126 officers.4 We
reviewed the training deck and found the materials to be a refresher on basic MFF
definitions, crowd management concepts, and formations. These are consistent with
modern-day best-practices but are very basic, and further training is scheduled to
expand on the concepts.
The Department has also committed to providing on-going Mobile Field Force training to
all personnel during its regular, two-year “Advanced Officer Training” cycle beginning in
2023. This commitment ensures that personnel will have continued and up-to-date
training on a regular basis. We will review these training materials when they are
available to ensure that they fully cover modern-day crowd management tactics. In
4 The Department provided attendance logs for these and all relevant training sessions so that
we could confirm that the appropriate personnel had, in fact, received training.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
13 | P a g e
particular, we recommend that the Department train on acceptable uses of force in the
crowd control context; this was not explicitly trained in the June 2020 and April 2021
training sessions.5 While the general use of force policy applies to all situations, a
refresher for use in crowd management is advisable. Because this training has not yet
occurred, we deem Recommendation 23 to be in progress.
Recommendation 24, which recommended Department-wide training on topics such
as de-escalation, is also in progress. The Department plans to train on these topics in
upcoming training cycles. Because this training has not yet occurred and we have not
reviewed materials, we deem this recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 25 recommended that City leadership conduct a City-wide training
event on the Civil Unrest Annex. The Department reported that the Office of
Emergency Management (OEM) held this training in October of 2020, but we did not
receive information to review regarding this training. As such, we consider this
recommendation to be in progress until we receive more information from City and OEM
leadership.
Recommendation 36 recommended completing two actions items that emerged from
the Department’s own Internal Review Board of the May 31st incident: review of the
body-worn camera policy and review of the use of force reporting policy. As we also
stated in Recommendation 38, below, the Department issued a Department-wide
Training Bulletin regarding the body-worn camera policy and the requirement to
activate. We encourage the Department to frequently reference this Training Bulletin in
shift briefings and especially in advance of any deployment to major incidents. We
consider this recommendation to be completed.
And, as we detail in Recommendation 37, below, the Department is currently training
officers in the use of force reporting policy. The Department also updated its use of
force policy, Policy 303, to require that all uses of force, including those that occur
during civil unrest, be accurately reported before the end of an officer’s shift (see
Training, Recommendations 34 and 35).
As such, we consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 37 recommended that the Department develop and deliver training
on documenting uses of force in civil unrest. The Department reported that this
recommendation is in progress. The Department reported that it assigned the role of
“scribe” to two civilian personnel. In addition to documenting uses of force and counting
expended munitions (e.g., canisters), the scribe also documents items of importance,
5 Recent changes in state law, have also placed limitations on the use of less lethal munitions in
crowd control situations; SMPD should also be trained on the new state law requirements.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
14 | P a g e
such as the time and location of dispersal orders and conversations by command staff
and supervisors. The Department has successfully used scribes in all the recent
deployments listed above.
However, this new role has not been codified in any policy or procedure. We
recommend that the Department formalize this role by including it in the relevant
procedure (e.g., its “Use of Force” and/or its “First Amendment Assemblies” policies).
We also recommend that the Department create and formalize a training program for
this position to ensure that every assigned individual understands the role, purpose, and
implementation of the scribe position.
The Department also plans on training personnel to verbalize all force deployments on
body-worn cameras when in crowd management incidents (see Recommendation 23 on
Advanced Officer Training). Officers are trained to verbally identify their intended target,
the subject’s actions that necessitate force, and the outcome.6 This direction, and the
reminder to activate the body-worn camera, is also included in all new Operations
Plans.
We were not provided specific lesson plans that included this training. We look forward
to reviewing these materials as they are developed by the Department.
Because these are on-going developments with more work to be done, we consider this
recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 38 recommends regular and frequent reminders to activate body-
worn cameras, especially before deployment to crowd management incidents, the
Department issued a Department-wide Training Bulletin regarding the body-worn
camera policy and the requirement to activate. We encourage the Department to
frequently reference this Training Bulletin in shift briefings and especially in advance of
any deployment to major incidents. The Department agrees, and informed us that it is
including the body-worn camera reminder in its Operations Plans. We consider this
recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 42 acknowledged the impact of the events of 2020 on officers’
wellbeing and recommended that the Department evaluate its systems for supporting
officer wellness. The Department has had a Peer Support Program for over 20 years,
supplemented and supported by psychologists and chaplains, to help personnel
process trauma and other job-related stressors. Following May 31, 2020, and on its
one-year anniversary, the Peer Support Team hosted “group stress debriefs” facilitated
6 For example, an officer might state, “the man in the red shirt with a black backpack is actively
throwing rocks at the skirmish line. I am deploying one 40mm round. It struck the man on the
torso and he fled.”
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
15 | P a g e
by licensed professionals. There has been a significant increase in the number of
personnel utilizing services from both the Peer Team and licensed professionals since
2020, and the Peer Support Team membership itself has grown by 20% each year.
These are positive and worthy responses to the trauma and stress of a difficult year, but
the Department has also sought to take a more proactive approach that looks toward
preventing harmful stress responses. In 2020, it created a new Wellness Team that
pairs the Peer Support Program with a broader initiative to promote a “culture of
wellness” that addresses emotional and mental health as an officer safety issue. We
had the opportunity to meet with the Sergeant who leads the Wellness Team and were
impressed by his approach to these issues and his passion for delivering his message
to the rest of the Department. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Finally, while not tied to any particular recommendation, we also noted that the
Department has implemented new technology to track and report on personnel training
status. This technology ensures that officers comply with training requirements,
including all in-house training such as Roll Call Briefings. It also allows the Department
to accurately report out statistics related to training, as they did for our review. We
commend the Training Sergeant for identifying the need for, and implementing, this
technology.
Policy Recommendations
Seven recommendations related directly to changes and/or updates to Department
policies. The Department reported, and we confirmed, that it has updated their current
policies and drafted new language to align with the recommendations. We detail the
updates and policy modifications as they pertain to each recommendation below this
table.
Rec # Recommendation
Policy or
Evidence Status
7
The Department should regularly review
and update its Mass Booking Procedures
policy to ensure that the listed contact
information and location and availability of
all itemized equipment is current and
correct.
901.11, Training
and Policy
Section
901.12 Policy
Review Completed
11
SMPD should revise its use of force
policies to either specially define “riotous”
or eliminate the terminology from its
policies.
433, First
Amendment
Assemblies Completed
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
16 | P a g e
Rec # Recommendation
Policy or
Evidence Status
12
SMPD should amend its policy to provide
further guidance regarding deployment of
less lethal munitions, particularly to guard
against injuries to the face and head.
303, Control
Devices and
Techniques Completed
17
In crafting dispersal orders to instruct
crowds about the routes of egress from a
protest, SMPD policy and training should
require officers to consider conditions such
as traffic and officer deployment to ensure
the feasibility and safety of any direction
provided about dispersal routes.
433, First
Amendment
Assemblies Completed
18
SMPD policy and training regarding
dispersal orders should be revised to
require personnel officers to include
express warnings about the potential use
of force should the order be defied.
Dispersal order
cards Completed
34
SMPD should develop and approve a use
of force reporting policy/procedure
requiring officers to document force used
in civil unrest situations, or any
circumstance where the subject of a use of
force cannot be identified, and make clear
that in crowd control situations, officers are
expected to document all reportable force,
including each deployment of less lethal
munitions.
303, Use of
Force Completed
35
SMPD should revise its force reporting
policy to require that all documentation of
use of force be completed prior to an
officer completing her/his shift and entrust
supervisors to enforcement of this policy.
303, Use of
Force Completed
Recommendation 7 recognized the new policy on Mass Booking Procedures, Policy
901, the Department created and implemented in the months after May 31, 2020 (and
well before the OIR Group report). The written procedures are commendably detailed,
including requirements like obtaining contact information and itemized lists of
equipment, and our recommendation focused on the need regularly update the policy to
account for changes. The Department asserts in its response that the policy will be
reviewed every two years. The Department’s commitment to regular review, and
assignment of the task to a particular officer responsible for police and procedures
updates in the Personnel and Training Unit (within the Professional Standards Section),
is sufficient to consider this recommendation to be completed.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
17 | P a g e
Recommendation 11 recommended revising the use of force policy to either
specifically define “riotous” or remove the word. We reviewed Policies 303 and 433,
“Use of Force” and “First Amendment Assemblies,” and confirm that the Department
removed the word “riotous” and replace it with “civil unrest.” We consider this
recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 12 recommended providing further guidance on deployment of less
lethal munitions. We reviewed Policy 303 and found that the Department updated the
target areas that “shall be avoided” to include the spine and groin. We consider this
recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 17 recommends that the Department update its Dispersal Order
policy to include information about safe routes of egress. We reviewed Procedure
433.0.3, First Amendment Assemblies – Santa Monica Dispersal Order, and found that
the new policy, and the related “Dispersal Order Card,” includes this language. We
consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 18 recommends that the Department update its Dispersal Order
policy to include warnings about the possible use of and injury from less-lethal
munitions. We reviewed Procedure 433.0.3, First Amendment Assemblies – Santa
Monica Dispersal Order, and found that the new policy, and the related “Dispersal Order
Card,” includes this language. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 34 recommends development of a use of force reporting
policy/procedure. The Department updated Procedure 303, Use of Force, to require
that officers document and report all uses of force in all situations, including civil unrest.
We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 35 recommends revising the reporting policy to require that all force
reports must be completed before the officer’s end of shift. The Department updated
Procedure 303, Use of Force, to require that officers document and report all uses of
force before their end of shift. Further, supervisors are required to complete their
reviews of force reports before the end of the work week.
We discussed the related practical application of use of force reporting and tracking in
Training, above. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Accountability, Audit and Oversight Recommendations
Eight recommendations related to issues of accountability, on-going auditing, or
oversight. These are summarized in the following table, and individually discussed
below the table.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
18 | P a g e
Rec # Recommendation
Policy or
Evidence Status
8
SMPD should develop a tracking
mechanism, such as a log for less lethal
munitions, specifically to track how many
of which types of munitions are used and
by whom.
303, Control
Devices and
Techniques In Progress
9
SMPD should examine the use of the
flashbang device on May 31 through the
lenses of accountability, advisability, and
remediation.
303, Control
Devices and
Techniques Completed
10
SMPD should conduct a detailed analysis
regarding whether the Pepperball
deployments on May 31 were consistent
with Department policy and expectations.
Training Docs &
Attendance log In Progress
39
SMPD should identify and consider
appropriate remediation for those officers
who failed to comply with the Department’s
body-worn camera policy on May 31,
2020.
IRB process
under
consideration Completed
40
SMPD should regularly audit body-worn
camera use by officers to ensure that
policy requirements and expectations are
being met in the field regarding activation.
425.10, Review
of Recordings In Progress
41
SMPD should conduct and document a
meaningful administrative review of
officers’ uses of force following civil unrest
situations or other large-scale incidents
and should consider “investigative referral”
of specific uses of force that may be out of
policy or require specific remedial action.
IRB process
under
consideration In Progress
43
The City should request that SMPD
prepare a response to this report indicating
the degree to which it accepts each of the
recommendations made and setting out a
plan for implementation. Completed
44
The City should develop a plan for
independent evaluation and public
reporting on the status of SMPD’s
implementation of the recommendations.
OIR Group
Interim Report Completed
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
19 | P a g e
Recommendation 8 recommended an on-going tracking mechanism for less lethal
munitions. As we detailed above in both the Training and Policy sections, the
Department reported that it now includes a scribe function in all crowd management
deployments. One function of the scribe is to document uses of force. And, to the
extent possible, the scribe will collect and count expended less-lethal cartridges. While
this somewhat addresses the recommendation in practice (assuming it is used
effectively), we found that the Department has not yet documented/defined the new role
in policy or procedure.
As a result of Assembly Bill 481, a state-wide law that requires all law enforcement
agencies to publish a full account of their military weapons, the Department recently
conducted a comprehensive inventory of current munitions and developed a new policy
for reporting use and inventory annually that, per statute, requires City Council approval.
The consideration by Council is pending.
The Department also reported that it is developing a worksheet for officers to
individually count munitions in their own inventory to better track what each officer
carries into the field.
Because these items are still in development, we consider this recommendation to be in
progress.
Recommendation 9 recommended that the use of the flashbang device on May 31st be
reviewed. The Department reported that the officer who used the device was
immediately counseled in the field; we observed this “counseling” on body-worn camera
footage of the day. More importantly with an eye to the future, the Department updated
Procedure 303 to prohibit the use of flashbangs (also known as noise-flash distraction
devices, or NFDD) on persons in a crowd.
While we would have preferred a more formal remediation for use of the device, as we
detail in our discussion of Recommendation 41, below, we consider this
recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 10 recommended that the Department conduct a detailed analysis of
Pepperball deployments on May 31st. To date, we have not received any such analysis
so consider this recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 41 is also a work in progress. We recommended that the
Department conduct a “meaningful administrative review” of all force used on May 31st.
In our original report, we commented that the findings of the Internal Review Board
(IRB) held by the Department after May 31st, were too broad and lacked accountability
for officers’ specific actions.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
20 | P a g e
The Department reported that upon receiving our recommendation, it conducted a
secondary review of all available body-worn camera footage. After that review, the
Department informally reported to OIR Group that it did not observe any incidents on
May 31st that rose to the level of misconduct. To date, the Department has not provided
any documentation of this secondary review to OIR Group but has committed to
evaluating May 31st uses of force.
But perhaps the more important aspect today is the Department’s commitment to its IRB
process, a process that is designed to hold officers accountable for their actions,
whether the “accountability” is formal discipline, directed training, or documented
counseling. Department leadership reported that it is currently working to reform the
IRB process. These updates will ensure that the Department has an adequate
“feedback loop” to ensure that their recommended actions were taken and create a
more robust review system.
Because this is an on-going process, we consider these recommendations to be in
progress.
Recommendation 39 recommended “appropriate remediation” for officers who failed to
activate their body-worn cameras. The Department reported that the remediation was
training. And, as described in Recommendation 38 in Training, the Department
completed this training Department-wide. While it would have been preferrable for the
Department to direct training for the specific officers who failed to activate their body-
worn cameras on May 31st, we consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 40 recommended regular audits of body-worn cameras. The
Department reported that, per its existing policy (425.10, “Review of Recordings”)
supervisors are required to conduct monthly, random body-worn camera audits.
Unfortunately, the Department does not currently have a system in place to verify that
supervisors are conducting these audits on a regular basis. The Department was
candid in its admission that it could do better on this score, while also asserting that
supervisors are regularly viewing body-worn video in their review of force incidents or
public complaints.
New technology – an equipment upgrade of the body-worn camera itself to a new model
and of Department technology systems that the Department’s technology officer
demonstrated for OIR Group – will enhance the ability to audit and review body-worn
camera footage. When the new systems are fully functioning, the Department will have
a mechanism to easily and formally confirm that supervisors are performing regular
audits in accordance with SMPD policy. We noted that the Department is ahead of
other jurisdictions in technology enhancements, especially those related to body-worn
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
21 | P a g e
cameras. We consider this recommendation to be in progress and look forward to
reviewing the Department’s new systems when they are in place.
Recommendation 43 recommended that SMPD prepare a response to our May 31st
Report, indicate the degree to which it accepted each of the recommendations made,
and set out a plan for implementation. This recommendation was completed by
creation and presentation of the Information Item delivered in July 2021 and by
collaborating on this public report. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 44 recommended that the City develop a plan for independent
evaluation and public reporting on the status of SMPD’s implementation of the
recommendations. That has been fulfilled by this document – a useful starting point for
our work on this report, and for our ongoing validation efforts. We consider this
recommendation to be completed.
Community Engagement Recommendations
Four of the recommendations required that the Department seek community input
regarding decisions on use of tear gas, declaration of an unlawful assembly, use of
curfews, and communication. Department leadership reported that it is actively seeking
a Project Manager to manage the community engagement aspect of these
recommendations so that the community is given an opportunity to collaborate and
provide insight.
Rec # Recommendation
Policy or
Evidence Status
14
SMPD should engage with its community
and City leaders to determine whether and
to what degree gas and other less lethal
munitions should be used in the First
Amendment activity context. In Progress
15
After having the above discourse, SMPD
should revise its use of force policy related
to deployment of tear gas and less lethal
impact munitions in crowd control
situations to specify the circumstances, if
any, under which they may be used.
303, Control
Devices and
Techniques In Progress
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
22 | P a g e
20
SMPD and the City should engage with
the community as it considers the
circumstances required for a public protest
to be declared an unlawful assembly. The
resulting guidelines should be publicized in
a way that provides City residents and
stakeholders a clear understanding of
under what circumstances the SMPD will
declare an unlawful assembly. In Progress
32
The City should engage with its community
in developing guidelines on whether and
how curfews should be deployed,
particularly when adjacent to First
Amendment protected activity. In Progress
Recommendation 14 recommended that the Department engage with its community
and City leaders to determine whether and to what degree gas and other less lethal
munitions should be used in the First Amendment activity context. The Department
reported that it is currently working to retain a community engagement
specialist/facilitator who will manage this community outreach/conversation process.
We consider this recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 15 recommended that, after completing the community engagement
listed in Recommendation 14, the Department should revise its use of force policy to
incorporate the community’s feedback, specifically as it relates to deployment of tear
gas and less lethal impact munitions in crowd control situations; we note that the
Department has already made some revisions to the related policies (see
Recommendations 11, 12, 17, and 18), but the community outreach piece has not yet
occurred. The Department expressed its commitment to further revisions and, again, is
in the process of retaining a facilitator to manage the outreach process. We consider
this recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 20 recommended that the Department and the City should engage
with the community as it considers the circumstances required for a public protest to be
declared an unlawful assembly and publicize the resulting guidelines in a way that
provides City residents and stakeholders a clear understanding of under what
circumstances the SMPD will declare an unlawful assembly. The Department
expressed its commitment to creating these guidelines in collaboration with the City
Attorney’s Office, PSROC, and the community. The Department reported that, here,
too, it will use the facilitator to manage the community outreach process, which is the
first step to this recommendation. We consider this recommendation to be in progress.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
23 | P a g e
Recommendation 32 recommended that the Department engage with its community in
developing guidelines on whether and how curfews should be deployed, particularly
when adjacent to First Amendment protected activity. The Department reported that the
City Attorney’s Office is also participating in completion of this recommendation by
conducting outreach and legal research on the topic of curfews. Here again, the
Department plans on using their community outreach facilitator, when hired, to help
complete this recommendation. We consider this recommendation to be in progress
until we receive more information from the City Attorney’s Office and the Department.
While community engagement specifically applies to these four listed recommendations,
the Department may choose to elicit community input on other items as well.
Next Steps
We appreciate the progress that SMPD has made in implementing the 44
recommendations and look forward to receiving additional information regarding
implementation of the outstanding recommendations as it becomes available.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5495 : PSROC Reports)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Darlene <de.mlkwc@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 15, 2022 12:38 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Comment on Agenda Item 13A
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I applaud the work of the PSROC contained in their reports, and request council to review and approve the
Recommendations contained in their reports.
Darlene Evans
Item 13.A 11/15/22
1 of 2 Item 13.A 11/15/22
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Written Comment (5495 : PSROC Reports)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Natalya Zernitskaya <nzernitskaya@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 15, 2022 3:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Lana
Negrete; David White; Attorney Mailbox
Subject:City Council Meeting 11/15/2022- Agenda Item 13A Public Comments
EXTERNAL
Good Afternoon Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and City Councilmembers,
I am grateful for the Council's approval to form the City's Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission and look
forward to your continued support of independent civilian oversight to strengthen our civilian community's relationships
with our public safety organizations and officers.
I urge you to continue supporting the work of the PSROC by thoughtfully reviewing their report and taking the necessary
action to adopt the commission's recommendations as laid out in Attachment A to the agenda item including the
following:
"1. Eliminate officer discretion in the use of body cams when witnesses who are victims to a crime are involved.
2. Implement all proposed reforms proposed in the Inspector General’s report on complaints and processes.
3. Require all complaint investigations to be processed, investigated, and brought to completion within 90 days.
4. Require all SMPD officer misconduct be investigated fully irrespective of how the misconduct is discovered.
5. Implement all recommendations in the OIR Group’s After Action Report concerning the events of May 2020."
Thank you for your continued focus on this incredibly important topic.
Best Regards,
Natalya
Natalya Zernitskaya (she/her)
nzernitskaya@gmail.com
Item 13.A 11/15/22
2 of 2 Item 13.A 11/15/22
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Written Comment (5495 : PSROC Reports)