U.S. v. City of Detroit

• •

••

• H IIHHHHI • • • •

•• • •

••

•• •

H

• •

PN-MI-001-003

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN and the DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

Case No. 03-72258

HON.

Julian Abele Cook

Complaint The United States brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers of the Detroit Police Department that deprives persons of rights, privileges, and immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. The defendants, through their acts and omissions, are engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct by Detroit Police Department officers of subjecting individuals to uses of excessive force, false arrests, illegal detentions, and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The defendants have failed to adequately train, supervise, and monitor police officers; to investigate, review and evaluate use of force incidents; to investigate alleged misconduct, and discipline officers who are guilty of misconduct; to review and evaluate the basis of

seizures and warrantless arrests and secure timely judicial review of such arrests; to protect detainees from undue risks of harm; and to implement effective systems to ensure that management controls adopted by the Detroit Police Department are properly carried out. Accordingly, the United States seeks a judgment granting injunctive and declaratory relief for the defendants' violations of law.
The United States of America alleges: DEFENDANTS
1. The Defendant City of Detroit ("City") is a chartered municipal corporation in the State of Michigan.
2. The Defendant Detroit Police Department ("DPD") is a law enforcement agency operated by the City.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345. 4. The United States is authorized to initiate this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141. 5. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as the defendants reside in and the claims arose in the Eastern District of Michigan.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 6. The defendants, through their acts or omissions, have

engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by DPD officers of using excessive force against persons in Detroit.
7. The defendants, through their acts or omissions, have engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by DPD officers of falsely arresting persons and improperly seizing persons in Detroit.
8. The defendants, through their acts or omissions, have engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by DPD officers of failing to secure timely judicial review of warrantless arrests of persons in Detroit.
9. The defendants, through their acts or omissions, have engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by DPD officers of failing to protect detainees in DPD holding cells from undue risks of harm by, inter alia, failing to ensure fire safety, failing to provide adequate medical and mental health care, failing to provide adequate supervision, and failing to ensure adequate environmental health and safety conditions.
10. The defendants are, through their acts or omissions, engaging in a pattern or practice of systemic deficiencies that has resulted in the pattern or practice by DPD officers that deprives persons of rights, privileges, and immunities secured or

protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States described in paragraphs 6-9 above. These systemic deficiencies include, but are not limited to:
a. failing to implement policies, procedures, and practices regarding use of force that appropriately guide and monitor the actions of individual DPD officers;
b. failing to train DPD officers adequately to prevent the occurrence of misconduct;
c. failing to supervise DPD officers adequately to prevent the occurrence of misconduct;
d. failing to monitor adequately DPD officers who engage in or may be likely to engage in misconduct;
e. failing to implement policies and procedures whereby complaints and other allegations of DPD officer misconduct are adequately received and investigated;
f. failing to investigate adequately incidents in which a DPD officer uses force;
g. failing to fairly and adequately adjudicate or review citizen complaints, and incidents in which a DPD officer uses force;

h. failing to discipline adequately DPD officers who engage in misconduct;
i. failing to review adequately the basis for arrests and seizures by DPD officers;
j. failing to develop a mechanism to ensure timely judicial review of warrantless arrests;
k. failing to develop an adequate fire safety program for DPD holding cells;
1. failing to conduct adequate medical and mental health screening and failing to provide adequate care for serious medical needs of detainees in DPD holding cells;
m. failing to ensure DPD officers adequately supervise detainees in DPD holding cells; and
n. failing to maintain DPD holding cells in a sanitary manner. CAUSE OF ACTION
11. Through the actions described in paragraphs 6-10 above, the defendants have engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by DPD officers that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution (including the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) or the laws of the United States, in violation of 42

U.S.C. § 14141. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
12. The Attorney General is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 to seek declaratory and equitable relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of law enforcement officer conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court: a. declare that defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct by DPD officers that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, as described in paragraphs 6-10 above; b. order the defendants, their officers, agents, and employees to refrain from engaging in any of the predicate acts forming the basis of the pattern or practice of conduct as described in paragraphs 6-10 above; c. order the defendants, their officers, agents, and employees to adopt and implement policies and procedures to remedy the pattern or practice of conduct described in paragraphs 6-10 above, and to prevent DPD officers from depriving persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and

d. order such other appropriate relief as the interests of justice may require.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN ASHCROFT Attorney General

JEFFREY G. COLLINS MI Bar # P37260 United States Attorney Eastern District of Michigan

RALPH F. BOYD, JR. Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

PAMELA J. THOMPSON MI Bar # P26056 Executive Assistant United States Attorney Eastern District of Michigan

SHANETTA Y. BROWN CUTLAR Acting Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division

JUDITH E. LEVY MI Bar # P55882 Assistant United States Attorney Eastern District of Michigan 211 West Fort Street Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 226-9501 Facsimile: (313) 226-4609

MAURA K. LEE JOHN A. HENDERSON Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Patrick Henry Building 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 2 053 0 Telephone: (202) 514-6255 Facsimile: (202) 514-4883

Filed: June 12, 2 003

 REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR
FOR THE
DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT
REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004
Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 12, 2003, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the City of Detroit (City) (collectively, the parties) filed two Consent Judgments with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Court).1 The Consent Judgments were negotiated and agreed to by the parties. On the same date, the parties filed a motion indicating the joint selection of an Independent Monitor, subject to the Court’s approval, to “review and report on the City and the DPD’s [Detroit Police Department’s] implementation”2 of the Consent Judgments. On July 18, 2003,3 the Court entered both Consent Judgments. On July 23, 2003, after hearing testimony concerning qualifications, the Honorable Julian A. Cook, Jr., U.S. District Court Judge, appointed Sheryl Robinson, with the assistance of Kroll, Inc., as the Independent Monitor in this matter. This is the first report of the Independent Monitor.
During the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor examined 78 paragraphs or subparagraphs of the UOF CJ and 36 paragraphs or subparagraphs of the COC CJ. Of these, the City and the DPD complied with 1 and failed to achieve compliance with 107;4 although the Monitor commenced reviews of the remaining 6 paragraphs, they have not yet been fully evaluated.5
Despite the fact that the City and the DPD only achieved full compliance with one paragraph of the Consent Judgments, the Monitor recognizes the progress that has been made in the following areas, among others:
• The DPD acted quickly to develop a compliance unit by creating the Civil Rights Integrity Bureau (CRIB).6 Despite frequent staffing changes and continuing staffing shortages, the CRIB staff has generally been cooperative and open to fulfilling the CRIB’s role as defined in the Consent Judgments.
• Under the COC CJ, the Holding Cell Compliance Committee (HCCC) has been developed by the DPD and has been holding weekly meetings since September 2003. The HCCC has been actively working with other relevant city agencies including the Detroit Fire Department

1 The two judgments are the Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention Consent Judgment (UOF CJ) and the Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment (COC CJ). 2 UOF CJ at paragraph U124 (hereinafter UOF CJ paragraphs will be referenced by “U”). COC CJ at paragraph C79 (hereinafter COC CJ paragraphs will be referenced by “C”). 3 The “effective date” of the Consent Judgments. 4 The Monitor determined that the DPD partially complied with 3 paragraphs during the quarter. As explained in the Introduction to this report, paragraphs for which the DPD has achieved partial compliance receive an overall assessment of non-compliance. 5 For each paragraph, the Monitor’s review and findings, to-date, are included in this report. 6 As described in the Introduction, the CRIB was created to coordinate the DPD’s compliance efforts with the Consent Judgments.
i

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

(DFD) and the Detroit Department of Health (DDOH). There have been a number of achievements toward compliance under the COC CJ that are outlined in this report.7
• The DPD and the Office of the Chief Investigator (OCI)8 have implemented most of requirements of an informational campaign to inform citizens about how to file a complaint and to provide various forums where complaints can be filed.

• The DPD has developed and attempted to implement a number of the auditable forms that are required by the Consent Judgments. The Monitor has identified some deficiencies in the forms and the und erlying policies related to the forms have not been developed. Nevertheless, the DPD’s efforts are recognized, as these auditable forms, once fully developed, will be of great assistance in determining whether certain reforms required by the Consent Judgments are being effectively implemented throughout the Department.

• Although the proposed policy has not been developed in a timely manner, the Monitor
recognizes that the DPD has demonstrated a clear effort to move forward on the issues concerning prompt judicial review for every person arrested by the DPD. 9

Major areas of concern identified during the quarter ending November 30, 2003 include the following, among others:
• The Monitor’s overriding concern is the inability of the DPD to revise or develop effective policies that adhere to the requirements of the Consent Judgments. The Consent Judgments require extensive policy development and revision throughout. Achieving compliance in the policy revision area is integral to achieving compliance with all other substantive provisions of the Consent Judgments.
• An apparent lack of communication within the DPD in general, between Bureaus within the DPD, and between the DPD and the OCI regarding issues related to the Consent Judgments are a major barrier to achieving compliance.
• The DPD faces serious staffing shortages across the board. In connection with the Consent Judgments, these shortages are particularly acute in the CRIB’s Audit Team and in the Training Bureau. The DPD will be unable to meet the requirement s of the Consent Judgments without hiring additional staff, with the appropriate expertise, and making additional resources available in these and other areas.

7 In general, there may be some efforts toward compliance that the DPD has made that are not included in this report. As explained in the Introduction section, the Monitor is scheduled to review certain paragraphs during certain quarters. Throughout the report, the schedule for the Monitor’s review is outlined. This does not effect the due dates that the DPD and the City must adhere to that are outlined in the Consent Judgments. 8 Under the direction of the Board of Police Commissioners (BPC), the OCI receives and conducts investigations of external (citizen) complaints. 9 See paragraph U49.
ii

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

• The training curricula revisions called for in the Consent Judgments cannot effectively be developed prior to the development of the policy, without consultation with the affected DPD units or without working with the individuals assigned to draft or revise the policy. Once again, the DPD must engage in effective training development by linking it with the completion and approval of the policy revisions called for in the Consent Judgments.
• A large number of the COC CJ paragraphs deal with physical remediation efforts. While the DPD is still in the strategic development stages with most of these paragraphs, the time is rapidly approaching when substantial financial resources will be required to implement specific physical remediation efforts. 10 The City and the DPD will be unable to meet courtmandated deadlines without substantial financial resources. The City has had ample time to develop a plan for ensuring that requests for funds are acted upon in a timely fashion, since the DOJ highlighted this issue as early as July 2001.
• The Monitor is exceptionally concerned about the physical conditions at the 3rd and 4th Precincts. Both of these precincts are in such poor states of condition that the City has decided to close them by 2005. Both currently maintain holding cells, and as such, must meet the COC CJ standards. The physical remediation efforts needed to bring both of these precincts up to acceptable standards will be significant. Given the fact that these two precincts are scheduled to be closed in 18 months, and the fact that the new facility that is currently being constructed will not maintain holding cells, the DPD must make an immediate decision as to whether the holding cells in both of these facilities should be shut down immediately or whether scarce resources will be spent on upgrading these short-term facilities.
• The DPD, and the City, need to ensure that individuals assigned to assist the DPD in meeting its obligations under the Consent Judgments, particularly the COC CJ, are available to meet the needs of the task. The Monitor is concerned that individuals who have been assigned critical responsibilities are not being provided with enough flexibility with their other obligations to meet the needs of the Consent Judgments. Individuals assigned to this process must understand the critical nature of the effort they are undertaking, and as such, must be able to make appropriate time in their schedules to attend all meetings and meet all deadlines. While the Monitor is pleased that the City has stated that it will ensure that critical personnel are made available when necessary, the Monitor wants to ensure that the individuals assigned to work on the COC CJ, from the DPD or other City agencies, have the authority and latitude from their organizations to devote the time necessary to achieve their goal.

10 Efforts required under paragraphs C22 and C34, in particular.
iii

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

REPORT CONTENTS:

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................1

SECTION TWO: BRIEF HISTORY..........................................................................................6

SECTION THREE: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT .....................................11

I.

USE OF FORCE POLICY........................................................................................11

A. General Use of Force Policies................................................................................12

B. Use of Firearms Policy...........................................................................................14

C. Intermediate Force Device Policy..........................................................................14

D. Chemical Spray Policy...........................................................................................15

II. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW.............16

A. General Investigations of Police Action ................................................................17

B. UOF and Prisoner Injury Investigations ................................................................17

C. Review of Critical Firearm Discharges and In-Custody Deaths............................19

III. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES .............................23

A. Arrest Policies........................................................................................................23

B. Investigatory Stop Policies ....................................................................................25

C. Witness Identification and Questioning Policies ...................................................27

D. Prompt Jud icial Review Policies ...........................................................................30

E. Hold Policies..........................................................................................................32

F. Restriction Policies ................................................................................................34

G. Material Witness Policies.......................................................................................34

H. Documentation of Custodial Detention .................................................................34

I. Command Notification...........................................................................................37

IV. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS ...................................................................................38

A. Intake and Tracking ...............................................................................................41

i

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

B. External Complaint Investigation ..........................................................................42

V. GENERAL POLICIES ..............................................................................................46

VI. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION .................................................................49

A. Risk Management Database...................................................................................49

B. Performance Evaluation System............................................................................57

C. Oversight ................................................................................................................57

D. Use of Video Cameras ...........................................................................................62

E. Discipline ...............................................................................................................62

VII. TRAINING .................................................................................................................63

A. Oversight and Development ...................................................................................63

B. UOF Training .........................................................................................................66

C. Firearms Training...................................................................................................68

D. Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training ......................................................69

E. Custodial Detention Training.................................................................................69

F. Supervisory Training..............................................................................................71

G. Investigator Training..............................................................................................73

H. Field Training.........................................................................................................74

VIII. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND IMPLEMENTATION ..............................74

SECTION FOUR: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT.............................................................................75

I.

FIRE SAFETY POLICIES .......................................................................................75

II. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES ......................................................82

III. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES ...................................84

IV. PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES ............................................................................92

V. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES ................................93

VI. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ..........................93

VII. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES ...................................................................................93

VIII. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES ........................................................................96

ii

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

IX. USE OF FORCE AND RESTRAINTS POLICIES ................................................97

X. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW..............97 XI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS ...................................................................................97 XII. GENERAL POLICIES ..............................................................................................98 XIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION ...............................................................101 XIV. TRAINING ...............................................................................................................106

XV. MONITORING AND REPORTING .....................................................................110

CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................111

APPENDICES:
A. Acronyms Frequently Utilized in Quarterly Reports Issued by the Independent Monitor

iii

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION
On June 12, 2003, the DOJ and the City filed two Consent Judgments with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The Consent Judgments were negotiated and agreed to by the parties. On the same date, the parties filed a motion indicating the joint selection of an Independent Monitor, subject to the Court’s approval, to “review and report on the City and the DPD’s implementation” of the Consent Judgment s. On July 18, 2003, the Court entered both Consent Judgments. On July 23, 2003, after hearing testimony concerning qualifications, the Honorable Julian A. Cook, Jr., U.S. District Court Judge, appointed Sheryl Robinson, with the assistance of Kroll, Inc.,11 as the Independent Monitor in this matter. This is the first report of the Independent Monitor.
As outlined in the History Section below, the DOJ’s investigation began, in part, based upon the September 2000 request by the Mayor of the City of Detroit and other interested persons that the DOJ review the DPD’s use of force (UOF).12 The DOJ launched an investigation in December 2000 of the UOF and conditions in the DPD holding cells pursuant to its authority granted under the Violent Crime Control and La w Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 United States Code § 14141. The DOJ later expanded its investigation to include the DPD’s arrest and detention policies and practices.13
The DOJ’s investigation, lasting over two and one-half years, was conducted with the full cooperation of the City. During the investigation, the DOJ made recommendations for changes in the DPD’s policies and procedures regarding use of force, conditions in holding cells, and arrest and detention policies and practices by issuing three technical assistance letters dated March 6, 2002, April 4, 2002 and June 5, 2002. The DOJ met with the Chief of Police and DPD command staff regarding the substance of the technical assistance letters, and regarding the DOJ’s participation in pre-consent judgme nt working groups created by the DPD to facilitate reform.
The DPD attempted to engage in reform efforts, based on the DOJ’s recommendations, for more than one year prior to the filing of the Consent Judgments. Nevertheless, the reforms did not progress in a timely manner, and the DOJ filed a complaint against the City and DPD. The complaint alleged that the City and the DPD “through their acts and omissions, are engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct by Detroit Police Department officers of subjecting individuals to uses of excessive force, false arrests, illegal detentions and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The defendants have failed to adequately train, supervise, and monitor police officers; to investigate, review and evaluate use of force incidents; to investigate alleged
11 The Monitoring Team Leaders are Joseph Buczek, Hazel deBurgh, Ronald Filak, Thomas Frazier, and Jeffrey Schlanger. 12 Throughout this report, the acronym “UOF” will be utilized for both “Use of Force” and “Uses of Force.” 13 The investigation was expanded in May 2001.
1

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

misconduct, and to discipline officers who are guilty of misconduct; to review and evaluate the basis of seizures and warrantless arrests and secure timely judicial review of such arrests; to protect detainees from undue risks of harm; and to implement effective systems to ensure that management controls adopted by the Detroit Police Department are properly carried out.”14 The DOJ and the City believe that the Consent Judgments, rather than contested litigation, represent the best opportunity to address the DOJ’s concerns.15

The COC CJ primarily deals with the conditions of the holding cells, including fire safety, emergency preparedness, medical and mental health, prisoner safety, environmental health and safety, persons with disabilities, food service, personal hygiene, and use of force and restraints. It contains 112 paragraphs, most of which have specific requirements that must be implemented by the DPD. The COC CJ shall terminate two years after its effective date if the DPD and the City have substantially complied with each of its provisions and have maintained substantial compliance for at least one year.16

The UOF CJ primarily concerns use of force policies and practices and arrest and detention policies and practices. It contains 154 paragraphs, most of which have specific requirements that must be implemented by the DPD. The UOF CJ shall terminate five years after its effective date if the DPD and the City have substantially complied with each of its provisions and have maintained substantial compliance for at least two years.17

Both Consent Judgments deal with reforms concerning incident documentation, investigation
and review, external complaint processing and investigation, management and supervision
issues, and training. They also require the DPD to develop an internal audit function, a risk management database, and a performance evaluation system. By way of the Consent Judgments
the City and the DPD agreed to adhere to aggressive deadlines for implementation. Each
provision is due within 90 days of the effective date of the Consent Judgment unless another time frame is specified in a given paragraph. 18

The DPD and the City have faced organizational and implementation challenges in the first months following the effective date of the Consent Judgments. In response to the requirements of the Consent Judgments, in July 2003, the DPD formed a new bureau called CRIB, headed by a Deputy Chief, to coordinate compliance efforts throughout the Department.19 The Monitor has been working closely with CRIB in conducting compliance reviews. Similar to the DPD in

14 Complaint, Case no. 03-72258. The complaint, Consent Judgments and technical assistance letters are publicly available at www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/dpd/detroit_cover_2.html. 15 Paragraphs U7 and C7. 16 Paragraph C106. 17 Paragraph U148. 18 Paragraphs U145 and C103. 19 Paragraphs U140 and C95.
2

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

general, CRIB has undergone major leadership and staffing changes since the effective date of the Consent Judgments.20

With regard to implementation of the provisions in the Consent Judgments, the DPD is out of compliance with the majority of the requirements. Although the DPD has made substantial efforts in some areas, fully described throughout this report, the Department faces major challenges in vario us areas that are integral to achieving compliance. The most prevalent of these is policy development, which must take place in an effective manner before many of the other reforms can take place.

Under the terms of the Consent Judgments, the Monitor has the following duties, among others:21

1. Conduct compliance reviews to ensure that the City and the DPD have implemented and continue to implement all measures required by the Consent Judgments.22
2. Offer the parties technical assistance regarding compliance with the Consent Judgments.23

3. Make recommendations to the parties regarding measures necessary to ensure full and timely implementation of the Consent Judgments.24

4. File quarterly reports detailing the City’s compliance with and implementation of the Consent Judgments. More frequent reports may be issued, as the Monitor deems appropriate.25
5. Maintain regular contact with the parties.26

6. Direct the DPD to reopen for further investigation any investigation that the Monitor determines to be incomplete.27

20 The DPD underwent a major leadership change during the first quarter. After the resignation of the Chief of Police Jerry Oliver on October 31, 2003, former Assistant Chief Ella Bully-Cummings was appointed as Acting Chief of Police by Mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick. 21 The Monitor is an agent of the Court and is subject to the supervision and orders of the Court, consistent with the Consent Judgments. Paragraphs U131 and C86. 22 Paragraphs U138 and C93. 23 Paragraphs U132 and C87. 24 Paragraphs U133 and C88. 25 Paragraphs U134, U142, C89 and C97. 26 Paragraphs U132 and C87. 27 Paragraphs U139 and C94. The Monitor may only direct DPD to reopen investigations within a reasonable period following the investigation’s conclusion and prior to the official communication of the disposition to the subject officer(s).
3

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

The Monitor is committed to carrying out the duties outlined in the Consent Judgments. It is beneficial that the Monitor was appointed early in this process. Since the appointment, the Monitor has been in regular contact with all parties with regard to various issues concerning the Consent Judgments and compliance reviews. The Monitor has scheduled compliance reviews of the various paragraphs in the Consent Judgments on a rotating quarterly basis. This report contains the compliance reviews of the paragraphs that were scheduled for review during the first quarter in which the Consent Judgments were in effect, the quarter ending November 30, 2003. The Monitor’s compliance review schedule has no effect on the deadlines outlined in the Consent Judgments; rather, it allows the Monitor to focus on certain issues on a quarterly basis. Since the Consent Judgments require that the DPD achieve and maintain substantial compliance for a specified period of time,28 the Monitor will review the paragraphs on a periodic schedule over the life of the Consent Judgments.29

In a future report, the Monitor will include a “Report Card,” which will summarize the overall grade of compliance with each paragraph and subparagraph30 of the Consent Judgments.31 While
the Report Card will provide a “snapshot” of the DPD’s compliance with each of the substantive provisions of the Consent Judgments, eventually it will also serve as a tool to evaluate the DPD’s
progress in complying with those provisions.

To assist the reader, the Monitor has attached, as Appendix A, a listing of acronyms that frequently appear in this report. This list will be updated as each quarterly report is issued.

The Monitor is currently developing “Methodologies to Aid in Determination of Compliance with the Consent Judgments” (the Methodologies) in consultation with the parties.32 The Methodologies will generally outline the methods that will be employed by the Monitor to determine compliance by the City and the DPD with each substantive provision of the Consent Judgments.

28 Non-compliance with mere technicalities, or temporary failure to comply during a period of otherwise sustained compliance, shall not constitute failure to maintain substantial compliance. At the same time, temporary compliance during a period of otherwise sustained noncompliance shall not constitute substantial compliance. Paragraphs U149 and C106. 29 The minimum duration of the COC CJ is eight quarters. The minimum duration of the UOF CJ is twenty quarters.
30 Although subparagraphs are often specifically identified in the Consent Judgments, the Monitor has split certain paragraphs that include more than one topic. The purpose of this is to facilitate the future evaluation of and reporting on each sub-topic.
31 A given paragraph or subparagraph may have separate policy, training, implementation and audit requirements, or a combination thereof. If the DPD is found in non-compliance with any one of these requirements, the Monitor will find the DPD in overall non-compliance with that paragraph or subparagraph. This report describes in detail which components the DPD has complied with and which it has not. 32 The parties received an initial draft of the Methodologies in September 2003. In October 2003, the DOJ provided written comments regarding the initial draft to the Monitor. In addition, the Monitor has had ongoing discussions with the DPD regarding the draft Methodologies.
4

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

The Monitor is also dedicated to making this process a transparent one. To that end, we have provided the parties with assessments of compliance throughout the first quarter. The Monitor has also made numerous recommendations and provided technical assistance to the DPD regarding compliance with the Consent Judgments. Furthermore, a draft copy of this report was made available to the parties to provide an opportunity to identify factual errors.33

This is the first of many quarterly public reports that will be submitted to the Court by the Monitor outlining the City and the DPD’s progress toward compliance with the Consent Judgments.

33 As required by paragraphs U142 and C97.
5

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

SECTION TWO: BRIEF HISTORY34
A. Use of Lethal Force
In May 2000, the Detroit Free Press published a series of articles entitled “Detroit Police: Lethal Force, Lasting Questions” which was the result of a four month investigation into fatal shootings by DPD officers and the investigations that followed.35 The first article in the series alleged that Detroit “leads the nation’s largest cities in the rate of fatal shootings by police…according to a Free Press analysis of FBI statistics.”36 Other facts revealed by the series, some of which were disputed by police and City officials, were equally disturbing:
• Detroit, with nearly 1 million residents, averaged nearly 10 fatal police shootings per year in 1990-98. New York City, with 7.3 million residents, averaged 28 fatal shootings per year during the same period.37
• Calculating fatal shootings using the FBI’s standard measure, 100,000 residents, Detroit had a rate of 0.92 fatal shootings per 100,000 residents, towering over New York’s rate of 0.39 and Los Angeles’ 0.56. Houston ranked second with 0.68.38
According to the Free Press, the investigation uncovered the following:
• The City does not know how much it spends on shooting lawsuits and does not carefully track officers who fire their weapons.39
• In conducting investigations of fatal shootings by police, investigators often accept the word of officers over civilians, overlook witnesses with damaging evidence and fail to get basic, scientific tests.40
The Free Press also outlined steps that the City could take, according to police officials, civic leaders and other experts: 41

34 This section briefly outlines a portion of the relevant history leading up to the Consent Judgments as background information. It is not meant to contain a full dissertation of the entire history, or cite all articles and events during this time period. 35 David Ashenfelter, Joe Swickard, Corey Dade and others, Detroit police: Lethal Force, lasting questions, May 15-18, 2000. 36 David Ashenfelter and Joe Swickard, Detroit Cops are deadliest in the U.S., May 15, 2000. 37 Id. 38 Id. 39 Joe Swickard, U.S. Attorney monitors big rise in complaints, May 17, 2000. 40 Id. 41 David Ashenfelter and Joe Swickard, Higher-level action needed, critics say, May 18, 2000.
6

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

• Create an early warning system to identify problem-prone officers and cross-reference
officers by lawsuits, citizen complaints, injured prisoners, shootings and disciplinary problems, among other things.42

• Develop better record keeping. The City Law Department should track the cost of lawsuit settlements and judgments by department and type of incident and make them publicly
available. The City also needs to compile basic statistics on the number of officers who are disciplined or charged in shootings and make the information available to the public.

• Promote more openness. The findings and results of the police shooting investigations should be open.

• Promote more cooperation. The Police and Law Departments need better communications so police can learn from mistakes that result in legal losses. The Law Department should routinely share settlement memos and case assessment information- already provided to City
Council - with the Police Department.

B. The City’s Response

During the same time period as the Free Press investigation was reported, then-Detroit Mayor
Dennis Archer took action by ordering the transfer of the responsibility for investigating police shootings from the DPD Homicide Section to the Department’s Internal Controls Division. 43
Critics contend that the Homicide section’s special assignment squad was failing to do an
aggressive job of investigating officers by ignoring evidence, witnesses and other information that should have raised questions about officers’ accounts of the shootings.44 Until a
departmental reorganization in 1994, the Internal Controls Division investigated nonfatal police

42 There have been several other recommendations by other entities that the DPD should develop an early warning system. In a January 1997 report by consultants Merrick Bobb and Julio Thompson, who were hired by the DPD to conduct a comprehensive review, one of the recommendations was to create a computerized risk management tracking system. Other recommendations included the following: consolidate personnel management and liability functions under one command including recruitment, selection and training, Internal Affairs, risk assessment and the investigation and evaluation of all shootings and other serious force incidents; appoint a General Counsel for the DPD; create a city-wide committee to oversee and monitor all substantial litigation involving the DPD; broaden DPD’s scrutiny of officer-involved shootings and high-risk uses of force by creating an Internal Affairs Section (IAS) rollout team; expand the jurisdiction of the DPD Board of Review to consider not only officer-related fatalities but all high-risk incidents which result in the activation of the IAS rollout team; develop new procedures for the reporting and documenting of the use of force; overhaul the investigation of public or citizen complaints investigations particularly those conducted by the OCI; reevaluate hiring procedures; expand the array of non-lethal force options; expand the role of the Risk Assessment Section; and increase the role of civilians and professionals within the DPD. Executive Summary by Special Counsel to the Detroit Police Department, January 1997. Many of these recommendations were also made by the DOJ, first in the technical assistance letters and then in the Consent Judgments. Furthermore, Amnesty International made recommendations for DPD reform including the development of an early warning system. http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/usa/police_brutality/detroitpolice.html.
43 Corey Dade, Archer takes homicide off the case, May 16, 2000.
44 Higher Level, May 18, 2000.
7

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

shootings.45 According to the Free Press, the Division was damaged by a 1994 departmental reorganization that put more officers on the streets at the expense of the unit.46 Experts
recommended that the unit be run by a deputy chief, rather than an inspector, to give it more clout.47 According to former Mayor Archer, after the Free Press profiled the deadly shootings by
six police officers during the summer of 2000, he made the change in investigatory procedures, and then two more questionable shootings took place.48 It was at that time that the formal request for assistance from the DOJ was made.49

Then-Mayor Archer issued a written request to the DOJ, asking them to come in and investigate the following issues:50
a) to investigate fatal shootings for the past five years where Detroit police officers were involved;
b) to evaluate DPD’s investigation procedures;
c) to evaluate the City’s interrelations with the Wayne County Prosecutor and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices (USAO) regarding future cooperation; and
d) to review the outcomes of questionable use of deadly force and make any recommendations and findings regarding each officer, if any.

C. The DOJ’s Investigation and the DPD’s Efforts

The DOJ began its investigation of DPD’s us e of force and conditions in DPD holding cells in
December 2000. In the meantime, new Mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick took office in January 2001 and a new police chief, Jerry Oliver, was appointed in February 2002. With the DOJ
investigation pending, Chief Oliver reorganized the Department, obtaining approvals from the Mayor, the BPC and the City Council.51 The organizational changes included adding two additional Assistant Chiefs to bring the total to three;52 elevating Risk Management from a
Section to a Bureau headed by a Deputy Chief; creating a Training Bureau; reorganizing the
Professional Standards Bureau into a Professional Accountability Bureau (PAB) which includes an Internal Affairs Division (IAD) headed by a Commander; creating a Force Investigation
Section (FIS) from the force investigation unit; among other changes.

45 Archer, May 16, 2000. 46 Higher Level, May 18, 2000. 47 Id. 48 Letter to the Editor by Mayor Dennis W. Archer, City took action on police report, January 3, 2001. 49 Id. 50 PR Newswire, Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer Completes First Step in Police Reform Initiatives, September 26, 2000. The DOJ also received requests from other interested persons. 51 The DPD reorganization plan was approved as of May 2002. 52 Each Assistant Chief has a portfolio. The portfolios are operations, administrative and investigations.
8

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

D. The DOJ’s Investigation Expands to Arrest and Detention Issues

Dating back to early 2000, the USAO has expressed concern with the DPD’s arrest and detention (A&D) policies, practices, procedures and processes.53 Initially, concerns centered largely on
unconstitutional A&D practices within the DPD’s homicide section.

The DOJ expanded its investigation to include arrest and witness detention issues in May 2001.
The DPD agreed to address these issues, primarily by ending such practices and instituting a comprehensive training program to ensure they did not re-occur. However, the Monitor understands that the continued review54 of the DPD A&D practices, conducted jointly by the
USAO and the DOJ, only heightened concern that the DPD continued making warrantless arrests without probable cause; continued arresting and detaining witnesses, family members and friends
of suspects without proper judicial authority; and failed to adhere to prompt judicial review standards.55 The reviews were expanded beyond the DPD’s homicide section and other special enforcement sections to all DPD precincts, across the board.

E. The DOJ’s Technical Assistance Letters and the DPD’s Response

In the course of its investigation the DOJ issued three technical assistance letters. In a letter dated March 6, 2003, the DOJ outlined issues and concerns regarding use of force and use of force reporting, intake and tracking of external complaints, external complaint investigations and dispositions, criminal and internal investigations, risk assessment and management, early warning system, policy planning, discipline and in-service and field training. The April 4, 2003 letter discussed the DOJ’s concerns with regard to the DPD’s holding cells. The issues raised concerned fire safety including fire suppression and detection and occupant protection among others. Finally, the June 5, 2003 letter discussed the DOJ’s concerns regarding arrest policies and practices, arrest of suspects, and detention policies and practices.

The Monitor understands that the DOJ advised the DPD that its promise to change A&D policies and practices and alter related training programs remained unfulfilled. The letter directed the DPD to amend arrest policies and detention practices, and provided specific guidance on proper definitions, practices and procedures. It also directed the DPD to circulate new policies and procedures to all precincts and commands.

After receiving the technical assistance letters, the DPD developed internal working groups to address the issues identified by the DOJ. The DPD worked with the DOJ during this process and submitted various documents to the DOJ for review. The DPD began revising its policy manual

53 The USAO received unsolicited reports of unconstitutional arrests and detention practices from citizens.
54 The Monitor understands that continued review included interviews of DPD personnel, private citizens and representatives of the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office. The DOJ also conducted observations of holding cells that included interviewing individuals held pursuant to arrests and/or as witnesses and participating in ride-alongs.
55 Several examples were provided by the DOJ that included the detention of a girlfriend of a murder suspect. The girlfriend had just given birth prior to detention, and as a result of her detention, could not care for her newborn child. The DPD was unable to establish that the girlfriend was involved with the murder in any way.

9

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

in July 2002 attempting to use best practices and Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) standards. The Planning and Inspections Section was reorganized into a Planning and Accreditation Section to ensure that CALEA standards remain a part of the policy- making process. A new policy manual was issued in March 2003.

Despite the DPD’s efforts and the cooperative process that took place, adequate reform did not take place to the DOJ’s expectations. In June 2003, the DOJ filed a complaint against the City and the DPD. On July 18, 2003, the Court entered the two Consent Judgments that are the subject of this report.

10

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

SECTION THREE: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT
This section contains the Monitor’s compliance assessments of the UOF CJ paragraphs scheduled for review during the quarter ending November 30, 2003.
I. USE OF FORCE POLICY
Overview
Paragraphs U14-26 of the UOF CJ require the DPD to make significant changes to its UOF policies. Specifically, the DPD must revise its general UOF policy, use of firearms policy and chemical spray policy. The DPD must choose an intermediate force device, develop policy for the device, incorporate the device into the UOF continuum, and provide annual training on the use of the device. The DPD is required to provide its revised UOF policies to the DOJ for review and approval; policy revisions must be submitted to the DOJ within three months of the effective date of the UOF CJ (by October 18, 2003).
During the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed paragraphs U14-19 of the UOF CJ. The relevant draft policies related to paragraphs U14-19 were submitted to the DOJ by the DPD on October 31, 2003. The DOJ and the Monitor informally identified a number of deficiencies in these and other proposed policies. On November 25, 2003, the DPD withdrew all of the policies from DOJ review and from the Monitor’s consideration so that further revisions could be made.
While the policy revisions are being drafted, the DPD has not identified any administrative messages or teletypes that have been issued regarding the impending changes to the DPD’s use of force policy. 56 The Monitor’s recommendations with regard to policy development appear following paragraph U19.
The Monitor is scheduled to further review the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending May 31, 2004.57

56 Paragraphs U141 and C96 require that the City file a status report with the Monitor and the DOJ delineating all steps taken during the reporting period to comply with each substantive provision of the Consent Judgments. This status report must be filed 120 days after the effective date of the Consent Judgments and every three months thereafter. The City and the DPD filed its 120-day status report with the Monitor and the DOJ on November 17, 2003. The report did not identify any administrative messages or teletypes in this area. 57 As described below, those paragraphs included in this section of the UOF CJ that were not reviewed during the current reporting period (paragraphs U20-26) are scheduled for review during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.
11

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

A. GENERAL USE OF FORCE POLICIES

Paragraph U14 - Revision of Policy (Definition of UOF)
Paragraph U14 requires the DPD to revise its UOF policies to define force as that term is defined in the UOF CJ.58
Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD revised Directive 304.2 “Use of Force” and submitted it to the DOJ for review and approval on October 31, 2003.59 The DPD subsequently withdrew the policy from the DOJ’s consideration on November 25, 2003 to make further revisions.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U14.

Paragraph U15 - UOF Continuum
Paragraph U15 requires the UOF policy to incorporate a UOF continuum that: a) identifies when and in what manner the use of lethal and less than lethal force are permitted; b) relates the force options available to officers to the types of conduct by individuals that
would justify the use of such force; and
c) states that de-escalation, disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units are often the appropriate response to a situation.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD revised Directive 304.2 “Use of Force” and submitted it to the DOJ for review and approval on October 31, 2003. The DPD subsequently withdrew the policy from the DOJ’s consideration on November 25, 2003 to make further revisions.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U15.

58 According to paragraph U145, unless otherwise specified, the DPD is required to implement each and every provision of the UOF CJ within 90 days of its effective date (by October 16, 2003). There is a similar paragraph in the COC CJ (paragraph C103). The Monitor periodically schedules reviews of paragraphs on a quarterly basis over the life of the Consent Judgments. Although the Monitor’s review takes place after the due dates for certain paragraphs, this has no impact on these due dates and the DPD’s requirement to comply with them. 59 According to paragraph U18, the DPD is required to revise its UOF policy within three months of the effective date of the UOF CJ (which would have been October 18, 2003). The policy must be submitted to the DOJ for review and approval.
12

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Paragraph U16 - Opportunity to Submit

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Paragraph U16 requires the UOF policy to reinforce that individuals should be provided an opportunity to submit to arrest before force is used and provide that force may be used only when verbal commands and other techniques that do not require the UOF would be ineffective or present a danger to the officer or others.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD revised Directive 304.2 “Use of Force” and submitted it to the DOJ for review and approval on October 31, 2003. On November 25, 2003, the DPD withdrew the policy from the DOJ’s consideration to make further revisions.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U16.

Paragraph U17 - Prohibition on Choke Holds
Paragraph U17 requires the UOF policy to prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD revised Directive 304.2 “Use of Force” and submitted it to the DOJ for review and approval on October 31, 2003. On November 25, 2003, the DPD withdrew the policy from the DOJ’s consideration to make further revisions.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U17.

Paragraph U18 - Revision of Policy within 3 Months
Paragraph U18 requires the DPD to develop a revised UOF policy within three months of the effective date of the UOF CJ. The policy must be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD must implement the revised UOF policy within three months of the review and approval of the DOJ.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD revised Directive 304.2 “Use of Force” and submitted it to the DOJ for review and approval on October 31, 2003. On November 25, 2003, the DPD withdrew the policy from the DOJ’s consideration to make further revisions.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U18.

13

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Paragraph U19 - Strike to Head Equals Deadly Force

Paragraph U19 requires the UOF policy to provide that a strike to the head with an instrument constitutes a use of deadly force.

Current Assessment of Compliance

The DPD revised Directive 304.2 “Use of Force” and submitted it to the DOJ for review and approval on October 31, 2003. On November 25, 2003, the DPD withdrew the policy from the DOJ’s consideration to make further revisions.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U19.

Recommendations

The Monitor reviewed the proposed UOF policy (Directive 304.2) prior to its withdrawal by the DPD. The Directive attempted to incorporate the requirements of numerous UOF CJ paragraphs appearing between paragraphs U14 and U41, involving policy revisions in the following areas: UOF; Use of Firearms; Intermediate Force Device; Chemical Spray; General Investigations of Police Action; UOF and Prisoner Injury Investigations; and, Review of Critical Firearm Discharges and In-custody deaths. The DPD attempted to make these policy revisions required by the UOF CJ by building upon the existing DPD UOF policy. As a result, the proposed UOF policy (Directive 304.1) was lengthy and overwhelming. In addition, for this and other policy revisions, some of the language from the Consent Judgment paragraphs was added to the proposed policy, verbatim, without being effectively incorporated into the existing text, or without being sequentially numbered consistent with the existing text.

The Monitor recommends that the DPD obtain technical assistance on effective policy development procedures. This will assist the DPD in making determinations about what information should be included within a policy, how the information should be organized and what is more appropriately addressed in other supporting documents or in training. The Monitor has offered to provide the DPD with technical assistance in this area. As of November 30, 2003, the DPD had not accepted this offer.

B. USE OF FIREARMS POLICY
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s comp liance with this section of the UOF CJ (paragraphs U20-23) during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

C. INTERMEDIATE FORCE DEVICE POLICY
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this section of the UOF CJ (paragraph U24) during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

14

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
D. CHEMICAL SPRAY POLICY

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this section of the UOF CJ (paragraphs U25-26) during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

15

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

II. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW
Overview
Paragraphs U27-41 of the UOF CJ require that the DPD make significant changes to its policies related to general investigations of police action and to investigations of UOF, prisoner injury, critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths. In addition to various changes in general investigatory procedures, reports and evaluations, the UOF CJ requires that the DPD develop a protocol for Garrity statements60 and develop an auditable form to document any prisoner injury, UOF, allegation of UOF and instance where an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target. The DPD Shooting Team must respond to and investigate all critical firearms discharges and incustody deaths, and the DPD must develop a protocol for conducting investigations of critical firearm discharges. Finally, the UOF CJ requires the DPD to create a command level force review team that is charged with critically evaluating and reporting on critical firearms discharges and in-custody deaths.
During the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed paragraphs U27 and U3441. The relevant draft policies (Directive 304.2 “Use of Force”) related to these and other paragraphs were submitted to the DOJ by the DPD on October 30, 2003.61 On November 25, 2003, the DPD withdrew this policy and all others from the DOJ’s consideration to make further revisions.
Although none of the policy revisions have been approved and implemented for these paragraphs, the DPD has developed an auditable form (UF-002) as required by paragraph U34, which is discussed further below.
The DPD has also made revisions to the FIS Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) to incorporate the requirements of paragraphs U27-38. The FIS SOP is discussed under paragraph U38.
The Monitor is scheduled to further review the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs (U27 and U34-41) during the quarter ending May 31, 2004.62

60 Paragraph U31 requires the DPD and the City to develop a protocol for when statements should (and should not) be compelled pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 492 (1967). This paragraph will be reviewed during the quarter ending February 29, 2004. 61 This Directive also purports to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs U28-30, and U32-33. The Monitor will review these paragraphs during the quarter ending February 29, 2004; however, compliance with all of the paragraphs mentioned is dependent on the ability of the DPD to effectively draft and revise its policies. 62 As described below, those paragraphs included in this section of the UOF CJ that were not reviewed during the current reporting period (paragraphs U28-33) are scheduled for review during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.
16

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

A. GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICE ACTION

The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with the majority of the paragraphs included in this section of the UOF CJ (paragraphs U28-33) during the quarter ending February 29, 2004. The Monitor’s assessment of paragraph U27 follows.

Paragraph U27 - Revision of General Investigation Policies
Paragraph U27 requires the DPD and the City to revise their policies regarding the conduct of all investigations to ensure full, thorough and complete investigations. All investigations must, to the extent reasonably possible, determine whether the officer’s conduct was justified, and the DPD and the Cit y must prohibit the closing of an investigation being conducted by the DPD and/or the City simply because a subject or complainant is unavailable, unwilling or unable to cooperate, including a refusal to provide medical records or proof of injury.

Current Assessment of Compliance

The DPD revised Directive 304.2 “Use of Force” and submitted it to the DOJ for review and approval on October 31, 2003.63 The DPD chose to include the revisions required by paragraph U27 (and other investigative procedure paragraphs U28-30 and U32-33) in its Use of Force policy. On November 25, 2003, the DPD withdrew the policy from the DOJ’s consideration to make further revisions.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U27.

B. UOF AND PRISONER INJURY INVESTIGATIONS

Paragraph U34 - Documentation of UOF and Prisoner Injury
Paragraph U34 requires the DPD to revise its reporting policies to require officers to document on a single auditable form any prisoner injury, UOF, allegation of UOF, and instance in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target.
Current Assessment of Compliance
On October 22, 2003 the DPD issued an Administrative Message to All Commands. It referenced teletypes 03-06366-68 (“Auditable Forms - Use of Force Arrest and Witness Detention Consent Decree”). The Administrative Message required the immediate use of eight auditable forms, created by CRIB, for compliance with the data capture requirements of

63 According to paragraph U18, the DPD is required to revise its UOF policy within three months of the effective date of the UOF CJ (which would have been October 18, 2003). The policy must be submitted to the DOJ for review and approval.

17

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

paragraphs U34, U43, U45, U48, U51, U53 and U57. The forms were uploaded onto the DPD’s Intranet for immediate use. Also attached were guidelines for most forms. These forms were placed into use approximately 96 days after the effective date of the UOF CJ.

The Monitor reviewed the form and accompanying guidelines that pertain to paragraph U34,
Form UF-002. The Monitor determined that the form placed into service might adequately address the documentation requirements only of paragraph U34.64 However, the DPD identified Directive 304.2 (“Use of Force”) as the policy that includes the requirements of this paragraph65, and mandates that any UOF must be documented on the auditable form UF-002.66 As mentioned
above, although previously submitted to the DOJ, on November 25, 2003, the DPD withdrew the
policy from the DOJ’s consideration to make further revisions.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U34.

Paragraph U35 - Notification Requirements
Paragraph U35 requires the DPD to revise its policies regarding UOF and prisoner injury notifications to require:
a) Officers to notify their supervisors following any UOF or prisoner injury.
b) That upon such notice, a supervisor must respond to the scene of all UOF that involve a firearm discharge, a visible injury or a complaint of injury. A supervisor must respond to all other UOF on a priority basis. Upon arrival at the scene, the supervisor must interview the subject(s), examine the subject(s) for injury, and ensure that the subject(s) receive needed medical attention.
c) The supervisor responding to the scene to notify the IAD of all serious UOF, UOF that result in visible injury, UOF that a reasonable officer should have known were likely to result in injury, UOF where there is evidence of possible criminal misconduct by an officer or prisoner injury.
d) IAD to respond to the scene of, and investigate, all incidents where there is evidence of possible criminal misconduct by an officer, a prisoner dies, suffers serious bodily injury or requires hospital admission, or involves a serious UOF, and to permit IAD to delegate all other UOF or prisoner injury investigations to the supervisor for a command investigation.

64 Given that the form was only recently introduced, the Monitor opted not to assess its utilization during this quarter. 65 The DPD’s 120-Day Status Report (November 17, 2003). 66 Nevertheless, the DPD has begun to use this auditable form. The completed forms are being submitted to CRIB.
18

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Current Assessment of Compliance

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

The DPD revised Directive 304.2 “Use of Force” to include the requirements of this and other related paragraphs and submitted it to the DOJ for review and approval on October 31, 2003. On November 25, 2003, the DPD withdrew the policy from the DOJ’s consideration to make further revisions.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U35.

Paragraph U36 - Command Investigation Time Limits

Paragraph U36 requires the DPD to revise its UOF and prisoner injury investigation policies to require:
a) command UOF preliminary and final investigations to be completed within 10 and 30 days of the incident, respectively; such investigations must include a synopsis of the incident, photographs of any injuries, witness statements, a canvas of the area, a profile of the officer’s prior UOF and allegations of misconduct, and a first- line supervisory evaluation;
b) IAD investigations to be completed within 60 days of the incident; and
c) copies of all reports and command investigations to be sent to IAD within 7 days of completion of the investigation.

Current Assessment of Compliance

The DPD revised Directive 304.2 “Use of Force” to include the requirements of this and other related paragraphs and submitted it to the DOJ for review and approval on October 31, 2003. On November 25, 2003, the DPD withdrew the policy from the DOJ’s consideration to make further revisions.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U36.

C. REVIEW OF CRITICAL FIREARM DISCHARGES AND IN-CUSTODY DEAT HS

Paragraph U37 - Creation of Shooting Team
Paragraph U37 requires the DPD’s Shooting Team, which is composed of officers from the Homicide Section and IAD, to respond to the scene and investigate all critical firearms discharges and in-custody deaths.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD revised Directive 304.2 “Use of Force” to include the requirements of this and other related paragraphs and submitted it to the DOJ for review and approval on October 31, 2003. On

19

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

November 25, 2003, the DPD withdrew the policy from the DOJ’s consideration to make further revisions.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U37.

Paragraph U38 - Protocol for Investigations of Critical Firearm Discharges

Paragraph U38 requires the DPD to develop a protocol for conducting investigations of critical firearm discharges that, in addition to the requirements of paragraphs U27-36, requires:
a) the investigation to account for all shots fired, all shell casings, and the locations of all officers at the time the officer discharged the firearm;
b) the investigator to conduct and preserve in the investigative file all appropriate ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests; and
c) the investigation to be completed within 30 days of the incident. If a Garrity statement is necessary, then that portion of the investigation may be deferred until 30 days from the declination or conclusion of the criminal prosecution.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD revised Directive 304.267 regarding review of critical firearm discharges, in-custody deaths and creation of a shooting team.68 The DPD further reports that a protocol is “being developed.” The Monitor was informed by CRIB that the protocol is in the FIS SOP.
The Monitor reviewed the FIS SOP, which purports to have been revised to include the requirements of paragraphs U27-38, and identified a number of instances in which the DPD failed to include requirements of the UOF CJ. For example, there is no mention of the “prohibition of group interviews” or the “signed refusal statement by the complainant/witness,” as required by paragraph U29c.69 Another area of concern identified by the Monitor is that the FIS SOP requires that material witnesses be interviewed, rather than requiring that all witnesses be interviewed. Because of these and other deficiencies in the document, the FIS SOP must undergo further revisions in order to fully comply with the requirements of the UOF CJ.70
Furthermore, the protocol required by this paragraph must include the items outlined in the paragraph, as well as the requirements of paragraphs U27-36. Several of the paragraphs in U2736 require that the DPD implement policy revisions. As outlined above, the DPD has withdrawn

67 As mentioned throughout this report, this proposed policy was submitted to the DOJ for review and approval and was subsequently withdrawn for further revisions.
68 The DPD’s 120-Day Status Report (November 17, 2003). 69 The other requirements of paragraph U29c appear in the FIS SOP. 70 The Monitor has prepared and will forward to the DPD a memorandum addressing these and other deficiencies in the FIS SOP.

20

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

the relevant policy and is in the process of making further revisions. These policy revisions are necessary to the development of an effective protocol under paragraph U38.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U38.

Paragraph U39 - Command Level Force Review Team
Paragraph U39 mandates that the DPD must require a command level force review team (CLFRT) to evaluate all critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths. The team must be chaired by the Deputy Chief who directly supervises IAD. The DPD must establish criteria for selecting the other members of the team.

Current Assessment of Compliance
Please refer to the Monitor’s assessment of paragraph U41, which includes the Monitor’s assessment of paragraphs U39-41.

Paragraph U40 - Time Limits for Command Level Force Review Team
Paragraph U40 mandates that the DPD policy that defines the CLFRT’s role must require the team to:
a) complete its review of critical firearm discharges that result in injury and in-custody deaths within 90 days of the resolution of any criminal review and/or proceedings and all other critical firearm discharges within 60 days and require the Chief of Police to complete his or her review of the team’s report within 14 days;
b) comply with the revised review of investigations policies and procedures;
c) interview the principal inve stigators; and
d) prepare a report to the Chief of Police in compliance with the revised investigatory report and evaluation protocol.

Current Assessment of Compliance
Please refer to the Monitor’s assessment of paragraph U41, which includes the Monitor’s assessment of paragraphs U39-41.

Paragraph U41 - Aggregate Review
Paragraph U41 requires the Chair of the CLFRT to annually review critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths in aggregate to detect patterns and/or problems and report his or her findings and recommendations, including additional investigative protocols and standards for all critical firearm discharge and in-custody death investigations, to the Chief of Police.

21

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Current Assessment of Compliance

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

The DPD revised Directive 101.9 “Special Purpose Committees” to include the creation of the CLFRT and submitted the Directive to the DOJ on October 14, 2003.71 The DPD submitted documents entitled “Force Review Team Directive and Standard Operating Procedures” to the
DOJ and the Monitor with a cover letter dated October 14, 2003. The Monitor provided the
DPD with oral recommendations to correct the deficiencies in the proposed policy and SOP. The DOJ outlined its various concerns with the DPD’s submission in a letter dated November 19,
2003. The Monitor understands that the DPD is making revisions based upon the DOJ and the Monitor’s concerns and the requirements of the UOF CJ.72

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraphs U39-41.

71 The DPD’s 120-Day Status Report (November 17, 2003). 72 The Monitor requested and received, at the end of the first quarter, the DPD’s criteria for the selection of members of the CLFRT as required by paragraph U38. The Monitor will review the DPD’s submission in conjunction with the next review of these paragraphs during the quarter ending May 31, 2004; however, before the team can become operational, the DPD must develop an effective policy creating and defining the role of the team.
22

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

III. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Overview
Paragraphs U42-60 of the UOF CJ require the DPD to make significant changes to its policies, policies, practices and procedures related to arrests, stops and frisks, witness identification and questioning, the detention of material witnesses, arrestee restrictions, custodial detention, prompt judicial review, holds and command notification regarding arrests and witness detention issues. The DPD, for many of these areas, must also develop auditable forms to document officer violations of the UOF CJ requirements or to capture certain events, such as detaining a material witness.
During the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed paragraphs U42-53 and U58. The relevant draft policies related to these and other paragraphs were submitted to the DOJ by the DPD on October 31, 2003. On November 25, 2003, the DPD withdrew this policy and all others from DOJ consideration for further revisions. Although none of the policy revisions have been approved and implemented for these paragraphs, the DPD has placed into service auditable forms that attempt to address documentation requirements, discussed below.
The Monitor is scheduled to further review the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs (U4253, U58-59) during the quarter ending May 31, 2004.73
A. ARREST POLICIES
Paragraph U42 - Revision of Arrest Policies
Paragraph U42 requires the DPD to revise its arrest policies to define arrest and probable cause as those terms are defined in the UOF CJ and prohibit the arrest of an individual with less than probable cause.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD revised Directive 202.1 (“Search and Seizure”) and submitted it to the DOJ and the Monitor on October 31, 2003. The DPD subsequently withdrew the policy on November 25, 2003 to make further revisions.74

73 As described below, those paragraphs included in this section of the UOF CJ that were not reviewed during the current reporting period (paragraphs U54-57, U60) are scheduled for review during the quarter ending February 29, 2004. 74 Although policy was withdrawn, resulting in the DPD’s failure to comp ly with the paragraph U145 requirement of implementation within 90 days of the effective date of the UOF CJ, the Monitor notes that an initial review of the
23

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U42.

Paragraph U43 - Review of All Arrests
Paragraph U43 requires the DPD to review the merits of each arrest and opine as to whether or not adequate probable cause existed to support the arrest. The review must be made at the time an arrestee is presented at the precinct or specialized unit and memorialized within 12 hours of the arrest. For those arrests in which adequate probable cause does not exist, or for which the DPD does not request a warrant, the DPD is required to generate an auditable form memorializing such circumstances within 12 hours of the event.

Current Assessment of Compliance
On August 21, 2003, Deputy Chief Ronald Haddad issued an Interoffice Memorandum (“Haddad Memo”) to all 13 precincts that put into immediate effect arrest review procedures designed to meet the requirements of paragraph U43. Specifically, the Haddad Memo required that the Officer In Charge (OIC) of the desk assume responsibility for reviewing the circumstances surrounding each arrest coming into his or her command. The OIC is also responsible for documenting each review, noting on a Preliminary Complaint Report (PCR) any arrests not supported by probable cause and requiring the immediate release of any prisoner where the arrest was not supported by probable cause.
The Monitor determined that although the DPD complied with certain provisions of paragraph U43 as a result of the Haddad Memo, it neither requires a review of each arrest within 12 hours nor does it require the memorialization of those arrests not supported by probable cause or for which a warrant was not requested on a separate auditable form.
On October 22, 2003, the DPD issued an Administrative Message to All Commands, which referenced teletypes 03-06366-68 (“Auditable Forms - Use of Force Arrest Witness Detention Consent Decree”). The Administrative Message required the immediate use of eight auditable forms, created by CRIB, for compliance with the data capture requirements of paragraphs U34, U43, U45, U48, U51, U53 and U57. The forms were uploaded onto the DPD’s Intranet for immediate use. Guidelines for most of the forms were attached. These forms and guidelines were distributed for use by the DPD approximately 96 days after the effective date of the UOF CJ.
The Monitor reviewed the forms and accompanying guidelines75 that pertain to paragraph U43, Forms UF-001 and UF-004. The Monitor determined that the forms placed into service might

directive indicated that the proposed revised arrest policies did not meet the requirements of paragraph U42 in that they failed to address the definition of probable cause as defined in the UOF CJ. 75 The relevant guidelines quote the text of the paragraph verbatim and, in bullet point format, expand upon the text by identifying the OIC’s responsibilit ies.
24

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

adequately address the documentation requirements of paragraph U43.76 However, the
Administrative Message, attached guidelines and Forms UF-001 and UF-004, like the Haddad Memo, fail to identify the 12-hour reporting requirements.77 Lastly, Directive 202.1, which the DPD submitted to the DOJ and the Monitor and subsequently retracted, contained instructions on
the completion of arrest review and documentation. The Monitor is of the opinion that the proposed policy was not clear and could have resulted in confusion in the field.78

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U43.79

Recommendations

The Monitor recommends that Forms UF-001 and UF-004 be edited to include verbiage citing the requirement to complete the respective auditable form within 12 hours of determining insufficient probable cause or failure to obtain a warrant for arraignment.

B. INVESTIGATORY STOP POLICIES
Paragraph U44 - Revision of Policies
Paragraph U44 requires the DPD to revise its investigatory stop and frisk policies to define investigatory stop and reasonable suspicion as those terms are defined in the UOF CJ. The policy must specify that a frisk is authorized only when the officer has a reasonable suspicion to fear for his or her safety and that the scope of the frisk must be narrowly tailored to these specific reasons.
Current Assessment of Compliance
On October 23, 2003, the DPD provided to the DOJ and the Monitor proposed Directive 202.2 (Search and Seizure) intended to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs U44 and U45.80 The Monitor reviewed the proposed Directive and determined that the definition of “investigatory stop and frisk” included the language required under paragraph U44. In addition, the circumstances under which an officer may cond uct a frisk search, as specified in the Directive, complied with paragraph U44 requirements. However, the DPD withdrew Directive 202.2 from

76 The Monitor noted that the DPD AT has been the recipient of completed Forms -001 and -004. However, given that the forms were only recently introduced, the Monitor opted not to assess its utilization during this quarter.
77 As stated, the Guidelines cite paragraph U43 verbatim; however, instructions contained below this definition fail to address both 12-hour time requirements.
78 “If the officer in charge of the precinct station desk or of the case determines that there is not sufficient probable cause to detain the person they shall be immediately released and memorialized in writing within 12 hours of arrest.”
79 Other policy requirements of paragraph U43 are addressed by paragraph U42.
80 The DPD has since retracted the Directive and withdrawn it from the review of the DOJ and the Monitor.

25

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

review effective November 25, 2003. Therefore, the policy outlined in the Directive has not yet been implemented. Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U44.

Paragraph U45 - Documentation Requirement

Paragraph U45 requires the DPD to document all investigatory stops and frisks by the end of the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD must also review all investigatory stops and frisks and document on an auditable form those unsupported by reasonable suspicion within 24 hours of receiving the officer’s report.

Current Assessment of Compliance

As stated under paragraph U44 above, the DPD effectively retracted the proposed policy in this area. As explained below, the DPD has failed to issue policy and guidance regarding the requirement that all investigatory stops and frisks be documented by the end of the shift in which the police action occurred.
On October 22, 2003, the DPD issued an Administrative Message via teletype to all DPD personnel mandating the use of several auditable forms, including a form to document within 24 hours instances in which investigatory stops and frisks have occurred that are unsupported by reasonable suspicion.
The Monitor reviewed the form that pertains to paragraph U45, Form UF-003, and determined that it does not adequately addresses the requirements of the paragraph. Unlike other forms issued, the DPD failed to include guidance on form UF-003. Furthermore, the 24-hour requirement is not included on Form UF-003 and the form fails to address stops and frisks independent of each other.
The CRIB AT has recently received auditable forms from precincts documenting investigatory stops and frisks that were unsupported by reasonable suspicion.81
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U45.

Recommendations

The Monitor recommends that the DPD issue guidance to the field regarding the appropriate completion of Form UF-003.
The Monitor recommends that the DPD include on Form UF-003 an indication that the form must be completed within 24 hours for any investigatory stop or frisk that occurs without reasonable suspicion.

81 Given that the form was only recently introduced, the Monitor opted not to assess its utilization during this quarter.

26

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

The Monitor recommends that the DPD edit Form UF-003 to change the box on this form from “Unsupported Reasonable Suspicion for Stop and Frisk” to “Unsupported Reasonable Suspicion for Stop and/or Frisk.”

C. WITNESS IDENTIFICATION AND QUESTIONING POLICIES

Paragraph U46 - Revision of Policies
Paragraph U46 requires the DPD to revise its witness identification and questioning policies to comply with the revised arrest and investigatory stop policies. The DPD must prohibit the seizure of an individual without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual and require that the scope and duration of any seizure be narrowly tailored to the reasons supporting the police action. The DPD must prohibit the conveyance of any individual to another location without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual.
Current Assessment of Compliance
On October 23, 2003, the DPD provided to the DOJ and the Monitor proposed policy revisions intended to address paragraph U46 requirements.82 A review of the proposed policy determined that it did not fully meet the requirements of paragraph U46:83
• The DPD has not differentiated between an ordinary witness and a material witness and how each is managed pursuant to the revised arrest and investigatory stop policies.
• Regarding the requirement that it prohibits the seizure of an individual without reasonable suspicion, DPD policy fails to define “Unlawful Detention,” nor does it prohibit unlawful arrest (seizure) or detention of an individual unless the conditions of “reasonable or probable cause” exist.84 It is also the Monitor’s contention that the DPD’s definition of “Illegal Arrest” in DPD manual section 202.1-4 is more in line with the definition of unlawful detention.
• The DPD has not established policy that prohibits the conveyance (as defined by “k” of the UOF CJ) of any individual to another location without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent.
The Monitor notes that the policy requires that the scope and duration of any seizure be narrowly tailored to the reasons supporting the police action, as mandated by paragraph U46.
82 The DPD has since retracted the policy and withdrawn it from review by the DOJ and the Monitor. 83 As in some other instances, the Monitor began reviewing this proposed policy prior to its withdrawal. 84 The Monitor believes it appropriate for the DPD to include verbiage advising officers that a witness is allowed to leave the scene of an incident or crime absent reasonable suspicion. It is not unlikely that a witness will articulate a commitment to attend work or school, or retrieve a child and that the officer should attempt to obtain contact information so that the witness may be interviewed at a time and place convenient to the witness. An officer cannot simply detain a witness because it is easier for the officer to interview the witness at that time.

27

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Finally, the Monitor determined that the DPD has yet to establish a policy designed (a) to identify officers who seize and or convey an individual fo r witness identification and questioning without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent; (b) to provide for additional training as needed; and (c) to administer discipline, if necessary.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U46.

Recommendations
The Monitor recommends that the DPD revise Directive 202.1-9 by defining “Witness” and including procedures for managing witnesses in the field or at the precinct.
The Monitor recommends that the DPD revise Directive 202.1-2 (or another appropriate section) by defining “Unlawful Detention.” In addition, language must be added prohibiting unlawful arrest (seizure) or detention of an individual unless the conditions of “reasonable or probable cause” exist.
The Monitor recommends that the DPD remove the language “Every detention is a seizure…” from Directive 202.2-4.8 and place it under the section that pertains to lawful and unlawful detentions.

Paragraph U47 - Submission to the DOJ within 3 months
Paragraph U47 requires the DPD to develop revised witness identification and questioning policies within three months of the effective date of the UOF CJ. The revised policies must be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD must then implement the revised witness identification and questioning policies within three months of the review and approval of the DOJ.

Current Assessment of Compliance
On October 23, 2003, submitted proposed witness identification and questioning policies to the DOJ for review and approval by way of an Inter-Office Memorandum, dated October 17, 2003, referencing the “Submission of Copies of Directives 203.11, 202.1, 202.2. Memorandums and teletype to implement auditable forms use of force consent decree paragraphs 46-48.” In addition, a two-page proposed auditable form (CRIB-UF-005) designed to document an interview, interrogation or conveyance was included. The DPD has since retracted the policy and withdrawn it from the review and approval by the DOJ.
The Monitor’s review of the proposed policy determined that it failed to fully address witness questioning policies and conveyances. Specifically, the policy did not state that a witness cannot and should not be detained or that a witness has a right to refuse to talk to the police. In addition,

28

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

the Monitor could not identify, where cited,85 the requirements of conveying and individual to another location without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in no n-compliance with paragraph U47.86

Paragraph U48 - Documentation of Interviews and Interrogations

Paragraph U48 requires the DPD to memorialize all interviews, interrogations and conveyances during the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD is also required to document, on a separate auditable form, any interrogation, interview or conveyance in violation of DPD policy within 12 hours of the event.

Current Assessment of Compliance

Included in the October 22, 2003 Administrative Message via teletype, was a requirement that all DPD personnel utilize an auditable form (UF-005) to document instances in which interrogations, interviews and conveyances have occurred that are unsupported by reasonable suspicion within 24 hours. Furthermore, Section B of this form requires the individual completing the form to identify the facts to validate ‘the no probable cause, reasonable suspicion or consent finding.’
Guidelines issued in connection with the Administrative Message include paragraph U48, verbatim, but succeeding bullet point instructions fail to articulate documentation requirements. The guidelines also fail to articulate the requirement that the review and, if applicable, the generation of the auditable form must be completed within 12 hours. Furthermore, Form UF-005 fails to indicate that the form must be completed within 12 hours of the interview, interrogation or conveyance where the policy is violated. The Monitor reviewed Directive 203.9-3 Definitions: interviews and interrogations noting that current policy fails to require the documentation of interviews, interrogations and conveyances.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with the provisions of paragraph U48.

Recommendations

The Monitor recommends that the DPD include on Form UF-005 an indication that the form must be completed within 12 hours of the interview, interrogation or conveyance that violates policy.

85 Proposed policy submitted to the DOJ for review and approval included a communication stating that policy revisions for conveyances were included. However, the Monitor’s review of the DPD’s submission to the DOJ did not identify any such policy revisions. 86 The Monitor will assess the DPD’s compliance with the requirement to implement revised witness identification policies once the DPD resubmits the policy to the DOJ and the DOJ reviews and approves it.
29

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

D. PROMPT JUDICIAL REVIEW POLICIES

Paragraph U49 - Revision of Policies and Requirement of Arraignment Within 48 Hours
Paragraph U49 requires the DPD to revise its policies to require prompt judicial review, as defined in the UOF CJ, for every person arrested by the DPD. The DPD must develop a timely and systematic process for all arrestees to be presented for prompt judicial review or to be released.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD submitted proposed Directive 202.1 to the DOJ and the Monitor on October 23, 2003.87
Prior to the DPD’s withdrawal, the Monitor reviewed the proposed Directive and determined that it fails to meet the requirements of the UOF CJ. Specifically, the reference to “within a reasonable period of time” in the first paragraph of Section 202.1-8 is inconsistent with the UOF CJ’s definition of prompt judicial review, as well as the subsequent discussion in the second paragraph of Section 202.1-8.88 In addition, the proposed Directive fails to emphasize that the UOF CJ’s time frame for prompt judicial review is for a period up to and not to exceed 48 hours. In some instances this could be five hours and in other 30 hours. The Monitor is concerned that the DPD might interpret this to mean all arrests have no less than 48 hours and that this time period is an investigatory period.89
In an effort to address some of these issues, the Monitor and DPD personnel met with members of the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office,90 as well as the Detroit City Court during the quarter. Specific topics discussed included the possibility of night court or adjustments in court hours to provide the DPD with the ability to obtain an arrest warrant and arraign an arrestee within the same day, as well as the initiation of two cut-off times by which paperwork must be submitted for the scheduling of an arraignment. From these discussions, the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office, the Court and the DPD have agreed to two arraignment periods, Monday through Friday. 91

87 The DPD has since retracted the policy and withdrawn it from review by the DOJ and the Monitor.
88 It is the Monitor’s contention that “as soon as possible” is the appropriate term.
89 For example, in situations where officers witness a drug transaction and arrest the involved individuals, the Monitor contends that it should not take 48 hours to arraign these individuals. The DPD’s desire to elicit a confession from those involved is not a predicate for delaying the process of completing paperwork and submitting it to the prosecutor for a warrant request. The DPD must stress in its policy that every arrest that is supported by probable cause, at that time, should also be adequately documented for immediate presentation to a prosecutor to facilitate a speedy presentation before a magistrate.
90 Going forward, CRIB members will meet with representatives from the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office during the first week of each quarter.
91 It is anticipated that the two-arraignment system will be implemented on January 5, 2004.

30

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Notwithstanding the shortcomings in the proposed policy, as described above, as well as the DPD’s failure to implement proposed policy within the time frame specified in the UOF CJ, the Monitor notes that the DPD has demonstrated a clear effort to move forward on this issue. The Monitor is encouraged by the progress made to date, and commends all involved parties for recognizing that it is easier for the DPD to accomplish this task with their cooperation.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U49.

Paragraph U50 - Requirement of Warrant Request
For each arrestee, paragraph U50 requires the DPD to submit to the prosecutor’s office, within 24 hours of the arrest, a warrant request for arraignment on the charges underlying the arrest.

Current Assessment of Compliance
As previously described, the DPD submitted and then retracted proposed Directive 202.1, which includes a policy change requiring that a warrant request be submitted to the prosecutor’s office within 24 hours of arrest.92
DPD personnel met with representatives of the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office during this quarter discuss expanding the responsibilities of Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) assigned to precincts to review non- fatal shooting arrests. The Monitor understands that the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office will expand the responsibilities of these ADAs so that they may review the merits of all arrests and assist in the timely submission of warrant requests, however this informal consultation will not satisfy or toll the requirement that the warrant be formally submitted within 24 hours of the arrest.
Although meetings with the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office have yielded results in improving the timeliness of requests, the DPD has failed to establish the required policy, procedure and processes.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U50.

Paragraph U51 - Documentation of Late Request for Arraignment Warrants and Late Arraignments
Paragraph U51 requires the DPD to document on an auditable form all instances in which an arraignment warrant is submitted more than 24 hours after the arrest, and all instances in which an arrestee is not presented for arraignment within 48 hours of arrest in which extraordinary circumstances delayed the arraignment. The documentation must occur by the end of the shift in which there was:

92 The timeliness of policy implementation is a compliance requirement of paragraph U49; it does not impact the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U50.

31

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

1. a failure to request an arraignment warrant within 24 hours;

2. a failure to comply with the prompt judicial review policy; or

3. an arraignment delayed because of extraordinary circumstances.

Current Assessment of Compliance

As described above in connection with paragraphs U49 and U50, the DPD submitted to the DOJ and the Monitor and subsequently retracted proposed policy revisions. The DPD issued an Administrative Message on October 22, 2003 mandating the use of form UF-004 to document instances in which a warrant request is not submitted within 24 hours and/or the arrestee is not presented for arraignment within 48 hours.
The Monitor reviewed Form UF-004 and determined that it addresses the documentation requirements of paragraph U51, with two exceptions: The form fails to include on its face reference to the 24- hour warrant request requirement and 48-hour prompt judicial review requirement and it fails to record the time the arraignment warrant was submitted. The CRIB AT has since received auditable forms from precincts documenting arrests unsupported by probable cause or for which a warrant was not sought.93
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U51.

Recommendations

The Monitor recommends that the DPD include on Form UF-004 an indication that the form must be completed whenever a warrant request is not obtained within 24 hours of an individual’s arrest and/or whenever an arrestee is not presented for arraignment within 48 hours of arrest.
The Monitor recommends that the DPD provide a field on Form UOF-004 to record the time the arraignment warrant was submitted.

E. HOLD POLICIES

Paragraph U52 - Revision of Policies
Paragraph U52 requires the DPD to revise its hold policies to define a hold as that term is defined in the UOF CJ and require that all holds be documented. The policy must establish a timely and systematic process for persons in DPD custody who have holds issued by a City of Detroit court to have those holds cleared by presenting the arrestee to the court from which the

93 Given that the form was only recently introduced, the Monitor opted not to assess its utilization during this quarter.
32

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

warrant was issued or the setting and posting of bond where applicable. The fact that an arrestee has not been arraigned or charged on the current arrest shall not delay this process.

Current Assessment of Compliance
In a letter dated October 23, 2003, the DPD forwarded to the DOJ and the Monitor proposed Directive 305.1, which purports to meet the requirements of paragraph U52.94 Among other things, the policy provides a definition of a hold that is consistent with the UOF CJ, requires that all holds be documented, and requires that the arrestee be presented to the court to clear the hold regardless of whether or not the arrestee has been arraigned or charged for the current arrest. The proposed policy also requires that the OIC of the desk document on an auditable form each instance in which a hold is not processed within 24 hours on a daily basis.
However, the Monitor reviewed the proposed hold policy prior to its withdrawal and determined that it did not satisfy the UOF CJ requirement for the development of a systematic process. The DPD has not documented the steps involved to ensure that an arrestee is presented for a hold and to identify the method by which holds will be documented. As such, a timely systematic process has not been defined.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U52.

Paragraph U53 - Documentation of all Holds
Paragraph U53 requires the DPD to document all holds, including the time each hold was identified and the time each hold was cleared. The DPD must document on an auditable form each instance in which a hold is not processed within twenty-four hours on a daily basis.

Current Assessment of Compliance
Proposed Directive 305.195 includes the requirement that each hold is documented; however, it fails to identify who is responsible for documenting the hold and the method by which holds are to be documented. On October 22, 2003, the DPD issued an Administrative Message to all Command Staff, which, among other things, provided Form UF-007 to be used to document all holds that are not processed within twenty- four hours.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U53.

94 The DPD has since retracted the policy and withdrawn it from review by the DOJ and the Monitor. 95 Please refer to the Current Assessment of Compliance section under paragraph U52.
33

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
F. RESTRICTION POLICIES

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this section of the UOF CJ (paragraphs U54-55) during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

G. MATERIAL WITNESS POLICIES
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this section of the UOF CJ (paragraphs U56-57) during the qua rter ending February 29, 2004.

H. DOCUMENTATION OF CUSTODIAL DETENTION

Paragraph U58 - Revision of Policy
Paragraph U58 mandates the DPD to revise its A&D documentation to require, for all arrests, a record or file to contain accurate and auditable documentation of: a) the individual’s personal information; b) the crime(s) charged; c) the date and time of arrest and release; d) the date and time the arraignment warrant was submitted; e) the name and badge number of the officer who submitted the arraignment warrant; f) the date and time of arraignment; g) the date and time each warrant was lodged and cleared, if applicable; and, h) the custodial status of the arrestee e.g. new arrest, material witness or extradition.
Current Assessment of Compliance
During the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed various DPD forms to assess whether they capture the information required by paragraph U58.96
DPD’s PCR (DPD Form 108) serves a dual purpose, in that it is utilized for reporting crimes, as well as arrests made by DPD personnel. A box labeled “Arrest(s) Yes/No” is checked “yes” when an arrest is made. The arrestee’s personal identifier information is then documented in the narrative portion of the report. The type of crime charged is documented in the box marked

96 Via a letter dated October 23, 2003, the DPD forwarded to the DOJ and the Monitor proposed arrest documentation policy. The DPD has since retracted the policy and withdrawn it from review by the DOJ and the Monitor.

34

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

“Report On”. The date and time of arrest is documented in the boxes marked “Occurred on or Between / Reported to Police On.” However, there are no designated areas on the report to document the following information:

• the arrestee’s release, date and time;

• the date and time of arraignment warrant was submitted;

• the name and badge number of the officer who submitted the arraignment warrant;

• the date and time of arrangement;

• the date and time each warrant was lodged and cleared if applicable; and

• the custodial status of the arrestee e.g. new arrest, material witness, or extradition.

A review of the DPD Form 192 (Arrest Ticket), which is filled out at the time an arrestee is booked into police custody, revealed that the following information is included as required by paragraph U58:
• the arrestee’s name, address, age/sex/race, date of birth, hair and eye color, height and weight and complexion;
• the initial charge; and
• the final charge

Missing from DPD Form 192 is the following required information: • the date and time of the arrestee’s release; • the date and time when the arraignment warrant was submitted; • the name and badge number of the officer who submitted the arraignment warrant; • the date and time of arraignment; • the date and time each warrant was lodged and cleared, if applicable; and • the custodial status of the arrestee e.g. new arrest, material witness or extradition.

A review of the DPD Form 532 (Court Case Envelope), which is used to house all documents submitted for an arraignment warrant on a DPD arrestee, revealed that the following information is included as required by U58:
• the name and personal identifiers of the arrestee;
• the crime(s) charged;
• the date and time when the arraignment warrant was submitted;

35

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

• the name and badge number of the officer who submitted the arraignment warrant;

• the date and time of arraignment; and

• the date and time each warrant was lodged and cleared.

Missing from the form is the custodial status of the arrestee e.g. new arrest, material witness or extradition information.

A review of the DPD Form number 478 (Traffic Case Envelope), utilized by DPD officers to house those reports that support a misdemeanor arrest (Preliminary Complaint Records, etc.), revealed that the following information is included as required by U58: • the name of the arrestee and residence address; • the crime charged; • the date and time of arrest; • the date when the arraignment warrant was submitted; • the name and badge number of the officer who submitted the arraignment warrant; • the date of arraignment; and • the date when the warrant was lodged and cleared. Missing from the form is the following required information:97 • the time of the arrest with no release information on the form; • the time when the arraignment warrant was submitted; • the time when the warrant was lodged and cleared; and • the custodial status of the arrestee e.g. new arrest, material witness or extradition. Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U58.98

Recommendation

The Monitor recommends that the DPD modify the current DPD Form 108 (Preliminary Complaint Record) by adding the arrestee identifier information from the DPD Form 192 (Arrest

97 DPD Form 478 is used for low-grade misdemeanor arrests and would not be utilized for the processing of a material witness or extradition arrestee. 98 The Monitor notes that the DPD is in the process of creating a computerized DPD Form 108, which is due for implementation in April 2004.
36

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Ticket). The Monitor further recommends that a second page be added (with a separate form number) to capture pertinent court processing information, such as:

• the date and time of the arrestee’s release;

• the date and time when the arraignment warrant was submitted; and

• the name and badge number of the officer who submitted the arraignment warrant.

I. COMMAND NOTIFICAT ION

Paragraph U59 - Time Limits for Written Reporting of Violations
Paragraph U59 requires all DPD Commanders of a precinct and, if applicable, of the specialized unit to review in writing all reported violations of DPD arrest, investigatory stop and frisk, witness identification and questioning policies and all reports of arrests in which an arraignment warrant was not sought. The commander’s review must be completed within 7 days of receiving the document reporting the event, and must include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD issued a memorandum on September 23, 2003, entitled “Procedures for Submitting Review of Arrest Forms,” which, among other things, detailed the reporting requirements of paragraph U59. Members of CRIB provided specialized training, utilizing a PowerPoint presentation, to DPD Assistant Chiefs, Deputy Chiefs and Commanders in conjunction with the issuance of this memorandum. The Monitor is currently reviewing material provided by the DPD to determine whether the DPD is in compliance with the requirements of the paragraph.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor has not yet evaluated the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U59. The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.
Paragraph U60 - Daily Reporting Requirement
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

37

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

IV. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS
Overview
Paragraphs U61-69 of the UOF CJ require that the DPD revise its policies and procedures regarding the intake, tracking, investigation and review of external complaints. There are specific requirements relative to the roles and responsibilities of the OCI and the DPD, including the development and implementation of an informational campaign and the review and evaluation of each allegation in an external complaint investigation. 99
During the current period of review, the Monitor determined that the DPD and the OCI were working on two separate tracks in attempting to meet the requirements of the UOF CJ. For example, in accordance with paragraph U63, the DPD made a timely submission of an informational brochure and contact form to the DOJ for review and approval on September 11, 2003.100 However, the Monitor learned that despite the fact that the informational brochure/contact form described the procedure for filing external complaints, which the OCI is ultimately responsible for, the OCI had not reviewed the form that DPD submitted. Furthermore, the OCI had developed its own informational brochure and contact form, in addition to other items required by the UOF CJ. Apparently, there was a lack of communication between the DPD and OCI. Therefore, although the Monitor was not scheduled to review the external complaint paragraphs during the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor chose to review the paragraphs and encourage the DPD and the OCI to work together.
The Monitor met with the DPD and the OCI to discuss the revisions to the external complaint policies, the informational campaign and the OCI’s recently revised SOP. As described below, the Monitor provided the OCI and the DPD with verbal and written comments regarding the OCI’s SOP. The DPD and the OCI continue to revise their external complaint policies, informational campaign plan and SOP based on comments provided by the DOJ and the Monitor and in accordance with the requirements of the UOF CJ.
The Monitor is scheduled to further review the UOF CJ requirements regarding the external complaint process (paragraphs U61-69) during the quarter ending May 31, 2004.

99 The OCI reports to the BPC and is responsible for conducting all external complaint investigations.
100 Paragraph U63 requires DPD to develop a contact form within 60 days of the effective date of the Consent Judgment. The contact form must be submitted to the DOJ for review and approval. Please refer to the Monitor’s assessment of paragraph U63 for additional information regarding the development of the informational brochure/contact form and submissions by the DOJ and the Monitor.
38

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Paragraph U61 - Revision of External Complaints Policy

Paragraph U61 requires the DPD and City to revise their external complaint policy to clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of the OCI and the DPD regarding the receipt, investigation and review of external complaints. At a minimum, the plan must specify each agency’s responsibility for receiving, recording, investigating and tracking complaints; each agency’s responsibility for conducting community outreach and education regarding complaints; and, how, when and in what fashion the agencies shall exchange information, including complaint referrals and information about sustained complaints.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The Monitor understands that the DPD is revising Directive 102.6 to meet the requirements of paragraph U61; however, the Directive is still under review by the DPD.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U61.

Paragraph U62 - Informational Campaign
Paragraph U62 requires the DPD and the City to develop and implement an informational campaign regarding external complaints, including:
a) informing persons they may file complaints regarding the performance of any DPD employee;
b) distributing complaint forms, fact sheets and informational posters at City Hall, OCI, all DPD precincts, libraries, on the internet and, upon request, to community groups and community centers;
c) broadcasting public service announcements that describe the complaint process; and
d) posting permanently a placard describing the complaint process, with relevant phone numbers, in the lobby of each DPD precinct.

Current Assessment of Compliance

On November 17 and 18, 2003, the Monitor visited all thirteen DPD precincts to determine whether the DPD had distributed complaint forms and fact sheets, and posted informational
posters and placards describing the complaint process, as required by paragraph U62. The DPD
and the OCI have made substantial progress towards compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. Of the thirteen precincts, one precinct did not have the informational poster or a
placard posted describing the complaint process. In addition, the placards at various precincts were in paper form. According to the OCI, the placards will be made permanent shortly.101 The

101 The Monitor has been informed that the OCI has taken on the responsibility of carrying out the informational campaign required under this paragraph.

39

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Monitor understands that the fact sheets required by this paragr aph are still being revised and are not yet available for distribution.

The Monitor also visited three libraries and two city halls, and found that all of these locations have a Xerox copy form of the informational poster. The fact sheets are not yet available for placement at these locations. For reasons described below in the recommendations section, the OCI did not distribute complaint forms to these locations.

The OCI provided the Monitor with a copy of a signed acknowledgement list indicating that all precincts, city halls and branch libraries had received the informational posters and placards.

The Monitor requested and recently received a copy of a videotape of the public service announcement (PSA) that is designed to meet the requirements of paragraph U62c. The Monitor understands that this PSA is currently being broadcast. The Monitor will review the PSA to determine whether it meets the requirements of this paragraph.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U62.

Recommendations
The OCI’s current practice is not to distribute pre-numbered complaint forms to any locations outside of the OCI and the DPD for control purposes. Instead, the OCI issues contact forms, which would be made into formal complaints, with a number, upon the OCI’s receipt of the contact form. Paragraph U62 requires complaint forms to be distributed to city halls and libraries. Citizens must also be able to actually file a complaint via the Internet. Upon request, the complaint forms must also be made available to community groups and at community centers. The Monitor recommends that the OCI modify its current practice by providing complaint forms to these various locations.102

Paragraph U63 - Informational Brochures and Contact Forms
Paragraph U63 requires all officers to carry informational brochures and contact forms in their vehicles at all times while on-duty. The DPD must develop a contact form within 60 days of the effective date of the UOF CJ and submit it for review and approval of the DOJ. This contact form must be implemented within 60 days of the review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD must require all officers to inform an individual of his or her right to make a complaint, if an individual objects to an officer’s conduct. The DPD must prohibit officers from discouraging any person from making a complaint or refusing to take a complaint.

102 The OCI could remove the pre-p rinted sequential numbers from the complaint forms, assign a number once the complaint is received, and notify the complainant of the complaint number when the acknowledgment of the receipt of the complaint is made, thereby complying with the paragraph U66 requirement that each complaint is assigned a unique identifier that will be made available to the complainant.
40

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Current Assessment of Compliance

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

On September 11, 2003, the DPD submitted a proposed informational brochure, which included a contact form, to the DOJ for review and approval. 103 The DOJ provided comments in a letter dated September 16, 2003. The DPD then resubmitted the proposed informational brochure/contact form on October 3, 2003; and the DOJ provided written comments on October 14, 2003. The DPD began working with the OCI on the development of the informational brochure and contact form and resubmitted another version on October 23, 2003. On December 4, 2003, the DOJ provided written comments regarding this submission, and indicated that the submission did not address concerns identified in the DOJ’s initial response of September 16, 2003.

According to the DPD, the OCI is making further revisions to the informational brochure/contact form.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U63.

A. INTAKE AND TRACKING

Paragraph U64 - Policies Regarding Intake and Tracking
Paragraph U64 requires the DPD and the City to revise their policies regarding the intake and tracking of external complaints to define complaint and misconduct as those terms are defined in the UOF CJ and require all officers and OCI employees to accept and document all complaints filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (TDD), facsimile or electronic mail.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD issued Teletype 03-06205 on October 17, 2003 requiring that all external complaints must be taken and documented appropriately. The DPD is revising Directive 102.6 “Filing Citizen Complaints” and directive 404.1 “Definitions” to meet the requirements of this paragraph. Directive 404.1 was submitted to the DOJ and the Monitor but was subsequently retracted on November 25, 2003 for further revisions. The Monitor understands that Directive 102.6 is still under review by the DPD.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U64.

103 As noted in the overview section above, the DPD had not consulted the OCI on the proposed informational brochure.
41

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Paragraph U65 - Factual Account by Intake Officer

Paragraph U65 requires the DPD and the City to permit the intake officer or employee to include a factual account and/or description of a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but not an opinion regarding the complainant’s mental competency or veracity.

Current Assessment of Compliance

The DPD is revising Directive 102.6 “Filing Citizen Complaints” to meet the requirements of this paragraph. The Monitor understands that Directive 102.6 is still under review by the DPD. 104
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U65.

Paragraph U66 - Unique Identifier

Paragraph U66 requires the DPD and the City to assign all complaints a unique identifier, which must be provided to the complainant, and a description of the basis for the complaint.

Current Assessment of Compliance

The DPD is revising Directive 102.6 “Filing Citizen Complaints” to meet the requirements of this paragraph. The Monitor understands that Directive 102.6 is still under review by the DPD. 105
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U66.

B. EXTERNAL COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION

Paragraph U67 - Revision of External Complaint Investigations Policy
Paragraph U67 requires the DPD and the City to revise its policies regarding external complaint investigations to:
a) provide that all complaints be referred for investigation and resolution by the OCI or, if the complaint alleges potentially criminal conduct by an officer, by IAD;

104 It is noted that OCI has included the requirements of paragraph U65 in its SOP, which applies to OCI staff. The DPD must make its own procedural modifications applicable to DPD. 105 The Monitor’s recommendations with regard to assigning a unique identifier to all complaints appear under paragraph U62.
42

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

b) permit informal resolution of complaints alleging only inadequate service or the complainant’s innocence of a charge and require the investigation and resolution of all other complaints;

c) refer all complaints to the appropriate agency within five business days;

d) require that complainants be periodically kept informed of complaint status;

e) develop written criteria for IAD and OCI investigator applicants;

f) implement mandatory pre-service and in-service training for all IAD and OCI investigators;

g) require IAD and the OCI to complete all investigations within 60 days of receiving the complaint; and

h) require that, upon completion of investigation, the compla inant must be notified of its outcome.

Current Assessment of Compliance

The DPD is revising Directive 102.6 “Filing Citizen Complaints” to meet the requirements of this paragraph. The Monitor understands that Directive 102.6 is still under review by the DPD.
The OCI has attempted to include the requirements of this paragraph and paragraphs U68 and U69 in revisions to its SOP.106 The Monitor reviewed the OCI SOP and determined that it failed to include some of the requirements of paragraph U67 and the related external complaint paragraphs. The Monitor met with the OCI on November 18, 2003 to provide oral recommendations based on the review of the OCI SOP. The Monitor will provide written recommendations to the DPD and the OCI. The Monitor understands that the OCI is currently revising the SOP based on the Monitor’s recommendations and the requirements of the UOF CJ.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U67.

Paragraph U68 - External Complaint Review Process Time Limits
Paragraph U68 requires the DPD and the City to review and evaluate the external complaint process to require:
a) the Chief Investigator to complete his or her review of OCI investigations within seven days of the supervisor’s review;
b) the Board of Police Commissioners to complete its review of OCI investigations within 45 days of the Chief Investigator’s review; and

106 While the Monitor notes that it is appropriate and necessary to make these revisions to the OCI SOP so that it incorporates the requirements of the Consent Judgments, this paragraph requires a policy change. Therefore, DPD must make and implement the appropriate policy revisions in order to achieve compliance.
43

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

c) the Chief of Police to complete his or her review of external complaints within 7 days of the Board of Police Commissioner’s review.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD is revising Directive 102.6 “Filing Citizen Complaints” to meet the requirements of this paragraph. The Monitor understands that Directive 102.6 is still under review by the DPD.
As described above, under the Monitor’s assessment of paragraph U67, the OCI has attempted to include the requirements of this paragraph in revisions to its SOP. The Monitor reviewed the revisions and determined that the OCI failed to include some of the requirements of paragraph U68 and the related external complaints paragraphs. For example, the OCI SOP states that all “sustained” complaints must be reviewed by the Chief Investigator and BPC, rather than requiring that all OCI investigations be reviewed, as mandated by paragraph U68.
The Monitor met with the OCI on November 18, 2003 to provide oral recommendations based on the review of the OCI SOP. The Monitor will provide written recommendations to the DPD and the OCI. The Monitor understands that the OCI is currently revising the SOP based on the Monitor’s recommendations and the requirements of the UOF CJ.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U68.

Paragraph U69 - External Complaint Dispositions
Paragraph U69 mandates that each allegation in an administrative external complaint investigation must be resolved by making one of the following dispositions:
a) “unfounded,” where the investigation revealed no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred;
b) “sustained,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur and the actions of the officer violated DPD policies, procedures or training;
c) “not sustained,” where there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and
d) “exonerated,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate DPD policies, procedures or training.

Current Assessment of Compliance
As described above, under the Monitor’s assessment of paragraph U67, the OCI has attempted to include the requirements of this paragraph in revisions to its SOP. The Monitor reviewed the revisions and determined that the requirements of paragraph U69 regarding external complaint dispositions were included. It is noted that the dispositions required by paragraph U69 were also included in the proposed informational brochure/contact form, which is still under revision.

44

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

The Monitor will conduct further reviews to determine whether investigators are being trained on the required dispositions and whether they are being implemented in external complaint investigations.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor has not yet evaluated the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U69. The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending May 31, 2004.

45

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

V. GENERAL POLICIES
Paragraphs U70-77 of the UOF CJ require the DPD to develop, revise, and/or enforce a variety of general policies. As described immediately below, the Monitor assessed paragraphs U70-71 during the quarter ending November 30, 2003, finding the DPD in non-compliance with each.
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with the majority of the paragraphs in this section of the UOF CJ (paragraphs U72-77) during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.
Paragraph U70 - Clear Definitions of Terms
Paragraph U70 requires that the DPD clearly define all terms when creating, revising and augmenting policy.
Current Assessment of Compliance
Among the proposed policy revisions submitted to the DOJ and the Monitor and then retracted was Directive 404.1 that specifically defines certain key terms. In order to assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U70, the Monitor cross-referenced all terms in existing and proposed DPD policy to the UOF CJ. The Monitor is concerned that although the DPD has inserted key components of the Consent Judgment into proposed policy revisions, it has failed to address the continuity of changes. For example, although the DPD inserted verbiage that defines a critical firearm discharge, the proposed policy discussing Category 1 UOF fails to appropriately address or refer to critical firearm discharges. Furthermore, the DPD’s definition of serious UOF fails to identify neck restraints as a serious UOF and fails to include in its deadly force policy that a strike to the head with an instrument constitutes a use of deadly force.
As discussed earlier in this report,107 the Monitor also identified inconsistencies in properly and clearly differentiating between a potential material witness and witnesses to an incident or crime in connection with the DPD’s witness identification and questioning policies.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U70.
Paragraph U71 - Community Comment on Proposed Policy Revisions
Paragraph U71 requires the DPD to continue making available proposed policy revisions to the community for review, comment and education. The DPD must also publish proposed policy on its website to allow for comment directly to the DPD.

107 Please refer to the Monitor’s assessment of compliance with paragraph U46.
46

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Current Assessment of Compliance

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Interviews of DPD personnel determined that as of December 19, 2003, the DPD had yet to finalize all locations at which proposed policy would be available to the community for review, comment and education. Verbal representations were made that the DPD planned on providing information at BPC meetings. The Monitor verbally indicated that this would not satisfy the requirements of the UOF CJ, in that these meetings occur too infrequently, and at times and locations that are not necessarily convenient to the majority of the community. Furthermore, the DPD had yet to identify the procedures and processes for posting proposed policies to its website to allow the community to educate themselves and to review and comment directly.

On December 22, 2003, the Monitor noted that the DPD’s website posted policies in the following areas:108 • Arrests • Arrest Tickets • Bonding • Canine • Chemical Spray • Eyewitness Identification • Firearms • Holding Cells • In-Car Video Cameras • Infectious Diseases • Medical Attention for Prisoners • Prisoner Processing • Search and Seizure • Use of Force

An inquiry of the DPD determined the policies posted are the DPD’s proposed policy revisions that were submitted to the DOJ and the Monitor during October 2003 and effectively retracted for further revisions on November 25, 2003.

108 Anyone accessing the DPD’s website need only point and click on any of these areas to retrieve the draft policies. However, as of December 30, 2003, the information described above was retracted from the DPD website.
47

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

The user is provided with two different means for making comments on the proposed policies. The user may respond directly via e-mail, or complete a printable form that may be mailed or sent via facsimile to the DPD.

In summary, although the DPD has established a website for the posting of proposed policies,
there are no procedures or processes in place regarding how the website will be maintained, and who within the DPD will receive, review and disseminate, and respond to the comments.109

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U71.

109 On December 12, 2003, the Monitor requested that the DPD provide a status report for paragraph U71, including information on progress made to date toward compliance. On December 23, 2003, the Monitor was informed by CRIB that "the information will be available approximately 20 business days from this date (December 23, 2003)." The Monitor acknowledged CRIB’s statement that the DPD would not provide the full report until a later date; however, the Monitor requested that, at minimum, the DPD provide the Monitor with information on progress made to date, if any. As of December 31, 2003, the DPD had not provided this information.
48

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

VI. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
Overview
Paragraphs U78-105 of the UOF CJ require the DPD to devise a comprehensive risk management plan that will consist of a risk management database, a performance evaluation system and an auditing protocol. The plan must also provide a mechanism for the regular and periodic review of all DPD policies, and for the regular occurrence of meetings of DPD management to share information and evaluate patterns of conduct that could potentially increase the DPD’s liability. This section of the UOF CJ also includes requirements in connection with the DPD’s use of video cameras, as well as the DPD’s policy and practices regarding discipline.
Paragraph U78 - Development of Risk Management Plan
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.
A. RISK MANAGEMENT DATABASE
Paragraphs U79-U90 provide specific requirements relative to the risk management database, including the development and implementation of a new computerized relational database for maintaining, integrating and retrieving data necessary for the supervision and management of the DPD. The Monitor was scheduled to review paragraphs U80-83 and U86-87 during the quarter ending November 30, 2003. The Monitor also reviewed paragraph U88a-c during this quarter.
The Monitor met with the DPD Risk Management Group and CRIB to discuss the newly created risk management plan documents110 and their various timelines for submission. Although the UOF CJ paragraph regarding the RFP was not scheduled for review by the Monitor during the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor chose to review all three risk management documents provided by the DPD during the quarter.
Drafts of the Data Input Plan, Report Protocol and RFP were submitted to the DOJ on October 3, 2003 to allow the DOJ to become familiar with the documents and to seek informal comments. The DOJ submitted a letter to DPD on October 14, 2003 providing informal comments and outlining its concerns regarding the drafts. The DPD submitted revised documents on November 3, 2003, and on November 5, 2003 the Monitor responded with verbal and written comments. The DOJ issued a letter on December 4, 2003, confirming its understanding that the DPD was continuing to revise the risk management documents based on the comments provided by the Monitor and in accordance with the requirements of the UOF CJ.

110 The Data Input Plan, Report Protocol and Request for Proposal (RFP).
49

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

The Monitor is scheduled to further review the UOF CJ requirements regarding the risk management database (paragraphs U79-U90) during the quarter ending May 31, 2004.111

Paragraph U79 - Expansion of Risk Management System
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

Paragraph U80 - Risk Management Database Information
Paragraph U80 requires the new risk management database to collect and record the following information: a) all UOF reports and UOF investigations;
b) all canine deployments; c) all canine apprehensions;
d) all canine bites; e) all canisters of chemical spray issued to officers; f) all injured prisoner reports and injured prisoner investigations;
g) all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with "resisting arrest," "assault on a police officer," "disorderly conduct" or "interfering with a city employee;"
h) all firearm discharge reports and firearm discharge investigations; i) all incidents in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target; j) all complaints and complaint investigations, entered at the time the complaint is filed and
updated to record the finding; k) all preliminary investigations and investigations of alleged criminal conduct;
l) all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the City, or its officers, or agents, resulting from DPD operations or the actions of DPD personnel, entered at the time proceedings are initiated and updated to record disposition;
m) all vehicle and foot pursuits and traffic collisions;

111 As described below, a review of those paragraphs included in this section of the UOF CJ that were not reviewed during the current reporting period (paragraphs U79, U84-85, U89-90) is scheduled for the quarter ending February 29, 2004.
50

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

n) all reports regarding arrests without probable cause or where the individual was discharged from custody without formal charges being sought;

o) all reports regarding investigatory stops and/or frisks unsupported by reasonable suspicion;

p) all reports regarding interviews, interrogations or conveyances in violation of DPD policy;

q) the time between arrest and arraignment for all arrests;

r) all reports regarding a violation of DPD prompt judicial review policy;

s) all reports regarding a violation of DPD hold policy;

t) all restrictions on phone calls or visitors imposed by officers;

u) all instances in which the DPD is informed by a prosecuting authority that a declination to prosecute any crime was based, in whole or in part, upon concerns about the credibility of a DPD officer or that a motion to suppress evidence was granted on the grounds of a constitutional violation by a DPD officer;

v) all disciplinary action taken against officers;

w) all non-disciplinary corrective action required of officers, excluding administrative counseling records;

x) all awards and commendations received by officers;

y) the assignment, rank, and training history of officers; and

z) firearms qualification information of officers.

Current Assessment of Compliance
On October 3, 2003, the DPD submitted drafts of the Data Input Plan, Report Protocol and RFP to the DOJ and the Monitor.112 In a letter dated October 14, 2003, the DOJ provided comments on the draft documents. The DPD submitted revised documents on November 3, 2003, and on November 5, 2003 the Monitor responded with verbal and written comments. On December 4, 2003, the DOJ submitted a letter confirming its understanding that the DPD was continuing to revise the risk management documents based on the comments provided by the Monitor and in accordance with the requirements of the UOF CJ.
The draft Data Input Plan purported to include the items listed in paragraph U80 and other paragraphs related to the risk management database. However, the Monitor reviewed the draft

112 According to UOF CJ Paragraph U88a, the Data Input Plan must be submitted to the DOJ for review and approval within 90 days of the effective date of the UOF CJ. The DPD is required to share drafts of the document to allow the DOJ to become familiar with the document as it is developed and to provide informal comments. Under paragraph U88b, the Report Protocol and a RFP must be submitted to the DOJ for review and approval by September 30, 2003. The DPD is also to share drafts of these documents. The RFP should be issued by October 31, 2003, according to paragraph U88c.

51

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

plan and determined that the DPD failed to include a number of reports, investigative files and other items required by paragraph U80.113

The Monitor met with the DPD Risk Management Group and CRIB on October 3, 2003 and again on November 5, 2003 to provide oral and written recommendations based on the Monitor’s review of the first and second drafts of these documents. The Monitor understands that the DPD is currently revising these documents based on these recommendations.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U80.

Paragraph U81 - Identifying Information for Officers and Civilians
Paragraph U81 requires the new risk management database to include, for each inc ident, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (including name, pension number, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (including race, ethnicity or national origin, sex, and age).

Current Assessment of Compliance
The draft Data Input Plan that the DPD provided to the Monitor and the DOJ purported to include the requirements of paragraph U81 and those other paragraphs related to the risk management database.114 However, the Monitor reviewed the draft plan and determined that the DPD failed to include the paragraph U81 requirement regarding identifying information for officers and civilians.
The Monitor met with the Risk Management Group on October 3, 2003 and again on November 5, 2003 to provide oral and written recommendations based on the Monitor’s review of the first and second drafts of these documents. The Monitor understands that the DPD is currently revising the documents based on these recommendations.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U81.

Paragraph U82 - Data Input Plan
Paragraph U82 requires the DPD to prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management database and addressing data storage. The Data Input Plan must detail the specific fields of information to be included and the means for inputting such data; specify the unit responsible for inputting data, the deadlines for inputting the data in a timely, accurate, and

113 The Monitor specifically identified these deficiencies in its November 5, 2003 oral and written comments to the DPD.
114 Please refer to the Overview for this section, as well as the Monitor’s assessment of paragraph U80, for background and a chronology regarding the documents submitted to the DOJ and the Monitor.

52

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

complete manner; specify the historical time periods for which information is to be input and the deadlines for inputting the data in an accurate and timely fashion; and require that the data be maintained in a secure and confidential manner.

Current Assessment of Compliance

The Monitor reviewed the draft Data Input Plan that the DPD provided to the Monitor and the DOJ115 and determined that the DPD failed to include a number of items required by paragraph U82.116 The Data Input Plan did include the DPD’s intentions to maintain the data in a secure
and confidential manner.

The Monitor met with the Risk Management Group on October 3, 2003 and again on November 5, 2003 to provide oral and written recommendations based on the Monitor’s review of the draft Data Input Plan. The Monitor understands that the DPD is currently revising the Data Input Plan based on these recommendations and the requirements of the UOF CJ.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U82.

Recommendations
The Monitor recommends that, in addition to identifying specific fields of information, the Data Input Plan should explicitly indicate that the list of reports and databases to be inputted into the risk management system is by no means exha ustive. This statement will take into account any anticipated or future reports or auditable forms that may be included in the risk management system.

Paragraph U83 - Report Protocol
Paragraph U83 requires the DPD to prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Report Protocol for the risk management database that details the types of routine reports the DPD must generate and pattern identifications the DPD must conduct. The Report Protocol must:
a) require the automated system to analyze the number of incidents and average level of activity for each individual officer and for all officers in a unit, and to identify patterns of activity for each data category;
b) establish thresholds for the numbers and types of incidents requiring a review by an officer’s supervisor of whether the officer or group of officers is engaging in at-risk behavior; and

115 Please refer to the Overview for this section, as well as the Monitor’s assessment of paragraph U80, for background and a chronology regarding the documents submitted to the DOJ and the Monitor. 116 The Monitor included these items in its written comments to the DPD, which were provided in November 5, 2003.
53

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

c) require the database to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The Monitor reviewed the draft Report Protocol that the DPD provided to the Monitor and the DOJ117 and determined that the DPD failed to include the following items required by paragraph U83: The ability to analyze each data category by all officers in a unit for any reports listed and the ability to analyze the average level of activity or identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and all officers by a unit. In addition, the Report Protocol did not outline intentions to establish thresholds for the numbers and types of incidents that require a review for at-risk behavior, nor is it evident that the database will have the ability to generate monthly reports describing the data and data analysis.
The Monitor met with the Risk Management Group on October 3, 2003 and again on November 5, 2003 to provide oral and written recommendations based on the Monitor’s review of the Report Protocol. The Monitor understands that the DPD is currently revising this Report Protocol based on these recommendations and the requirements of the UOF CJ.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U83.

Paragraph U84 - Review Protocol
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

Paragraph U85 - Modular Development of Database
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

Paragraph U86 - Common Control Number
Paragraph U86 mandates that where information about a single incident is entered into the risk management database from more than one document, the risk management database must use a common control number or other equally effective means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.

117 Please refer to the Overview for this section, as well as the Monitor’s assessment of paragraph U80, for background and a chronology regarding the documents submitted to the DOJ and the Monitor.
54

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Current Assessment of Compliance

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

The Monitor reviewed the drafts of the Data Input Plan and Report Protocol that the DPD provided to the Monitor and the DOJ118 and determined that the DPD failed to include the requirements of paragraph U86 regarding the common control number to be used for cross-
referencing.

The Monitor met with the Risk Management Group on October 3, 2003 and again on November 5, 2003 to provide oral and written recommendations based on the Monitor’s review of these first and second drafts of these documents.119 The Monitor understands that the DPD is
currently revising the documents based on these recommendations and the requirements of the UOF CJ.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U86.

Paragraph U87 - Information Maintained in Database
Paragraph U87 requires the City to maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management database during the officer’s employment with the DPD and for at least five years after separation. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis must be maintained indefinitely in the risk management database.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The Monitor reviewed the drafts of the Data Input Plan and Report Protocol that the DPD provided to the Monitor and the DOJ120 and determined that the DPD failed to include the requirement that the City maintain all personally identifiable information in the database for certain periods of time.
The Monitor met with the Risk Management Group on October 3, 2003 and again on November 5, 2003 to provide oral and written recommendations based on our review of the first and second drafts of these documents. The Monitor understands that the DPD is currently revising the documents based on these recommendations and the requirements of the UOF CJ.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U87.

118 Please refer to the Overview for this section, as well as the Monitor’s assessment of paragraph U80, for background and a chronology regarding the documents submitted to the DOJ and the Monitor. 119 The DPD came up with a proposed solution for identifying a common control number during the meeting with the Monitor; however, additional drafts of the documents that incorporate this solution have not been submitted since November 3, 2003. 120 Please refer to the Overview for this section, as well as the Monitor’s assessment of paragraph U80, for background and a chronology regarding the documents submitted to the DOJ and the Monitor.
55

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Paragraph U88 - Schedule for Database

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Paragraph U88 requires the DPD to develop and implement the new risk management database according to the following schedule:
a) within 90 days of the effective date of the UOF CJ, the DPD must submit the Data Input Plan to the DOJ for review and approval within 30 days, and prior to this, share drafts of the Data Input Plan with the DOJ;
b) by September 30, 2003, the DPD must submit the Report Protocol and a Request for Proposals to the DOJ for review and approval within 30 days, and prior to this, share drafts of such documents with the DOJ;
c) by October 31, 2003, the DPD must issue the Request for Proposals.121

Current Assessment of Compliance
In its submissions of the drafts of the Data Input Plan, Report Protocol and RFP,122 the DPD has failed to make the substantive changes necessary to gain the DOJ’s approval as required by paragraphs U88a and b. The Monitor met with the Risk Management Group on October 3, 2003 and again on November 5, 2003 to provide oral and written recommendations based on the Monitor’s review of the first and second drafts of these documents. The revised documents have not been submitted to the DOJ for review and approval.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U88a-c.

Recommendations

The DPD has indicated that many of the requirements in the paragraphs relating to the development of the risk management system ask for specific data and information that the DPD may not have access to or may not ha ve developed at this time. However, these paragraphs require the DPD to draft specific plans, including the identification of deadlines, historical periods, and thresholds for review of officer conduct, among other things. The plans are not complete without outlining the specific requirements listed in the UOF CJ paragraphs. Accordingly, rather than failing to fully address the requirements of the paragraphs, the DPD must make the policy decisions necessary in order to sufficiently complete the plans.

121 Paragraphs U88d-g are not being assessed during the current reporting period, as they require that the DPD submit the Review Protocol by March 30, 2004 and select a contractor to create the risk management database by May 31, 2004. The City shall have a beta version of the risk management database ready for testing by June 30, 2005 and the risk management database shall be operational and fully implemented by December 31, 2005. 122 Please refer to the Overview for this section, as well as the Monitor’s assessment of paragraph U80, for background and a chronology regarding the documents submitted to the DOJ and the Monitor.
56

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Paragraph U89 - Interim System to Detect Patterns of Behavior

The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

Paragraph U90 - Modification Protocol
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

B. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM

Paragraph U91 - Performance Evaluations
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

C. OVERSIGHT
Overview
Paragraphs U92-105 of the UOF CJ require the DPD to establish an internal audit process,123 which is critical to effective oversight of the DPD and is central to the reform efforts.
During the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed paragraphs U92-U99 of the UOF CJ.
The UOF CJ mandates that the DPD perform quarterly audits of all precincts and specialized units on a number of specific aspects of policing, including UOF investigations, prisoner injuries, misconduct investigations, arrests, stops and frisks, the handling of witnesses, custodial detention practices, and complaint investigations. The UOF CJ also mandates that the DPD perform periodic random reviews of scout car camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes, periodically survey the scout car camera video recording equipment,124 and meet regularly with local prosecutors about any issues in officer, shift or unit performance.
Each of these oversight provisions requires the DPD to examine a variety of issues, but a common theme among them all is the requirement to assess and report on the appropriateness of the police activity being examined.

123 Paragraph U92. 124 CRIB personnel informed the Monitor that the DPD requires precinct supervisors to review scout car camera videotapes and document those reviews on their supervisor’s logs.
57

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

The DPD responded by establishing an Audit Team within CRIB on July 28, 2003, which is responsible for the planning and conduct of most of the audits required by the UOF CJ. The AT is also responsible for completing an Audit Protocol for all DPD audits. By December 31, 2003, the AT consisted of eight sworn members (including one inspector, one lieutenant, four sergeants and two police officers).

The Monitor is scheduled to further review the UOF CJ requirements regarding oversight, including those paragraphs that were not reviewed during the current reporting period, during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

Paragraph U92 - Audit Protocol
Paragraph U92 requires the DPD to develop an Audit Protocol to be used by all personnel when conducting audits. The Audit Protocol must establish a regular and fixed schedule for all audits required by the UOF CJ125 to ensure the audits occur on a quarterly basis and cover all DPD units and commands. Paragraph U145 requires this Audit Protocol to be completed and implemented by October 16, 2003.

Current Assessment of Compliance
As requested by the DPD, during the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor provided technical assistance to the AT regarding the content and standards to be articulated in the Audit Protocol. As of the date of this report, the provision of technical assistance is ongoing.
The Monitor’s technical assistance has involved reviewing and providing input on several drafts of the Audit Protocol, and providing training/advice regarding certain issues addressed in the Audit Protocol, including:
• the scope of each of the audits required by the Consent Judgments, including the audits in both the UOF CJ and the COC CJ;
• the population to be tested in each of the audits;
• audit planning, fieldwork and reporting standards;
• the review and approval process for all audits and related reports; and
• confident iality and independence issues.
As described in the sections that follow, the Monitor also provided technical assistance regarding statistical sampling and planning for the first audits that are expected to be completed by the AT in 2004; this technical assistance is ongoing.

125 This Audit Protocol must also address the audits required by the COC CJ (paragraphs C65-72).
58

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Although the DPD has been developing an Audit Protocol with input from the Monitor, as of the date of this report, the DPD has not yet submitted a final Audit Protocol to be used by all DPD personnel conducting audits.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U92.

Paragraph U93 - Audit Reporting Requirements
Paragraph U93 requires the DPD to issue a written report on the results of each audit to the Chief of Police and to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit must review all audit reports regarding employees under his or her command and, if appropriate, take disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action. Paragraph U93 also requires each audit report to examine whether there is consistency throughout the DPD.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The Audit Protocol being developed by the AT in connection with paragraph U92 will specifically address reporting requirements. However, no audits were submitted by the DPD as of November 30, 2003.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U93.

Paragraph U94 - Audits of UOF, Prisoner Injuries and Misconduct Investigations
Paragraph U94 requires the DPD to conduct quarterly audits covering all units and commands (including command, IAD and Homicide Section) that investigate UOF, prisoner injuries, and allegations of misconduct. These audits must include evaluating the accuracy of the incident, the collection of evidence and the appropriateness of the conclusions.

Current Assessment of Compliance
Compliance with paragraph U94 will be achieved when quality audits are submitted each quarter for each of these audit topics. The DPD has not yet commenced any of these audits. Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U94.126

126 Paragraph U94 requires audits of three different types of investigations - UOF, prisoner injuries, and allegations of misconduct. Based on the protocol that has been drafted to date by the AT, the UOF and Prisoner Injuries audits are likely to be combined into one audit, and the Misconduct Investigations audit will be separate. Accordingly, for ease of reporting, the Monitor will be splitting paragraph U94 into the following two subparagraphs: U94a Audits of UOF & Prisoner Injuries and U94b - Audits of Misconduct Investigations. .
59

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Paragraph U95 - Audits of Probable Cause, Stop and Frisk, and Witness Handling

Paragraph U95 requires the DPD to conduct quarterly audits of arrests, stops and frisks, and the handling of witnesses. Such audits must cover all precincts and specialized units and must evaluate the scope, content, duration and voluntariness of the police interaction. These audits must also include a comparison of arrests to warrants and warrants to judicial findings.

Current Assessment of Compliance
As requested by the AT, during the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor provided technical assistance regarding the draft audit workplans and auditable forms for the Arrest and Stop and Frisk audits. The Monitor has also been providing technical assistance regarding the audit population and sampling requirements for these audits and has provided specific information regarding the following sections of the workplans:
• Operational Definitions;
• Standards;
• Compliance Measures;
• Analysis; and
• Population/Data Collection.
Compliance with paragraph U95 will be achieved when quality audits are submitted each quarter on each of these audit topics. The DPD has indicated that it expects the Arrest and Stop and Frisk Audits to be submitted by May 2004. The Witness Handling Audit is expected to be submitted by August 2004.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U95.127

Paragraph U96 - Audits of Custodial Detention Practices
Paragraph U96 requires the DPD to conduct quarterly audits of the DPD’s custodial detention practices, including evaluating the length of detention between the time of arrest and the time of arraignment. Such audits must be conducted covering all precincts and specialized units.

127 Paragraph U95 requires audits of three different types of police activity - probable cause (arrests), stops and frisks, and witness identification and questioning documentation. For ease of reporting, the Monitor expects to break paragraph U95 into the following three subparagraphs: U95a - Audits of Arrests, U95b - Audits of Stops and Frisks, and U95c - Audits of Witness Handling.
60

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Current Assessment of Compliance

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

As requested by the AT, during the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor provided technical assistance regarding the draft audit workplan and the audit population. This technical assistance is ongoing.

Compliance with paragraph U96 will be achieved when a quality audit of this topic is submitted each quarter. This audit it not yet completed, and is not expected to be completed until the quarter ending May 31, 2004.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U96.

Paragraph U97 - OCI Audits of External Complaints and Investigations
Paragraph U97 requires the Chief Investigator of the OCI to designate an individual or entity to conduct quarterly audits that examine external complaints and complaint investigations. The Chief Investigator must review all audit reports regarding officers under OCI command and, when appropriate, take non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.
Current Assessment of Compliance
Compliance with paragraph U97 will be achieved when quality audits of this topic are submitted each quarter. As of December 31, 2003, the OCI had not designated an individual or entity to conduct quarterly audits as required by this paragraph and the Monitor had not yet provided technical assistance regarding the completion of such audits.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U97.

Paragraph U98 - Videotape Reviews
Paragraph U98 requires the DPD to conduct and document periodic random reviews of scout car videotapes for training and integrity purposes. The DPD must also conduct periodic random surveys of scout car video recording equipment to ensure proper working order.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD conducts precinct- level supervisory review of the scout car videotapes, which is an important aspect of oversight and is mandated by U101 for specific incidents (prisoner and officer injuries, UOF, pursuits, etc.). However, this practice does not meet the requirements of paragraph U98; since it requires that the reviews of videotapes and equipment must be random, rather than specified and must be conducted on a periodic or “regularly scheduled” basis. This process will require the expertise of DPD personnel capable of ensuring a random selection from a specified population.

61

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U98.

Paragraph U99 - Regular Meetings with Prosecutors
Paragraph U99 requires the DPD to ensure regular meetings with local prosecutors to identify issues in officer, shift or unit performance.

Current Assessment of Compliance
According to the DPD, Quarterly Community Prosecution Meetings have been deve loped between the DPD and the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, and meetings were held on October 3 and October 8, 2003.128 The DPD submitted a letter to the DOJ and the Monitor outlining its efforts to comply with this paragraph.
The Monitor is unaware of any issues that have been identified as a result of these meetings, and is planning on conducting further reviews to determine whether the meetings comply with paragraph U99 requirements.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor has not yet evaluated the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U99. The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

D. USE OF VIDEO CAMERAS
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this section of the UOF CJ (paragraphs U100-102) during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

E. DISCIPLINE
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this section of the UOF CJ (paragraphs U103-105) during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

128 This information is provided in the DPD’s 120-day status report.
62

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

VII. TRAINING
Overview
Paragraphs U106-123 of the UOF CJ direct the DPD to coordinate and review all UOF and A&D training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and DPD policy. The UOF CJ provides specific requirements for review and reporting on these issues to the Monitor and the DOJ. The Department must also select and train trainers, evaluate all training, conduct needs assessments, and create and maintain individual training records for all officers.
During the quarter ending Nove mber 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed each of the paragraphs included in the Training section of the UOF CJ. The Monitor met with DPD personnel, including the Training Director and staff and the CRIB, to discuss the overall plan for training delivery, assessment, and tracking. A substantial portion of the training required under the UOF CJ is based on Departmental policy, which is currently under revision. Lesson plans based on these policies cannot be completed until final policy approval is given.
The Training Bureau completed four lesson plans, and transmitted them to the CRIB for review. The Monitor made a formal document request for the plans, and received them at the end of the reporting period. As a result, the Monitor has not yet reviewed the lesson plans. However, the Monitor is concerned that these lessons plans were developed without the underlying policies being finalized.
The DPD Training Bureau has requested one additional Curriculum Development Specialist through City channels. Even if approved, the volume of backlogged work cannot be accomplished in a timely manner without the addition of substantial resources.
The Monitor is scheduled to further review the UOF CJ’s training requirements (paragraphs U115-123) during the quarter ending February 29, 2004. The Monitor is scheduled to further review the UOF CJ’s training requirements (paragraphs U106-114) during the quarter ending May 31, 2004.
A. OVERSIGHT AND DEVELOPMENT
Paragraph U106 - Coordination of Training
Paragraph U106 requires the DPD to coordinate and review all UOF and A&D training to ensure quality, consistency and compliance with applicable law and DPD policy. The DPD must conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually, and produce a report of such reviews to the Monitor and the DOJ.

63

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Current Assessment of Compliance

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

The DPD has not developed a plan to coordinate and review all UOF and A&D training or to produce a report of such reviews to the Monitor and the DOJ. Furthermore, the reviews cannot take place until the policies are revised and training is developed and delivered.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U106.

Paragraph U107 - Michigan Law Enforcement Officers Training Council Standards
Paragraph U107 requires the DPD, consistent with Michigan law and the Michigan Law Enforcement Officers Training Council standards, to: a) ensure the quality of all UOF and A&D training; b) develop UOF and A&D training curricula; c) select and train DPD officer trainers; d) develop, implement, approve and oversee all training and curricula; e) establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and f) conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that training governing UOF and A&D are
responsive to the knowledge, skills and abilities of the officers being trained.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) certifies the DPD Training Academy and prepares the recruit curriculum for all basic police training, statewide. The DPD has not developed or implemented any of the procedures or processes necessary to accomplish any of the areas outlined in U107 (a- f). Furthermore, the UOF and A&D training curricula have not been fully developed.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U107.

Paragraph U108 - Individual Training Records
Paragraph U108 requires the DPD to create and maintain individual training records for all officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training completed on or after the effective date of the UOF CJ.

Current Assessment of Compliance
As with paragraph C74, the DPD will utilize the MCOLES Michigan Information and Tracking System (MITN) to meet the requirements of paragraph U108. As described in connection with

64

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

the assessment of paragraph C74, the Monitor will assess the completeness and accuracy of the system after implementation, training, and audit.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U108.

Paragraph U109 - Approved Lesson Plans / Scenario-Based Training
Paragraph U109 requires the DPD to ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors and that instructors engage students in meaningful dialogue regarding particular scenarios, preferably taken from actual incidents involving DPD officers, with the goal of educating students regarding the legal and tactical issues raised by the scenarios.

Current Assessment of Compliance

The Monitor understands that the In-Service Training Protocols have been submitted to CRIB for review. Once the protocols have been reviewed and approved, the subsequent lesson plans and training methodologies have been developed and approved, and the appropriate scenarios have been identified and developed, the Monitor will review the In-Service Training Protocols to determine compliance with the requirements of paragraph U109.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U109.

Recommendations
The Monitor understands that the DPD has recently decided to rely upon subject- matter expertise in selecting instructors. This is a positive step. The Monitor also recommends that the DPD take communication and facilitation skills into consideration in the selection of instructors.

Paragraph U110 - Civil Lawsuits
Paragraph U110 requires the DPD to meet with the City Law Department on a quarterly basis concerning the conclusion of civil lawsuits alleging officer misconduct. Information gleaned from this process must be distributed to DPD risk management and training staff.

Current Assessment of Compliance

The Monitor understands that the DPD has completed Directive 101.4-1, which discusses the responsibility of the Risk Management Bureau to liaise with the City Law Department on behalf of the DPD regarding civil lawsuits and that these meetings have been taking place. It is unclear whether any information gleaned from this process has been distributed to the DPD Risk Management and Training Bureaus and whether action has been taken as a result. The Monitor will review the meeting protocol and the quarterly meeting results to ensure that mitigation of

65

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

future suits on jointly identified issues are effectively addressed through policy development and training within the DPD or other relevant City agencies.129

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor has not yet evaluated the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U110.

Paragraph U111 - Distribution and Explanation of the UOF CJ
Paragraph U111 requires the City and the DPD to distribute and explain the UOF CJ to all DPD and all relevant City employees. The City and the DPD must provide initial training on the UOF CJ to all City and DPD employees whose job responsibilities are affected by it within 120 days of each provision's implementation. Thereafter, the DPD must provide training on the policies contained in the UOF CJ during in-service training.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The Monitor understands that CRIB and the DPD Training Bureau have attended roll calls in all precincts, trained the officers on the content of the UOF CJ, and provided copies of the both Consent Judgments to Departmental personnel. The Monitor requested and recently received130 the training curricula and sign- in sheets from the UOF CJ training. The Monitor is in the process of reviewing these materials to determine compliance.131
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor has not yet evaluated the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U111.

B. UOF TRAINING

Paragraph U112 - Annual UOF Training
Paragraph U112 requires the DPD to provide all DPD recruits, officers, and supervisors with annual UOF training. Such training must include and address the following topics:
a) the DPD's UOF continuum; proper UOF; decision making; and the DPD's UOF reporting requirements;
b) the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including recent legal developments;

129 The DPD has represented that the meetings are taking place; however, the Monitor has not yet been provided with any additional detail, including meeting dates, attendees or reports. 130 These documents were received at the end of the quarter. 131 The Monitor will also be reviewing these materials to determine whether City employees (non-DPD) whose job responsibilities are affected by the Consent Judgments also received training.
66

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

c) examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper UOF decision making, including the use of deadly force;

d) the circumstances in which officers may draw, display, or point a firearm, emphasizing: officers should not draw their firearm unless they reasonably believe there is a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or another person; the danger of engaging or pursuing a subject with a firearm drawn; and that officers are generally not justified in drawing their firearm when pursuing a subject suspected of committing only a misdemeanor;

a) the proper use of all intermediate force weapons;

e) threat assessment, alternative and de-escalation techniques that allow officers to effect arrests without using force and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units or even letting a subject temporarily evade arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation, even when the UOF would be legally justified;

f) interacting with people with mental illnesses, including instruction by mental health practitioners and an emphasis on de-escalation strategies;

g) factors to consider in initiating or continuing a pursuit;

h) the proper duration of a burst of chemical spray, the distance from which it should be applied, and emphasize that officers must aim chemical spray only at the target's face and upper torso; and

i) consideration of the safety of civilians in the vicinity before engaging in police action.

Current Assessment of Compliance

The Monitor understands that the UOF training plans have been updated and the DPD Training
Bureau submitted a copy of the lesson plan, including the course outline and objectives to CRIB on October 16, 2003. This lesson plan was not provided to the Monitor; therefore, it was requested and recently received132 through the established document request procedure. The
Monitor will review the lesson plan and supporting documents; however, as discussed more fully below under paragraphs U121 and U122, the Monitor is concerned that UOF training has been
developed prior to the completion of the UOF policy revisions called for in the UOF CJ.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U112.

132 The Monitor received these documents after the quarter ended.
67

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
C. FIREARMS TRAINING

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Paragraph U113 - Firearms Training Protocol
Paragraph U113 requires the DPD to develop a protocol regarding firearms training that:
a) ensures that all officers and supervisors complete the bi-annual firearms training and qualification;
b) incorporates professional night training, stress training (i.e., training in using a firearm after undergoing physical exertion) and proper UOF decision making training in the bi-annual inservice training program, with the goal of adequately preparing officers for real life situations;
c) ensures that firearm instructors critically observe students and provide corrective instruction regarding deficient firearm techniques and failure to utilize safe gun handling procedures at all times; and
d) incorporates evaluation criteria to determine satisfactory completion of recruit and in-service firearms training, including: maintains finger off trigger unless justified and ready to fire; maintains proper hold of firearm and proper stance; and uses proper UOF decision making.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The Monitor understands that the Firearms Protocol has been developed. The Monitor requested and recently received133 the protocol through the established document request procedure.
The Monitor understands that the bi-annual qualification requirement was implemented Department-wide prior to the effective date of the UOF CJ.134 The Monitor has not yet conducted an eva luation of the status of the DPD’s firearms qualification requirements.
Finally, the Monitor understands that training records that will record whether all officers and supervisors complete the bi-annual firearms training and qualification will be contained in the MITN system when implemented. The Monitor is in the process of reviewing the protocol and conducting other reviews to determine implementation and compliance. However, the Monitor is concerned that the training protocol has been developed prior to the DPD’s completion of its use of firearms policy revisions required by paragraphs U20-23.135
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U113

133 The Monitor received the protocol after the first quarter ended. 134 However, the DPD currently lacks an appropriate facility at which night firearms training can be conducted as required by U113b. The Monitor understands that the DPD is exploring its options. 135 DPD withdrew Directive 304.1 “Firearms” fromthe DOJ and the Monitor’s consideration on November 25, 2003 for redrafting.
68

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

D. ARREST AND POLICE-CITIZEN INTERACTION TRAINING

Paragraph U114 - Annual Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training
Paragraph U114 requires the DPD to provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on arrests and other police-citizen interactions. Such training must include and address the following topics:
a) the DPD arrest, investigatory stop and frisk and witness identification and questioning policies;
b) the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including: advising officers that the “possibility” that an individual committed a crime does not rise to the level of probable cause; advising officers that the duration and scope of the police-citizen interaction determines whether an arrest occurred, not the officer's subjective, intent or belief that he or she affected an arrest; and advising officers that every detention is a seizure, every seizure requires reasonable suspicion or probable cause and there is no legally authorized seizure apart from a “Terry stop” and an arrest; and
c) examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper police-community interactions, including scenarios which distinguish an investigatory stop from an arrest by the scope and duration of the police interaction; between probable cause, reasonable suspicion and mere speculation; and voluntary consent from mere acquiescence to police authority.
Current Assessment of Compliance
On October 23, 2003, the DPD Training Bureau staff met with the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office to develop a plan to achieve compliance with paragraph U114. The Monitor understands that the DPD is currently updating the objectives and lesson plan with the assistance of the Prosecutor’s Office. It is noted that the training development cannot be completed until the relevant policies are revised under paragraphs U42-48.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U114.

E. CUSTODIAL DETENTION TRAINING

Paragraph U115 - Annual Custodial Detention Training
Paragraph U115 requires the DPD to provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on custodial detention. Such training must include DPD policies regarding arrest, arraignment, holds, restrictions, material witness and detention records.

69

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Current Assessment of Compliance

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

DPD Policy Directive 305.3, Precinct Cellblocks, was submitted to the DOJ and the Monitor and was subsequently withdrawn on November 25, 2003. According to the City, the policy is being redrafted. The DPD cannot effectively develop a lesson plan on custodial detention until the policies are completed and approved as required by paragraphs U42-58. Therefore, the Monitor will review the lesson plans, training delivery methodologies, and pre/post comprehension testing once the policy is approved and lesson plans are comple ted.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U115.

Paragraph U116 - Advise Officers not to Delay Arraignment
Paragraph U116 requires the DPD to advise officers that the DPD arraignment policy shall not be delayed because of the assignment of the investigation to a specialized unit, the arrest charge(s), the availability of an investigator, the gathering of additional evidence or obtaining a confession.
Current Assessment of Compliance
Please refer to the Monitor’s assessment of paragraph U117, which includes the Monitor’s assessment of paragraphs U116 and U117.

Paragraph U117 - Advise Officers that Material Witness Designation is a Judicial Determination
Paragraph U117 requires the DPD to advise officers that whether an individual is a material witness, and whether that material witness should be committed to custody, is a judicial determination.

Current Assessment of Compliance
On October 17, 2003136, the DPD issued an Administrative Message 137 to be read at seven consecutive roll calls at all commands. This message instructed officers that, pursuant to the requirements of the UOF CJ, the arraignment of detainees is not to be delayed for any of the reasons listed in paragraph U116. It likewise ordered that the status of material witnesses and their detention were matters for judicial determination.

136 DPD’s 120-day status report states that this Teletype was issued on October 17, 2003 in the body of the report and October 14, 2003 in the appendix. 137 Teletype 03-06196 entitled “Delay of Detainees Arraignment.”
70

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

It should be noted that the “arraignment policy” referred to in paragraph U116 has not been completed.138 Paragraph U116 can only be effectively implemented once the prompt judicial
review policies under paragraphs U49-51 are completed approved and implemented. Similarly, paragraph U117 relies upon the development and implementation of material witness policies
under paragraphs U56-57, which also have not been completed.

The Monitor will review the roll call sign- in rosters, further review the teletype and conduct other reviews in the next scheduled review period. However, the policy revisions covering prompt judicial review and material witnesses must be completed, approved and implemented before the DPD can achieve compliance under paragraphs U116-117.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraphs U116 and U117.

F. SUPERVISORY TRAINING

Paragraph U118 - Training on the Evaluation of Written Reports
Paragraph U118 requires the DPD to provide supervisors with training in the appropriate evaluation of written reports, including what constitutes a fact-based description, the identification of conclusory language not supported by specific facts and catch phrases, or language that so regularly appears in reports that its inclusion requires further explanation by the reporting officer.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD has yet to develop the curriculum for supervisor training.
It sho uld be noted that the DPD Training Bureau is inadequately staffed in order to simultaneously develop the number of lesson plans required by the UOF CJs. The Monitor understands that the City is discussing the need for additional curriculum developers internally. The Monitor understands that a job description has been written and forwarded to the City’s Human Resources Department and preliminary meetings have been held with Wayne State University to identify curriculum development professionals.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U118.
Paragraph U119 - Leadership and Command Accountability Training
Paragraph U119 requires DPD supervisors to receive leadership and command accountability training and to learn techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training must

138 The Arrest policy, Directive 202.1, was submitted to the DOJ and the Monitor and subsequently withdrawn.
71

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

be provided to all DPD supervisors within 30 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities and must be made part of annual in-service training.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The lesson plan for this training has not yet been approved by the DPD. The leadership course description, lesson plan and training schedule for newly promoted Lieutenants and Sergeants have been submitted to CRIB for review. The materials were not provided to the Monitor; therefore; the Monitor requested and recently received139 the items through the established document request procedure. The Monitor is in the process of reviewing the documents.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U119.

Paragraph U120 - Risk Assessment Training

Paragraph U120 requires the DPD to provide training on risk assessment and risk management to all DPD supervisors, including the operation of the risk management database.

Current Assessment of Compliance

The Training Bureau has requested information pertaining to the development of this training from the Risk Management Bureau on two separate occasions. The information has not yet been provided. In any event, the risk management database140 has not yet been developed although the DPD states that it has developed an interim system141 on which DPD supervisors should be trained. The training required by U120 has not been developed or implemented.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U120.

Recommendations

The lack of effective communication between two DPD Bureaus outlined above is indicative of
systemic policy development and implementation problems throughout the Department as it relates to the Consent Judgments.142 The Monitor recommends that the DPD develop a
communications system with regard to compliance with the Consent Judgments that incorporates
all relevant DPD units. One possible way of achieving this would be to assign a CRIB liaison to

139 The documents were received after the end of the first quarter. 140 The development of the risk management database is covered by paragraphs U79-90. 141 The DPD is required to develop an interim system to identify patterns of conduct by DPD officers or groups of officers under paragraph U89. 142 For example, the Monitor previously identified communication problems between DPD and OCI with regard to external complaints.
72

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

each DPD unit so that CRIB can ensure that communications between DPD units are taking place in an effective manner that helps achieve compliance.

G. INVESTIGATOR TRAINING

Paragraph U121 - Training for Evaluating Credibility
Paragraph U121 requires the DPD to provide training on appropriate burdens of proof, interview techniques and the factors to consider when evaluating officer, complainant or witness credibility to all officers who conduct investigations to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform and legally appropriate.
Current Assessment of Compliance
Please refer to the Monitor’s assessment of paragraph U122, which includes the Monitor’s assessment of paragraphs U121 and U122.
Paragraph U122 - Handling External Complaints
Paragraph U122 requires the DPD to provide all supervisors charged with accepting external complaints with appropriate training on handling external complaints that emphasizes interpersonal skills. The DPD must provide training on the DPD external complaint process, including the role of the OCI and IAD in the process, to all new recruits and as part of annual inservice training.
Current Assessment of Compliance
DPD has not developed training to meet the requirements of paragraph U121. With regard to paragraph U122, the Monitor understands that the Training Bureau has tentatively scheduled a forty-hour training program for the OCI. This training, scheduled to begin after January 2004, will include training for DPD supervisors charged with accepting and handling external complaints and will emphasize interpersonal skills. It will also train new recruits on the external complaint process and the role of the OCI and IAD.
The materials used to develop the lesson plans for this training have been provided to CRIB for review. The Monitor is concerned that the Training Bureau has developed this training program prior to the completion, approval and implementation of the policy revisions pertaining to external complaints called for by paragraphs U61, U64 and U67. Furthermore, the training program is scheduled to train new recruits on the external complaint process, which is currently under revision to meet the requirements of the UOF CJ.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraphs U121 and U122.

73

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Recommendations

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Throughout the training related paragraphs, the Consent Judgments require training curricula and
protocols to be developed for policies that are to be revised under other paragraphs in the Consent Judgments.143 It is the Monitor’s contention that the training curricula cannot
effectively be developed prior to the development of the policy, without consultation with the
effected DPD units or without working with the individuals assigned to draft or revise the policy. The Monitor recommends that the DPD engage in effective training development by linking it
with the completion and approval of the policy revisions called for in the Consent Judgments.

H. FIELD TRAINING

Paragraph U123 - Enhancement of FTO Program
Paragraph U123 requires the DPD to develop, subject to DOJ approval, a protocol to enhance the FTO program within 120 days of the effective date of the UOF CJ. The protocol must address the criteria and method for selecting and removing the FTOs and for training and evaluating FTOs and trainees.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The Monitor understands that the DPD has completed research for a national review of best practices related to FTO programs. The DPD has not yet developed a protocol to enhance its FTO program.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U123.

VIII. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
Paragraph U139 - Reopening of Investigations Deemed Incomplete The Monitor is scheduled to report on this paragraph during the quarter ending May 31, 2004.

143 At minimum, the following training paragraphs that were reviewed this quarter require policy revisions: C75, C76, C78, U112-117, and U121-122.
74

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

SECTION FOUR: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT
This section contains the Monitor’s compliance assessments of the COC CJ paragraphs scheduled for review during the quarter ending February 29, 2003.
I. FIRE SAFETY POLICIES
Overview
Paragraphs C14-22 of the COC CJ require the DPD to develop, implement, and train specific fire safety policies and procedures and develop and implement a comprehensive fire safety program in all DPD facilities that maintain holding cells.144
Each of these provisions requires the DPD to examine a variety of issues, but a common theme among them all is the requirement to ensure that adequate fire safety precautions are being undertaken at all DPD facilities that maintain holding cells and that all DPD facilities that maintain holding cells comply with the Life Safety Code.
During the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed the majority of the paragraphs included in this section of the COC CJ (paragraphs C16, C18, C20-22). The Monitor determined that the DPD, via the HCCC, has attempted to respond to the requirements of the COC CJ by working closely with the DFD to develop the necessary plans. The Monitor acknowledges the hard work the DPD and the DFD have demonstrated in attempting to comply with these paragraphs. However, a considerable amount of additional effort is required, as the DPD has been unable to comply with the deadlines mandated under this section of the COC CJ.
Except where noted below, the Monitor is scheduled to continue its review of the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.
Paragraph C14 - Life Safety Code Compliance
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.145
144 The term “holding cell” is defined in Definitions section of the COC CJ (Section I, Paragraph k) to include any room of area in which individuals in DPD custody are confined, including cells at the DPD precinct stations, specialized units, and the Detroit Receiving Hospital (DRH). 145 According to paragraph C103, unless otherwise specified, the DPD is required to implement each and every provision of the COC CJ within 90 days of its effective date (by October 16, 2003). There is a similar paragraph in the UOF CJ (paragraph U145). As explained in the Introduction, the Monitor periodically schedules reviews of paragraphs on a quarterly basis over the life of the Consent Judgments. Although the Monitor’s review takes place
75

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Paragraph C15 - Detection, Suppression and Evacuation Programs

The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

Paragraph C16 - Fire Safety Program Development

Paragraph C16 requires the DPD to develop a fire safety program in consultation with, and receive written approval by, the DFD. As part of the overall program, the DFD must evaluate the need for, and if necessary, the DPD must install fire rated separations, smoke detection systems, smoke control systems, sprinkler systems and/or emergency exits for holding cells and buildings that contain them. The approved plan must be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of the COC CJ.

Current Assessment of Compliance

The Monitor reviewed the DPD’s efforts during the quarter ending November 30, 2003 to develop a fire safety program. During the quarter, the HCCC and its members, in particular the DFD Fire Marshall’s office, have been conducting precinct assessments to determine which precincts need physical fire mitigation efforts.
The HCCC and the DFD have been examining the status of the already-existing fire separations, smoke detection systems, smoke control systems and emergency exits, as well as the need for sprinkler systems, at the 12 precincts that maintain holding cells.146 They found that all 12 precincts that maintain holding cells need varying amounts of investment vis-à-vis the installation of comprehensive smoke detection and audible alarm systems. Specifically, while all 12 precincts currently maintain integrated smoke detection systems, many of the systems do not function properly and none of the precincts that maintain holding cells have smoke detection systems that cover the entire structure; the systems only cover the holding cell areas, with limited annunciation capabilities.147 In addition, some of the older facilities need significant inve stments to ameliorate the overall poor physical condition of the facility and ensure that proper fire

after the due dates for certain paragraphs, this has no impact on these due dates and the DPD’s requirement to comply with them. 146 As of December 31, 2003, neither the DPD nor the DFD had undertaken a review of the holding cells in the DRH. The holding cells at the DRH are also subject to COC CJ provisions that address holding cells (e.g. paragraphs C16 and C22). 147 The Monitor’s assessment of the smoke detection systems in the various precincts indicates that while all of the systems are integrated into an audible alarm system, the alarm only annunciates at the front desk. During follow up questioning by the Monitor, some DPD officers indicated that when activated, the alarm could easily be heard everywhere in the building, while other officers indicated that the alarm could only be heard from specific areas within the precinct. The Monitor has not yet begun an independent evaluation of the annunciation capabilities of the alarms as the DPD readily admitted that the systems do not meet the requirements of the COC CJ.
76

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

separation is maintained and appropriate smoke controls are in place.148 The 3rd and 4th precincts are in particularly poor condition. Both facilities were constructed in the early 1920’s and, while they have undergone some modernization, little investment has been made in their physical plants.

During the quarter, the Monitor determined that the DPD has yet to develop the fire safety program mandated by paragraph C16; a summary of the DPD’s activities related to the development of the program follows. In mid-September 2003, the DPD provided the DFD with copies of the individual precinct fire safety plans. These plans were reviewed and approved by the DFD, whereupon they were submitted to the Monitor. Upon reviewing the individual plans, the Monitor determined that they did not meet either the stated or implicit requirements of the COC CJ and were returned to the DPD. On October 30, 2003 the Monitor disseminated a memo entitled “Comments and Recommendations Regarding the Detroit Police Department Individual Precinct Emergency/Fire Evacuation Plans (Precincts 2 through 13),” which included detailed findings and provided recommendations to the DPD regarding the development of effective precinct fire safety plans. The DPD continues to work with the DFD to develop the appropriate plans, with technical assistance being provided by the Monitor. These plans, when completed, will serve as the basis for the overall fire safety program mandated by paragraph C16.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C16.

Paragraph C17 - Fire Safety Program Implementation
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending November 30, 2004

Paragraph C18 - Fire Safety Interim Measures
Paragraph C18 requires the DPD to implement interim Fire Safety measures for all DPD facilities that maintain holding cells. The measures must address such issues as proper alarm activation; emergency reporting by prisoners; and, automated back-up systems for life safety equipment (i.e. emergency lighting, signage, fire alarms, smoke detection systems) for buildings that contain holding cells. In addition, the interim measures must reduce the spread of smoke and fire via the stairwells, garages, hazardous rooms and exposed pipes.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The Monitor reviewed the DPD’s efforts during the quarter ending November 30, 2003 to implement interim Fire Safety measures for all DPD facilities that maintain holding cells. The

148 As of December 31, 2003, the Monitor had not been provided with an official assessment of the need to retrofit existing structures that maintain holding cells with sprinkler systems. According to information provided to the Monitor by the DFD, the addition of sprinkler systems to the holding cell areas would not necessarily afford any additional protection, as the facilities in question are largely constructed of cement or masonry.
77

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Monitor is encouraged by the overall progress, described below, that the DPD has made in meeting the mandates of paragraph C18, even though compliance has not yet been fully achieved.

An analysis of the DPD’s efforts indicates that substantial progress has been achieved in developing and implementing interim fire safety measures to ensure that prisoners can immediately alert the guards in the event of an emergency. The DPD accomplished this by ensuring that at least one DPD officer is stationed within the cellblock area at all times. The Monitor conducted unannounced assessments of 8 separate precincts to determine if DPD officers were stationed within the cellblock area. In each assessment, the Monitored determined that a DPD officer was in fact stationed within the cellblock area.

The DPD has also made progress in procuring and installing automated back- up power systems
for life safety equipment. The DPD has entered into an extended agreement with DTE Energy to supply and maintain integrated, automatic back- up generators for all DPD precincts. These
generators will be connected directly into each precinct’s infrastructure and will automatically
provide emergency power in the event of a power failure. DPD expects delivery of the generators to occur in the spring of 2004.149

The HCCC has conducted an assessment, with the assistance of the DFD, of all DPD facilities that maintain holding cells in an effort to identify and address the issues of smoke reduction in emergency stairwells, garages, hazardous rooms and exposed pipes. However, the Monitor is unaware of any concerted effort by the DPD to address the issues uncovered by this assessment. During numerous tours of the various precincts, the Monitor identified fire doors that were unsecured, improperly installed non- fire rated doors on emergency stairwells, and gaps in fire separations, especially around pipes and conduits that transect the fire walls in some of the older precincts.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C18.

Paragraph C19 - Safety Equipment Testing
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

149 Currently DPD and DTE are working with an outside contractor to prepare concrete slabs, which need to be laid prior to delivering and installing the back up generators. As of November 30, 2003, both the DPD and DTE expected all of the slabs to be poured prior to the onset of winter; however, should a delay develop or the weather turn unseasonably cold, the pouring of the slabs will need to be postponed until spring, which in turn will delay the delivery and installation of the emergency generators.
78

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Paragraph C20 - Smoking Policy

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Paragraph C20 requires the DPD to immediately enforce its no-smoking policy in all holding
cells or provide ashtrays and ensure that the holding cells are constructed and supplied with fire rated materials.150

Current Assessment of Compliance

In order to assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph C20 for the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed the DPD smoking policy and conducted site assessments of 9 of the 12 precincts that maintain holding cells, as well as the holding cells in the DRH to determine if the current ‘no smoking’ policy was being actively implemented and enforced.
The DPD policy, which is located in the Detroit Police Department Manual under section 3.3.4-4 states:

In accordance with the Michigan Clean Indoor Air Act, P.A. 198 of 1986 and P.A. 296 of 1988, smoking is prohibited throughout department facilities.
The DPD also issued Teletype 00-01961 on March 22, 2000, which restates the policy described above. The Monitor conducted unannounced precinct assessments at 9 precincts and the DRH to determine if the ‘no-smoking’ policy was being actively enforced. These on-site assessments provided no indication or evidence that individuals have been, or were being allowed to smoke within the confines of the precinct. Interviews with DPD personnel and prisoners indicated that the no-smoking policy is being actively enforced. In addition, the Monitor reviewed prisoner possession logbooks, which indicated that smoking materials, matches and lighters were being confiscated prior to incarceration.
Although the Monitor’s site assessments indicate that the ‘no-smoking’ policy is clearly being enforced, the Monitor has been unable to locate any recent Department-wide communications that provide DPD personnel with a clear understanding of this policy. To the best of DPD personnel’s knowledge, there have been no recent official communications regarding the ‘nosmoking’ policy. Furthermore, interviews of senior Department personnel indicate that there has been no recent Department-wide communication regarding the ‘no smoking’ policy.
While the DPD has failed to disseminate a Department-wide communication within the last three years regarding the ‘no smoking’ policy, the officers and commanders in the field are aware of the policy and are enforcing it appropriately.151

150 In practical terms, a “fire rated” product aids in reducing the risk of flashover in a major fire due to its diminished ability to support combustion. 151 The Monitor has recommended to the DPD that Department-wide communications regarding the ‘no smoking’ policy be disseminated to the field on an annual basis. This will ensure that all Department personnel are aware of the policy and enforce it appropriately.
79

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance paragraph C20.

Paragraph C21 - Storage of Flammable Liquids
Paragraph C21 requires the DPD to immediately ensure the proper storage of all flammable and combustible liquids in all detention cell areas, buildings that house detention cells, and connected structures, including garages.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The Monitor reviewed DPD efforts during the quarter ending November 30, 2003 to comply with paragraph C21. The Monitor was pleased to learn that the DPD moved swiftly to conduct a needs assessment and purchased 13 flammable liquid storage lockers. These lockers, which meet local and state regulations for the storage of flammable liquids, were purchased with the assistance and approval of the DFD, which provided the necessary technical specifications.
The lockers were delivered to the precincts by November 30, 2003; however, they have not yet been installed. Once the installation process is complete, the DPD will disseminate a detailed memo from the Facilities Management Section of the DPD that will provide specific instructions on the use and care of the cabinets. The DPD is confident that this will be fully achie ved by February 2004.152
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C21.

Paragraph C22 - Removal of Cane Ceiling Tiles
Paragraph C22 requires the DPD to immediately identify and remove all highly- flammable cane ceiling tiles from all buildings that house holding cells.

Current Assessment of Compliance
A review of DPD efforts in this area indicates that the DPD, in conjunction with the DFD, has conducted a thorough assessment of all 12 DPD precincts that maintain holding cells to determine which precincts have cane ceiling tiles. Of the 12 precincts that have holding cells, only two, the 4th and 10th precincts, have been identified as having such ceiling tiles.
The DPD is currently working on a strategy for dealing with these two precincts. As of the drafting of this report, the HCCC has determined that it will be more cost-effective to close down the holding cells within the 4th Precinct rather than invest in the remediation efforts required to

152 The Monitor will request copy of the Facilities Management Memo to ensure that it provides an appropriate level of detail regarding the care and use of the storage lockers. The Monitor also plans on conducting on-site inspections to ensure that the lockers are being properly utilized.
80

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

bring the precinct up to Consent Judgment standards.153 The Monitor has been informed that the DPD is currently working on a remediation plan for the 10th precinct and is accepting bids on the
removal and replacement of the cane ceiling tiles.

While the Monitor is pleased with the progress the HCCC has made in identifying the precincts that have cane ceiling tiles, and developing remediation strategies to effectively deal with the problem, the fact remains that the DPD has yet to remove the tiles.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C22.

153 In late November 2003, the HCCC drafted a memo to the leadership of the DPD requesting that the DPD close down the holding cells in both the 3rd and 4th Precincts. As of this report, no official decision has been made regarding this request.
81

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

II. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES
Paragraphs C23-25 of the COC CJ require the DPD to develop and implement emergency preparedness plans for all DPD facilities that maintain holding cells. These procedures and policies are to be designed to ensure that each precinct, and the entire Department, has a clear understanding of what actions are required in the event of an emergency.
During the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed paragraph C24. The Monitor determined that the DPD has responded to the paragraph’s requirements by working closely with the DFD under the auspices of the HCCC to develop the necessary plans. However, the DPD has been unable to comply with the mandates established in the paragraph.
The Monitor is scheduled to review paragraphs C23 and C25 during the quarter ending February 29, 2004, and will further review the DPD’s compliance with paragraph C24 during the quarter ending May 31, 2004.
Paragraph C23 - Ensure Safety Level
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.
Paragraph C24 - Emergency Preparedness Program Development
Paragraph C24 requires the DPD to develop a comprehensive emerge ncy preparedness program, which receives the written approval of the DFD, for all DPD detention facilities. The program must be submitted for the review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of the COC CJ. The program must include an emergency response plan for each building that contains holding cells that identifies staff responsibilities in the event of a fire-related emergency. In addition, it must require performance and documentation of fire drills for each building that contains holding cells on all shifts once every six months.
Current Assessment of Compliance
During the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed DPD procedures and activity in connection with fire drills and determined that the DPD is documenting fire drills in a precinct logbook, which the DPD hopes to use as the basis for an auditable log, although this process has yet to be finalized. The Monitor’s independent review of precincts’ logbooks indicates that the precincts appear to be conduc ting fire drills on a monthly basis for each precinct and each shift.
Based on comments and technical assistance provided by the Monitor during the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the DPD is working with each precinct to develop individual precinct fire

82

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

safety/emergency response plans under the direction of the DFD. Once these plans are completed, they will be integrated into an overall Department-wide emergency preparedness program, which will be developed in conjunction with the DFD. However, a comprehensive program for all DPD detention facilities has not yet been developed.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C24.

Paragraph C25 - Key Control Policies
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

83

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

III. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES
Overview
Paragraphs C26-34 of the COC CJ require the DPD to develop and implement a series of medical and mental health care polices for prisoners. These policies and procedures must be designed and developed to ensure that the DPD is adequately identifying and responding to the medical and mental health care needs of their prisoners. The DPD must develop these programs with the assistance of a qualified medical and mental health care expert and the policies and procedures must be approved by the DOJ prior to being implemented.
During the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed each of the paragraphs included in this section of the COC CJ (paragraphs C26-34). The Monitor found that the DPD has responded to the requirements of these paragraphs by working closely with the DDOH and the DRH to develop the required policies, procedures and protocols.
During the quarter, the DPD focused most of its energies on redrafting old health care policies and developing new procedures to meet the requirements of the COC CJ. Although the DPD has worked diligently on the issues involved, significant additional effort will be required to achieve compliance with the paragraphs included in this section.
The Monitor is scheduled to further review the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending May 31, 2004.
Paragraph C26 - Identification and Response for Special Needs
Paragraph C26 requires the DPD to ensure the appropriate identification of and response to prisoners’ medical and/or mental health conditions.
Current Assessment of Compliance
In order to assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph C26 for the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed the DPD’s ongoing efforts to develop and implement procedures for identifying individual prisoners who have medical and/or mental health care needs and provide appropriate medical response. The DPD determined that the development of a new Detainee Intake Form is the best method to ensure that the DPD identifies these prisoners and provides the appropriate medical treatment. During the quarter, the DPD Medical and Mental Health Units worked diligently with the DDOH to develop and implement an updated Detainee Intake Form (form D.P.D 651).

84

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Through this ongoing effort, the DPD developed an interim154 Detainee Intake Form (D.P.D 651
(rev 10-03)), which has been distributed to, and is required to be utilized by all precincts that maintain holding cells.155 The form provides specific information and questions that prisoners can answer to assist DPD officers in identifying the medical or mental health care needs of their
prisoners. It must be completed within 2 hours of a prisoner’s intake via verbal exchange with
the prisoner. Special Order 03-29, dated June 16, 2003, provides specific instructions on the use of the form.

The Detroit Police Medical Section has reviewed DPD form 651 and indicated that the form is
based on sound practices and is acceptable for use within the Department. The Monitor has not yet evaluated the DPD’s utilization of this form; this evaluation is scheduled for the quarter ending May 31, 2004.156

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor has not yet evaluated the DPD’s compliance with paragraph C26.

Paragraph C27 - Screening Program Development
Paragraph C27 requires the DPD to develop and implement, within three months of the effective date of the COC CJ, a comprehensive medical and mental health screening program that must be approved in writing by a qualified medical157 and mental health158 professional. Upon their review and approval, the screening program will be submitted to the DOJ for review and approval prior to being implemented. Thereafter, the program must be reviewed and approved in writing by a qualified medical and mental health care professional at least once every year, and prior to any revisions to the program.

Current Assessment of Compliance
As of November 16, 2003, the DPD had drafted a new policy concerning medical and mental health screening. The policy was drafted with the full cooperation and approval of both a qualified medical professional and a mental health professional, which both signed off on the

154 The form is considered an ‘interim’ response because it does not satisfy the requirements of paragraphs C27-29. The DPD is working with both a medical and mental health care professional to develop the final version of the Intake Form.
155 On October 7, 2003, the DPD disseminated Teletype 03-06050 that instructs the precincts to utilize DPD 651 (rev10-03).
156 The DPD’s efforts to ensure an appropriate response to prisoners’ medical and/or mental health conditions is dependent on the development of a comprehensive medical and mental health screening program required by paragraphs U27-29. This screening program, including the Detainee Intake Form, must be submitted to the DOJ for review and approval.
157 The term ‘qualified medical professional’ is defined in the COC CJ as an individual who is currently licensed by the State of Michigan to deliver the health care services they have undertaken to provide.
158 The term ‘qualified mental health professional’ is defined in the COC CJ as an individual who is currently licensed by the State of Michigan to deliver the mental health services they have undertaken to provide.

85

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

policy. The updated policy has been sub mitted to the Monitor for review. Once the review process is completed, the policy will be submitted to DPD leadership for approval, and then the entire program will be forwarded to the DOJ for review and approval prior to implementation.

While the DPD is working on the comprehensive medical and mental health screening program (CMMHSP) policy, an overall programmatic approach appears to be lacking. The DPD is having difficulty mapping out the totality of the program, which will include specific policy and procedures, appropriate forms, implementation and training. Until such time as the entire program is developed and implemented, the DPD will be unable to achieve compliance with this paragraph. 159

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C27.

Paragraph C28 - Minimum Standards for Screening Program
Paragraph C28 stipulates the minimum required standards that need to be implemented in the new DPD detainee screening program: The program must provide a mechanism to enable DPD officers to identify individuals with medical or mental health conditions or who are at risk of committing suicide. Furthermore, the process must require that the DPD follow a standard intake procedure for each individual entering into DPD custody and require that intake screening be conducted within two hours of intake and through a verbal exchange between the DPD and prisoner. Finally the process must incorporate all health information pertaining to a prisoner acquired by the arresting or transporting officer.

Current Assessment of Compliance

In order to assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph C28 during the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed the efforts of the DPD and the DDOH160 to develop a standardized screening procedure for all precincts, utilizing the Detainee Intake Form, to be used by every precinct as new prisoners are processed into the system.
Currently, the DPD is utilizing interim updated Detainee Intake Form (form DPD 651 rev 1003), which mandates that new prisoners be processed within two hours of their intake.161 Furthermore, the new screening process allows for the DPD to screen for medical and/or mental illness concerns that would necessitate proper medical attention.

159 Training is not included in the Monitor’s assessment of DPD’s compliance with the paragraphs in this section as paragraph C76 specifies the training requirements in connection with medical and mental health screening. 160 As a member of the DPD HCCC, the DDOH has been working closely with the DPD on developing appropriate standards for the new Detainee Screening Program. 161 Please refer to the Monitor’s assessment of paragraph C26 for additional information regarding the interim intake form.
86

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

A review of the interim form indicates that it does not allow for notes and/or updates to be provided by detention officers or transporting officers should a prisoner’s condition change. The DPD has identified this shortcoming, as well as other potentially problematic shortcomings, and is currently developing a more comprehensive process that will allow officers to pass along critical medical, safety and security information in a timely and more methodical fashion.

The Monitor also reviewed the DPD Medical Attention for Prisoners policies during the current reporting period. The Monitor determined that the policies make no mention of, or reference to, any of the new procedures or forms that are being developed or implemented. The Monitor is concerned about this omission, and believes that the policies need to be revisited and redrafted to ensure that they are comprehensive in nature.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C28.

Paragraph C29 - Minimum Standards for Medical Protocols
Paragraph C29 provides the minimum standards for the medical protocols required under the detainee intake process: The protocols must identify the specific actions the DPD must take in response to the medical information acquired during the prisoner screening or detention. They must also require prior supervisory review and written approval, absent exigent circumstances, of all decisions made in response to acquired medical information.

Current Assessment of Compliance

In order to assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph C29 for the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed the DPD’s ongoing efforts to update and improve the Detainee Intake Form (Form DPD 651) and the procedures utilized to question detainee about their medical and mental health status.
The Monitor determined that the current version of the updated form (Form DPD 651 rev 10-03) does not include any information or instructions to DPP officers regarding the appropriate responses to medical information acquired during the initial prisoner screening process or during subsequent incarceration within the precinct. The DPD is currently working with the DDOH to develop an updated version of the Detainee Intake Form that will address this issue. In addition, the DPD and DDOH are working on a process to track and audit the new forms to ensure that all proper information has been acquired and that Department personnel took appropriate actions.
The Monitor notes that current medical screening policy indicates that prior supervisory review and written approval, absent exigent circumstances, is required prior to a prisoner being transported to DRH for medical attention. 162

162 The current policy calls for the DPD to transport all prisoners who either indicate that they have a medical condition, or who are identified as having a medical need, to the DRH. There are no known circumstances when a prisoner who needs medical attention is not transported to the DRH for medical attention.
87

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C29.

Paragraph C30 - Infectious Disease Policy
Paragraph C30 requires the DPD to develop and implement a policy on infectious disease control, in consultation with qualified medical health professionals. Once implemented, the policy must be reviewed and approved, in writing, by qualified medical health profe ssionals on an annual basis and prior to any changes or alterations to the plan.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The Monitor reviewed the DPD’s efforts during the quarter ending November 30, 2003 to develop and implement an infectious disease control policy for all it facilities that maintain holding cells. The Monitor determined that the DPD is still working through a number of issues regarding the technological and physical requirements involved in developing and implementing the policy. Specifically, the DPD is assessing its own capabilities regarding the movement of air within the holding cell areas, and the use of ultraviolet light to control the spread of infectious diseases.
According to medical experts, under the standard put forth by the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), the DPD facilities must have at least six air changes per hour to ensure the control of infectious diseases. The DPD has authorized a local contractor to undertake a study of air changes in each precinct. The contractor to the DPD has submitted preliminary findings; however, the Monitor has requested that the contractor review these findings to ensure their accuracy. 163
In addition, the DPD indicates that the DDOH has reviewed and approved the updated policies on the control of infectious diseases and is awaiting signature by DDOH leadership. Once the leadership has signed off on the policies, they will be forwarded to the Monitor for review and compliance assessment.
Finally, while a new training program has not yet been developed, the Training Bureau is reviewing the draft policies, and will await final approval prior to rolling out an updated training program.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C30.

163 Initial findings indicated that all holding cell areas exceeded the stated mandatory minimums for air exchanges. The Monitor, having been briefed on these findings, has requested that these measurements be retaken and that the criteria and exact methodology for conducting the tests be submitted, along with the updated results, in a written report.
88

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Paragraph C31 - Prisoner Health Information Protocol

Paragraph C31 requires the DPD to develop and implement procedures for updating and exchanging prisoner health information. These procedures must ensure that prisoner health information is properly recorded at int ake, and that it is readily available to all relevant medical and transporting personnel in a manner consistent with relevant federal and state confidentiality statutes. The procedures must also ensure that prisoners’ health information is continually updated to include any additional relevant information acquired during their detention. Furthermore, these procedures must ensure that the information is documented and communicated between consecutive shifts. Finally, they must ensure that prisoners’ health information travels with them when they are transferred to another facility.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The Monitor reviewed the DPD’s efforts during the quarter ending November 30, 2003 to develop policies and implement procedures for updating and exchanging prisoner health information. Currently the DPD is investigating the use of an ‘envelope’ or ‘packet’ system that will allow DPD detention and police officers to note all pertinent medical, safety and security information. This type of system is currently being employed by a number of major urban police departments, and is considered to be an effective means of ensuring that critical information is maintained with a prisoner.
This system would be used in conjunction with the new Detainee Intake Form (form DPD 651 rev 10-03) to allow for the recording, updating and exchanging of prisoner health information. It would also enable the DPD to ensure that any additional relevant information acquired during an individual’s detention is captured and communicated to all individuals who maintain a ‘need to know.’164 However, the Monitor is unaware of any effort to ensure that the information collected is maintained in a manner consistent with relevant state and federal confidentiality statutes.
In regards to training, the DPD will develop the training to allow for appropriate implementation once it has developed the exact policies and procedures required to meet the mandates of the COC CJ.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C31.

Paragraph C32 - Prescription Medication Policy
Paragraph C32 requires the DPD to develop a Prisoner Prescription Medication Policy in consultation with qualified medical and mental health professionals that ensures prisoners are provided with prescription medications as directed. The policy must be approved in writing by medical and mental health professionals and submitted to the DOJ for review and approval within three months of the effective date of the UOF CJ. The DPD must implement the policy

164 Specifically, this includes officers involved in the transportation of prisoners, officers located in other facilities, or officers on consecutive shifts.

89

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

within three months of the DOJ’s approval. Thereafter, the policy must be reviewed and approved, in writing, by qualified medical and mental health professionals on an annual basis and prior to any revisions to the policy.

Current Assessment of Compliance

The Monitor reviewed the DPD’s efforts during the quarter ending November 30, 2003 to develop a Prescription Medication Policy. The Monitor determined that the DPD has completed the development of a Prescription Medication Policy with the assistance of a qualified medical and mental health expert; however, initial feedback indicates that further effort is required. Specifically, the DPD will need to develop appropriate SOPs that detail the implementation requirements of the policies. Once these modifications are incorporated, the policies will be circulated in draft form to senior DPD personnel for approval, prior to being sent to the DOJ for review and approval.165

The Monitor also conducted unannounced site assessments of precincts to observe the procedures in place in connection with prisoner prescription medications. The Monitor visually inspected medication logbooks166 and locked medication storage cabinets, and conducted interviews with prisoners and DPD officers in the cellblocks. The Monitor determined that each precincts visited was actively ensuring that prisoners are being provided with prescription medications as directed by a medical or mental health professional.
While the Monitor is pleased with the process described above, we note that the DPD has not developed a standardized format for the Prescription Medication Logbooks. As such, the individual precincts determine what information they capture in the logbook. This may lead to situations in which some precincts do not capture critical information and/or some prisoners are provided with incorrect medications or dosages.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C32.

Recommendations

The Monitor recommends that the DPD develop a standard format for the Prescription Medication Logs to ensure that critical information is captured and available on a consistent basis.

165 Paragraph C32 requires the procedures to be submitted to the DOJ for review and approval within three months of the effective date of the Consent Judgment. 166 Each precinct maintains a prescription medication log book to track medications provided to prisoners, ensuring that the medications are being provided to the appropriate individuals and that information is being transferred from one shift to the next.
90

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Paragraph C33 - Suicide Watch Garb

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Paragraph C33 requires the DPD to provide appropriate clothing to all individuals placed under suicide watch while in detention.

Current Assessment of Compliance

The Monitor reviewed DPD efforts during the quarter ending November 30, 2003 to provide appropriate clothing to prisoners placed under suicide watch. Through interviews with DPD leadership and various precinct officers, the Monitor determined that the DPD sends all individuals who have been identified as being potential suicide risks to one of four precincts.167
The Monitor conducted interviews with DPD officers in the four precincts identified as suicide watch precincts, as well as other precincts within the DPD, to determine if the officers were familiar with, and adhering to, the procedures regarding the treatment of prisoners identified as potential suicide risks. The Monitor also conducted a physical assessment of the four precincts, reviewing the clothing identified for use with prisoners who may be suicidal and the procedures by which these prisoners are detained. The Monitor determined that the precincts have been provided with appropriate suicide clothing, and the clothing is distributed to high-risk prisoners.
A review of the DPD policy on Cellblocks does not reference suicide cells or suicide garments for high-risk prisoners.168 Furthermore, current DPD training does not address these issues, but the DPD is working on incorporating them into pre-existing training.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with the implementation requirements, but in non-compliance with the policy169 and training requirements of paragraph C33.

Paragraph C34 - Suicide Hazard Removal

Paragraph C34 requires the DPD to remove or make inaccessible all suicide hazards in holding cells, including exposed pipes, radiators and overhead bars.

167 There are two precincts identified as primary precincts (one in the east sector and one in the west sector) and two identified as secondary precincts. Precincts are directed to send all of their suicide watch prisoners to the primary precincts, or to the secondary precincts in the event the suicide watch cells within the primary precincts are unavailable. 168 According to the DPD, a policy revision that addresses this issue is being drafted and should be available by December 18, 2003. 169 In this instance “policy” refers to the written policy, procedure, protocol or other method that the DPD will develop to ensure the sustained adherence to the requirements of this paragraph.
91

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Current Assessment of Compliance

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

The Monitor reviewed DPD efforts to comply with paragraph C34 during the period ending November 30, 2003 and determined that that the DPD has undertaken an assessment of all 12 precincts that maintain holding cells in order to determine what suicide hazards exists within the cellblocks. The DPD’s review indicated that there are over 114 items that need to be addressed in the various cellblocks, as they may be considered suicide hazards. A significant number of these hazards (approximately 50) are associated with the 3rd and 4th precincts, both of which are scheduled to be closed in early 2005, when a new larger precinct will be constructed and the two precincts merged.170
The DPD is considering closing down the holding cell facilities in the 3rd and 4th precincts now, as opposed to waiting until 2005. This will ensure that resources destined for upgrading existing holding cell facilities are not invested in structures nearing the end of their operational usefulness. The Monitor believes that this course of actio n would significantly enhance the physical remediation efforts throughout the Department. Furthermore, it will be exceptionally difficult for the DPD to achieve compliance with this and other paragraphs that require physical remediation while the 3rd and 4th precincts remain open, given the poor physical condition of their facilities.

The DPD has also drafted an extensive report detailing all of the physical remediation efforts that are required to ensure compliance with paragraph C34. This report has been submitted to the DPD leadership, and comments from the leadership are expected to be returned by the middle of December. The HCCC is working with the leadership to approve the report and obtain funding authorization for the remediation effort. While the Monitor is pleased with the HCCC and DPD efforts to assess the level of remediation needed to achieve compliance with this paragraph, the Monitor is concerned about the DPD’s failure to act in a more timely fashion with decisionmaking in connection with the issues surrounding the 3rd and 4th Precinct, as well as the suicide hazards that exist throughout the holding cells, Department-wide.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C34.

IV. PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this section of the COC CJ (paragraphs C35-38) during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

170 The new facility will have responsibility for both the 3rd and 4th precincts; however, it will not maintain any holding cells.
92

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

V. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES

The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this section of the COC CJ (paragraphs C39-46) during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

VI. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this section of the COC CJ (paragraphs C47-48) during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

VII. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES
Overview
Paragraphs C49-50 of the COC CJ require the DPD to develop and implement a comprehensive new food service policy with the assistance and approval of a qualified dietician and sanitarian. The new program must ensure that food is prepared and served in a sanitary manner, and that prisoners are fed on are regular basis. In addition, the program must ensure that all prisoners are provided with an alternative meal if they are unable to eat the standard meal for religious or dietary reasons.
During the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed both paragraphs included in this section of the COC CJ. As part of this effort, the Monitor reviewed DPD food service for prisoners, and the manner in which food is stored. Overall, the Monitor found that the DPD has made considerable progress on this issue and has demonstrated a considerable level of implementation compliance in this section. The Monitor realizes that the DPD has been working on developing the associated policies that correspond to the new procedures that have been implemented; however, as of the drafting of this report, these policies had yet to be finalized.
The Monitor is scheduled to further review the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending May 31, 2004.
Paragraph C49 - Food Storage and Service
Paragraph C49 requires the DPD to ensure that food is stored and served in a sanitary manner and in compliance with state and local health codes.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The Monitor reviewed the DPD’s efforts during the quarter ending November 30, 2003 to develop a new food storage and service program. The Monitor determined that the DPD has developed a new food service and storage program; however, it has failed to develop the

93

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

corresponding policies.171 According to the HCCC, both a DHD sanitarian and a registered dietician have signed off on the program. The Monitor has submitted a document request to the DPD, requesting a copy of the new food service plan, as well as copies of the approval letters from both the DDOH sanitarian and the registered dietician.

The Monitor conducted unannounced site assessments at 9 of the 12 precincts that house detention cells. During these visits, the Monitor reviewed the precincts’ food service logbooks to compare the number of sandwiches received and distributed to the number of sandwiches left after distribution. In addition, the Monitor conducted independent interviews with DPD officers and prisoners to determine whether the food was being properly distributed on a regular basis. The Monitor determined that prisoners in each of these facilities are served once during a shift

The Monitor also observed the precincts’ food handling procedures during each site assessment. The Monitor observed that each sandwich arrived at the precinct in a sealed ‘zip-lock baggie’ with a description and expiration date. A corrections officer wearing appropriate sanitary gloves served each prisoner. Each evening, the precincts conduct an audit of all leftover sandwiches, and any sandwich past the expiration date is discarded. Detainees have the choice between baloney, salami and peanut butter & jelly sandwiches, as well as juice and water. Each sandwich was clearly labeled and dated. A check of the refrigerator indicated that the sandwiches and juice were being stored at the correct temperature and that unused sandwiches are disposed of in an appropriate manner.172

However, the DPD’s efforts to fully ensure that food is stored and served in a sanitary manner is dependent on the development of a comprehensive food service policy as required by paragraph U50.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with the implementation requirements, but in non-compliance with the policy requirements of paragraph C49.173

Paragraph C50 - Development of Food Service Policies
Paragraph C50 requires the DPD to develop and implement a comprehensive food service policy, which must be reviewed and approved, in writing, by a qualified sanitarian. Under this policy, the meal plan must be initially reviewed and approved, in writing, by a qualified dietician. It must also be reviewed and approved, in writing, by a qualified dietician at least once a year, and prior to imple menting any revisions to the program. In addition, all food must be stored and handled in a sanitary manner, all prisoners must be provided with an alternative meal selection and food must be provided to all detainees who are held over six hours.

171 See paragraph C50. 172 The DPD now obtains its food on a daily basis from an outside vendor. The food is stored in refrigerators in each precinct that has holding cells. The Monitor will continue these assessments in future quarters. 173 The training requirements associated with paragraph C49 are included under paragraph C78.
94

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Current Assessment of Compliance

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

The Monitor reviewed DPD efforts during the quarter ending November 30, 2003 to develop and implement a comprehensive food service policy. The Monitor determined that the DPD has developed and implemented a new food service program, but policies are still being developed by the DPD and DDOH.

According to the HCCC and the DDOH, a qualified dietician has approved of the meal plan, and a qualified sanitarian has approved of the overall program.174

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C50.

174 An outside contractor manages the new program.
95

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

VIII. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES
Overview
Paragraph C51, which is the sole paragraph in this section of the COC CJ, requires the DPD to provide all prisoners with access to personal hygiene items such as soap, toothbrushes, toilet paper, comb, deodorant and feminine hygiene products.
The Monitor reviewed paragraph C51 during the quarter ending November 30, 2003; the Monitor is scheduled to further review the DPD’s compliance with the paragraph during the quarter ending May 31, 2004.
Paragraph C51 - Availability of Personal Hygiene Items
Paragraph C51 requires the DPD to make available personal hygiene kits to all prisoners being held within DPD holding cells. The kits must include soap, toothbrushes, toothpaste, toilet paper, a comb, deodorant and feminine hygiene products. The DPD must implement this provision within one month of the effective date of the COC CJ.
Current Assessment of Compliance
During the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed the DPD’s efforts to provide personal hygiene kits to prisoners and determined that the DPD is providing such kits to prisoners in all DPD holding cell facilities.
A review of the most recent purchase order, dated September 9, 2003, indicates that the DPD purchased 100,000 hygiene kits, which include soap, deodorant, toothpaste, a disposable toothbrush, three moist towelettes and hand lotion. The Monitor inspected the precincts and determined that these kits are provided to each prisoner prior to the distribution of food. The Monitor determined that sanitary napkins are available for female prisoners by request.
The DPD is currently drafting the language for a Teletype that will be sent to all precincts providing instructions on how the kits are to be utilized.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with the implementation requirements, but in non-compliance with the policy requirements of paragraph C51.

96

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

IX. USE OF FORCE AND RESTRAINTS POLICIES
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this section of the COC CJ (paragraphs C52-54) during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.
X. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this section of the COC CJ (paragraphs C55-57) during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.
XI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS
The Monitor is scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this section of the COC CJ (paragraphs C58-59) during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.

97

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

XII. GENERAL POLICIES
Paragraphs C60-61 of the COC CJ require the DPD to ensure that all terms are clearly defined in policy that it develops, revises, and augments, and to make proposed policy revisions available to the community. As described immediately below, the Monitor assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending November 30, 2003, finding the DPD in noncompliance with each.
The Monitor is scheduled to further review the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending May 31, 2004.
Paragraph C60 - Clear Definitions of Terms
Paragraph C60 requires that the DPD clearly define all terms when creating, revising and augmenting policy.
Current Assessment of Compliance
Among the proposed policy revisions submitted to the DOJ and the Monitor and then retracted was Directive 404.1 that specifically defines certain key terms. After reviewing terms included in this Directive and other proposed policies, the Monitor is concerned that where the DPD has inserted key components of the Consent Judgments into policy revisions, it has failed to effectively incorporate the terms. As with the UOF CJ, revisions to policy that include definitions are, in many instances, simply a regurgitation of definitions and phrases contained within the COC CJ; they do not contain additional information requisite for implementation. As with the UOF CJ, again, the COC CJ contains minimum provisions for the investigation of prisoner injuries. Given that policy revisions remain incomplete, and in all likelihood will include newly created or revised forms, definitions are incomplete.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C60.
Paragraph C61 - Community Comment on Proposed Policy Revisions
Paragraph C61 requires the DPD to continue making available proposed policy revisions to the community for review, comment and education. The DPD must also publish proposed policy on its website to allow for comment directly to the DPD.
Current Assessment of Compliance
Interviews of DPD personnel determined that as of November 30, 2003, the DPD had yet to finalize all locations at which proposed policy would be available for review, comment and education. Verbal representations were made that the DPD planned on providing information at

98

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

BPC meetings. The Monitor verbally indicated that this would not satisfy the requirements of the COC CJ, in that these meetings occur too infrequently, and at times and locations that are not necessarily convenient to the majority of the community. Furthermore, the DPD had yet to identify the procedures and processes for posting proposed policies to its website to allow the community to educate themselves and to review and comment directly.

On December 22, 2003, the Monitor noted that the DPD’s website posted policy for the following areas:175 • Arrests • Arrest Tickets • Bonding • Canine • Chemical Spray • Eyewitness Identification • Firearms • Holding Cells • In-Car Video Cameras • Infectious Diseases • Medical Attention for Prisoners • Prisoner Processing • Search and Seizure • Use of Force

An inquiry of the DPD determined the policies posted are the DPD’s proposed policy revisions submitted to the DOJ during October 2003 and effectively retracted for further revisions on November 25, 2003.

The user is provided with two different means for making comments on the proposed policies. The user may respond directly via e-mail, or complete a printable form that may be mailed or sent via facsimile to the DPD.

175 Anyone accessing the DPD’s website need only point and click on any of these areas retrieve policy. However, as of December 30, 2003, the information described above was retracted from the DPD website.

99

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

In summary, although the DPD has established a website for the posting of proposed policies, there are no procedures or processes in place regarding how the website will be maintained, and who within the DPD will receive, review and disseminate, and respond to the comments.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C61.

100

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

XIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
Overview
Paragraphs C62-72 of the COC CJ require the DPD to operate its holding cells in compliance with its comprehensive risk management and to routinely evaluate the operation of the cells to minimize the risks to its staff and prisoners. The DPD must evaluate such operations through the use of video cameras and via regularly scheduled quarterly audits. The DPD must also create a HCCC, which is responsible for assuring and evaluating compliance with the requirements of the COC CJ. The HCCC is therefore critical to the effective oversight and reform of the DPD’s holding cells.
The COC CJ mandates that either the DPD or the HCCC evaluate compliance with the COC CJ by performing regularly scheduled quarterly audits of all buildings containing holding cells for the following topics: UOF, injuries to prisoners and allegations of misconduct in holding cells, fire detection, suppression and evacuation, emergency preparedness, medical/mental health, detainee safety, environmental health and safety, and food service.
Each of these provisions requires the DPD/HCCC to audit a variety of issues, but a common theme among them all is the requirement to assess and report on issues impacting the well-being of the staff and prisoners in the DPD’s holding cells.
The DPD responded by forming an AT within the HCCC on November 20, 2003, which has responsibility for planning and conducting most of the audits required by the COC CJ. The DPD also formed an AT within CRIB to assist in this process. By December 31, 2003, a total of 13 personnel were assigned to conduct such audits on behalf of the HCCC,176 and two were assigned from CRIB’s AT to assist with such audits
The Monitor is scheduled to further review the DPD’s compliance with the audit-related paragraphs (C65-72) of this section of the COC CJ, and assess for the first time the DPD’s compliance with the non-audit-related paragraphs (paragraphs C62-64), during the quarter ending February 29, 2004.
Paragraph C65 - Audits of Holding Cell UOF, Prisoner Injuries and Misconduct Investigations
Paragraph C65 requires the DPD to conduct quarterly audits covering all DPD units and commands (including command, IAD and Homicide Section) that investigate uses of force, prisoner injuries, and allegations of misconduct in holding cells. The audits must include

176 Nine AT members are from the DPD, two are from the DHD, and two are from the DFD.
101

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

evaluating the accuracy of the incident, consistency of investigations, the collection of evidence and the appropriateness of the conclusions.

Current Assessment of Compliance
Compliance with paragraph C65 will be achieved when quality audits are submitted each quarter for this audit topic. The DPD has indicated that these audits will be combined with the audits required by paragraph U94. The DPD has not yet commenced these audits.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C65.177

Paragraph C66 - HCCC to Assure Compliance with the COC CJ & Conduct Fire Detection, Suppression & Evacuation Audits
Paragraph C66 requires the DPD to form a HCCC that is responsible for assuring compliance with the relevant provisions of the COC CJ. This paragraph also requires the HCCC to conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits of all facilities that house holding cells to evaluate and report upon compliance with fire detection, suppression and evacuation programs as detailed in the COC CJ.
For ease of reporting, the Monitor has split paragraph C66 into the following two components:
• C66a - HCCC to Assure Compliance with the COC CJ
• C66b - HCCC Fire Detection, Suppression & Evacuation Audits

Current Assessment of Compliance

HCCC to Assure Compliance with the COC CJ
The DPD has formed a HCCC that is responsible for assuring compliance with the relevant provisions of the COC CJ. The HCCC is meeting on a weekly basis to:
• oversee the development of the policies required by the COC CJ; and • oversee the inspections 178 into the current state of the holding cells’ conditions relative to the
requirements of the COC CJ.
Although the HCCC is making some progress, the holding cells policies have not yet been developed and implemented, and the HCCC’s inspections do not constitute an audit.

177 As with paragraph U94, for ease of reporting, the Monitor will be splitting paragraph C65 into the following two subparagraphs: C65a - Audits of Holding Cell UOF & Prisoner Injuries and C65b - Audits of Holding Cell Misconduct Investigations.
178 The HCCC is conducting inspections as the first step in planning the audits required by the COC CJ.

102

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C66a.

HCCC Fire Detection, Suppression & Evacuation Audits
Members of the HCCC have conducted a number of informal inspections to assess the status of the precincts relative to their compliance with the fire detection, suppression and evacuation programs as detailed in the COC CJ. However, such inspections do not constitute an audit, and a formal audit report has not been completed on the findings from such inspections.
Although the HCCC has made progress with these inspections, compliance will only be achieved when quality audits of fire detection, suppression and evacuation programs are submitted each quarter.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C66b.

Paragraph C67 - HCCC Emergency Preparedness Audits
Paragraph C67 requires the HCCC to conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits covering all DPD buildings that contain holding cells to evaluate emergency preparedness. Paragraph C67 also identifies a number of topics to be included in the scope of such audits.

Current Assessment of Compliance
Compliance with paragraph C67 will be achieved when quality emergency preparedness audits are submitted each quarter. Although the HCCC has conducted a number of site visits and informal inspections that are helpful to the planning process for the audits to be conducted in this area, such inspections do not constitute an audit.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C67.

Paragraph C68 - HCCC Medical/Mental Health Audits
Paragraph C68 requires the HCCC to conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits covering all DPD buildings that contain holding cells to evaluate medical/mental health programs. Paragraph C68 also identifies a number of topics to be included in the scope of such audits.

Current Assessment of Compliance
Compliance with paragraph C68 will be achieved when quality medical/mental health audits are submitted each quarter. Although the HCCC has conducted a number of site visits and informal inspections that are helpful to the planning process for the audits to be conducted in this area, such inspections do not constitute an audit.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C68.

103

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Paragraph C69 - HCCC Detainee Safety Programs and Policies Audits

Paragraph C69 requires the HCCC to conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits covering all DPD buildings that contain holding cells to evaluate detainee safety programs and policies. Paragraph C69 also identifies a number of topics to be included in the scope of such audits.

Current Assessment of Compliance
Compliance with paragraph C69 will be achieved when quality audits are submitted each quarter on detainee safety programs and policies. Although the HCCC has conducted a number of site visits and informal inspections that are helpful to the planning process for the audits to be conducted in this area, such inspections do not constitute an audit.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C69.

Paragraph C70 - HCCC Environmental Health and Safety Programs Audits
Paragraph C70 requires the HCCC to conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits covering all DPD buildings that contain holding cells to evaluate environmental health and safety programs. Paragraph C70 also identifies a number of topics to be included in the scope of such audits.

Current Assessment of Compliance
Compliance with paragraph C70 will be achieved when quality audits of holding cell environmental health and safety programs are submitted each quarter. Although the HCCC has conducted a number of site visits and informal inspections that are helpful to the planning process for the audits to be conducted in this area, such inspections do not constitute an audit.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C70.

Paragraph C71 - HCCC Food Service Program Audits
Paragraph C71 requires the HCCC to conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits covering all DPD buildings that contain holding cells to evaluate food service programs. Paragraph C71 also identifies a number of topics to be included in the scope of such audits.

Current Assessment of Compliance
Compliance with paragraph C71 will be achieved when quality audits of holding cell food service programs are submitted each quarter. Although the HCCC has conducted a number of site visits and informal inspections that are helpful to the planning process for the audits to be conducted in this area, such inspections do not constitute an audit.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C71.

104

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Paragraph C72 - Audit Reporting Requirements

Paragraph C72 requires the DPD to submit all audit reports to the Chief of Police and provide copies to each precinct and specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit must review all audit reports regarding employees under his or her command and, if appropriate, take disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.

Current Assessment of Compliance

No audits have been submitted by the DPD / HCCC as of November 30, 2003 on the conditions in the DPD’s holding cells.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C72.

105

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

XIV. TRAINING
Overview
Paragraphs C73-78 of the COC CJ require the DPD to provide all detention officers with comprehensive training, maintain individual training records, provide training in key areas such as emergency response, intake and medical protocols, safety programs, maintenance protocols, and food preparation and delivery protocols.
During the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor reviewed each of the paragraphs in this section of the COC CJ. The Monitor met with the DPD, the Training Director and staff, the HCCC and the CRIB to discuss the overall plan for training delivery, assessment, and tracking. A substantial portion of the training required under the COC CJ is based on Departmental policy, which is currently under revision. Lesson plans based on these policies cannot be completed until final policy approval is given.
The Monitor made a formal document request for the Police Detention Officer (PDO) training lesson plan. The documents provided were a collection of existing in-service training lesson plans detailing thirty-two hours of instruction, including first aid. These documents were provided at the end of the reporting period, and have not been reviewed by the Monitor. In any event, this seems to be a dramatically insufficient amount of training hours for PDO staff, and is potentially a source of great concern to the Monitor.
The DPD Training Division has requested one additional Curriculum Development Specialist through City channels. Even if approved, the volume of backlog of work cannot be accomplished in a timely manner without the addition of substantial resources.
The Monitor is scheduled to further review the DPD’s compliance with these Paragraphs during the quarter ending August 31, 2004.
Paragraph C73 - Training of Detention Officers
Paragraph C73 requires the DPD to provide comprehensive pre-service and in-service training to all detention officers.
Current Assessment of Compliance
According to the Training Bureau, the completed PDO comprehensive lesson plan has been submitted to CRIB for review; it has neither been implemented by the DPD nor provided to the Monitor. The Monitor requested and recently received the lesson plan179 through the established
179 The Monitor received these documents after the quarter ended (i.e. after November 30, 2003).
106

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

document request procedure. The Monitor will review the plan for completeness, instructional methodology, and pre- / post-test comprehension. 180 This paragraph is scheduled for further
review during the period ending August 31, 2004.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C73.

Paragraph C74 - Training Records
Paragraph C74 requires the DPD to create and maintain individual training records for all detention officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training completed for all training completed on or after the effective date of the COC CJ.

Current Assessment of Compliance
As referred to in the Monitor’s assessment of paragraph U108, MCOLES has provided its MITN to the DPD. The Monitor understands that this statewide-automated training tracking system will be utilized by the DPD to meet the requirements of paragraph C74.
Training on MITN was not complete as of November 30, 2003.181 Once the training is completed, the Department will participate in a pilot test of the system. Assessment of the completeness and accuracy of the system will occur after implementation, training, and validation.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C74.

Paragraph C75 - Emergency Preparedness Training
Paragraph C75 requires the DPD to provide all detention officers, supervisors of detention officers and members of the HCCC with annual training in emergency preparedness. Such training must include drills and substantive training in the following topics:
a) emergency response plans and notification responsibilities;
b) fire drills and use of fire extinguishers and other fire suppression equipment;
c) key control drills and key control policies and procedures; and
d) responding to emergency situations, including scenarios detention officers likely will experience.

180 It should be noted that the underlying policies for this training have not been fully developed or implemented. Effective policy development is necessary to ensure that the lesson plan is complete. This applies throughout all of the training paragraphs in this section. 181 DPD staff was scheduled to receive training on MITN during the week of December 8, 2003.
107

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Current Assessment of Compliance

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

The PDO lesson plan, which the Monitor understands is under review by CRIB, includes the emergency preparedness topics required by paragraph C75.182 As noted above, the Monitor recently received a copy of the lesson plan through the established document request procedure. The Monitor will review the plan for completeness, instructional methodology, and pre- / posttest comprehension. However, the Monitor is concerned the underlying emergency preparedness program required by paragraph U24 has not yet been developed; therefore, an effective training program cannot be implemented. This paragraph is scheduled for further review during the period ending August 31, 2004.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C75.

Paragraph C76 - Medical/Mental Health Screening Program Training
Paragraph C76 requires the DPD to provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the HCCC with annual training in the medical/mental health screening programs and policies. Such training must include and address the following topics:
a) prisoner intake procedures and medical and mental health protocols, including protocols for transferring or housing prisoners with infectious diseases, disabilities and/or requiring increased monitoring;
b) recording, updating and transferring prisoner health information and medications;
c) the prescription medication policy, including instructions on the storage, recording and administration of medications; and
d) examples of scenarios faced by detention officers illustrating proper intake screening and action in response to information regarding medical and mental health conditions.

Current Assessment of Compliance
The Monitor understands that the PDO lesson plan includes curriculum on medical and mental health training. It was not been provided to the Monitor; therefore, the Monitor requested and recently received the lesson plan through the established document request procedure. The Monitor will review the plan for completeness, instructional methodology, and pre- / post-test comprehension. However, the Monitor is concerned the underlying medical/mental health screening programs and policies required by paragraphs U26-32 have not yet been developed; therefore, an effective training program cannot be implemented. This paragraph is scheduled for further review during the period ending August 31, 2004.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C76.

182 It appears that the DPD intends for the PDO lesson plans to cover supervisors and members of the HCCC in several training paragraphs.

108

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department
Paragraph C77 - Detainee Safety Training

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

Paragraph C77 requires the DPD to provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the HCCC with annual training in detainee safety programs and policies. Such training must include and address the following topics:
a) the security screening program, including protocols for identifying and promptly and properly housing suspected crime partners, vulnerable, assaultive or special management prisoners;
b) protocols for performing, documenting and obtaining supervisory review of holding cell checks;
c) protocols concerning prisoners in observation cells, including protocols for direct and continual supervision, for spotting potential suicide hazards and providing appropriate clothing; and
d) examples of scenarios faced by detention officers illustrating appropriate security screening, segregation and monitoring techniques.

Current Assessment of Compliance

The Monitor understands that lesson plans for this training are currently being written, although most of the lesson plans are contingent upon the completion and approval of underlying protocols. The development of the underlying policies and procedures for this training, required by paragraphs C35-38, will be evaluated by the Monitor in the quarter ending February 29, 2004.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C77.

Paragraph C78 - Environmental Health and Hygiene Training
Paragraph C78 requires the DPD to provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the HCCC with annual training in environmental health and safety and hygiene. Such training must include and address the following topics:
e) cellblock cleaning and maintenance protocols; and
f) sanitary food preparation and delivery protocols.

Current Assessment of Compliance

The Monitor understands that the PDO lesson plan under review by CRIB contains the Department protocols for the storage, handling and distribution of prisoner meals and maintenance of refrigerators. As mentioned above, the Monitor requested and recently received the lesson plan through the established document request procedure. The Monitor will review the plan for completeness, instructional methodology, and pre- / post-test comprehension. The Monitor will also assess whether the lesson plan includes training on cellblock cleaning and

109

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

maintenance protocols required by paragraphs C39-46. The development of the underlying policies and procedures for this training is essential. The Monitor will evaluate paragraphs C3946 during the quarter ending February 29, 2004. Paragraphs C49-50 (sanitary food preparation and delivery protocols) are scheduled to be reviewed again during the quarter ending May 31, 2004.

This paragraph is scheduled for further review during the period ending August 31, 2004.

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph C78.

XV. MONITORING AND REPORTING
Paragraph C94 - Reopening of Investigations Deemed Incomplete The Monitor is scheduled to report on this paragraph during the quarter ending May 31, 2004.

110

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

CONCLUSION
The first quarter of monitoring activity has revealed that the City and the DPD must recognize the level of commitment that is necessary to become compliant with the Consent Judgments. Although the quarter is marked by the DPD’s inability to meet the vast majority of the deadlines set forth in the Consent Judgments, the Monitor is encouraged by the systems that are being put into place that will assist the DPD in achieving compliance in the future. Successes include the development of the CRIB, of the Audit Team, of the HCCC, and of a team dedicated toward the development of the Risk Management System, among other positive steps. Although other significant concerns have been identified in this Report, the overriding failure has been the inability of the DPD to develop effective policies that adhere to the requirements of the Consent Judgments. As the Monitor has noted, achieving compliance in the policy revision area is integral to achieving compliance with all other substantive provisions of the Consent Judgments.
Over the next quarter, the Monitor will continue to familiarize itself with the DPD, conduct compliance assessments, and offer recommendations and technical assistance. The Monitor will also continue to develop compliance measurement criteria (Methodologies) for all substantive provisions of the Consent Judgments.
Sheryl L. Robinson Independent Monitor
Principal Contributors Gregory Boles Joseph Buczek Hazel deBurgh Ronald Filak Thomas Frazier Christi Gullion Denise Lewis Jeffrey Schlanger Alex Tabb

111

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

APPENDIX A: Acronyms Frequently Utilized in Quarterly Reports Issued by the Independent Monitor for the DPD

This Appendix provides a listing of acronyms utilized in the Independent Monitor’s Quarterly Reports.

ACRONYM A&D AT BPC CALEA
CMMHSP
CLFRT COC CJ
CRIB DDOH DFD DOJ DPD DRH FIS HCCC

DEFINITION Arrest and Detention Audit Team Board of Police Commissioners Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening Program Command Level Force Review Team Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment Civil Rights Integrity Bureau Detroit Department of Health Detroit Fire Department Department of Justice Detroit Police Department Detroit Receiving Hospital Force Investigation Section Holding Cell Compliance Committee

1

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING November 30, 2003
Issued January 20, 2004

IAD MCOLES
MITN OCI OIC PAB PCR PDO RFP SOP USAO UOF UOF CJ

Internal Affairs Division Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards Michigan Information and Tracking System Office of the Chief Investigator Officer in Charge Professional Accountability Bureau Preliminary Complaint Report Police Detention Officer Request for Proposal Standard Operating Procedures United States Attorney’s Office Use of Force or Uses of Force Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention Consent Judgment

2

 Case 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Document 124 Filed 12/27/2004 Page 1 of 9

9

UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT EASTERN DISTRlCT OF MTCHTGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AIVlliRlCA,

F BlED
DEC 21 . .
CL.ERK'S OFFfCE U. S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN MtCHtGAN

Plaintiff,
v.

Case number 03-72258 Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

CITY OF DETROIT,

Dctcndant.

ORDER
The issues in this case arose in December 2000 when the Plaintiff, United States of America,
through its Department of Justice ("DOJ"), i\litiated an investigation of the various DPD policies and practices at the request of then-Mayor of Detroit, Dennis Archer. Following the completion of this investigation, the DO] tlled a lawsuit against the City, alleging a general pattern of
unwarranted conduct by. DPD ofticers who had sub.iecled citizens to excessive force, false arrest>, illegal detentions, and unconstitutional conditions of confll1cment. On the same day, the parties
submitted two proposed consent judgments' to thc Court in an effort to address all of the claims by the DOl.

'One conscntjudgment, which addressed the allegations relating to the DPD's usc of illegal force, as well a~ its arrest and witness detention policies, will terminate within a period of five years if the City has (I) substantially complied with all of the provisions in this con~ent judgment and (2) maintained substantial and continuous compliance with its terms and conditions for at least two years. The other consent judgment, which is identiticd in this Order as "Consent Judgment 1," focused upon the unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful conditions of continement in OPD holding cells, The terms within the latter consent judgment provided, in
part, that, "[tlor purposes of this lawsuit only and in order to settle this matter, the City and the
DPD stipulate that they have violated the federal rights of inmates as alleged [in the oors
r Complaint Consent Judgment I at ~ 100.

Case 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Document 124 Filed 12/27/2004 Page 2 of 9
The parties also asked the Court to select an individual who., as an independent monitor, would, among other things, "review and repon on the City and the DPD' s implementation" of both consent judgments. Consent Judgment I at ~124. The Court approved the two proposed consent judgments on July 18, 2003 Five days later, Sheryl Robinson, with the assistance of Kroll, Inc.., was appointed by the Court to serve as the independent monitor in this matter.
A provision within Consent Judgment T indicates that the deadline for full compliance by the City "shall terminate t\vo years after the cfiectivc datc of the Agrecmcnt' if the DPD and the City have substantially complied with each of the provisions of the Agreement and have maintained substantial compliance fbr at least one year." ld. at ~106 This provision also notes that "[tlhe burden shall be on the City to demonstrate that it is in substantial compliance with each of the provisions of the Agreement and has maintained substantial compliance for at least one year." fd.
On July 19, 2004, the City filed a motion, seeking to extend the expiration date for this consent judgment tor an additional two years. In its response, the DOJ, while not objecting to the City's requested extension oftime, did urge the Court not to change or modify the internal deadlines within the parties' Agreement. The Court took the matter under advisement and directed the City to produce a schedule that would identify those paragraphs within Consent Judgment I which could be implemented within periods of six, twelve, and eighteen months. The City responded to the directive tiom the Court and, in addition, proffered its own assessment ofthe progress by the DPD in its implementation of the refbrms which were required by Consent Judgment 1. However, the DOJ filed another pleading, in which it criticized the City fbr having tailed to specify those steps
'For the purposes of this Order, "Agreement," as used by the parties, refers to the Consent Judgment L
2

Case 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Document 124 Filed 12/27/2004 Page 3 of 9
that would be undertaken to achieve full compliance with Consent Judgment r. The Court,
believing that these critical comments had merit, directed the City to file a response which would address the D01's concerns. On October 29, 2004, the City augmented its original proposed timetable in response to this directive.
11 The Court, in approving the terms ofConsent Judgment T, directed the independent monitor to assume the responsibility of conducting periodic con1pliance reviews on the progress of the City's implementation of the consent judgment. Consent Judgment I at ~ 88. Tn addition, the independent monitor was also directed to submit public reports on a quatterly basis that would detail the City's compliance efforts. Jd. at~ 97. Since the entry of the consent judgments in July 2003, the independent monitor has submitted four repotts, all of which indicate that the City has failed to achieve substantial compliance with the vast majority of the provisions within Consent Judgment 1. As an example, the independent monitor, in her most recent report which covered a period through August 3 I, 2004, noted that the City had achieved substantial compliance with only three paragraphs of Consent Judgment L3 Furthermore, the independent monitor reports that since the entry ofConsent Judgment I, the City has substantially complied with only f(Jur of the sixty-five paragraphs which require some remedial action by the DPD 4 As measured by these reports, the compliance e1rorts
"These paragraphs relate to (1) the formation of a no smoking policy, Consent Judgment I at 1120, (2) repairs to cell blocks, id at ~43, and (3) the removal ofHepa-Aire Puritlers, id. at
~46
4Tn the April 15,2004 report, the independent monitor concluded that the City was in compliance with Paragraph 39, which addressed the cleanliness of cells.
3

Case 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Document 124 Filed 12/27/2004 Page 4 of 9
by the City are patently inadequate. s in addition, the City has failed to meet specific deadlines that have been outlined in Conselll
Judgment r. For example, this Consent Judgment directed the DPD to develop and implement a fire
safety program which was to have been submitted for review and approval to the DOJ within a period of three months from July 18, 2003. ConsentJudgment I at ~ 16. The independent monitor, whose last assessment of the DPD's compliance with this paragraph was submitted in her report during the quarter which ended on February 29, 2004, concluded that the City had not satistied its obligation &e Monitor's Report for quarter ending Feb 29,2004 at 62. Similarly, the City has been found to be in noncompliance with paragraph 24 of Consent Judgment i, which directs the DPD to (1) develop and implement emergency preparedness procedures and (2) submit them to the DOJ for review within three months of the etfective date ofthis Consent Judgment. &e Monitor's Report t(lr Quarter Ending May 31, 2004 at 67.
The City's references to its· financial di!l1culties do not excuse its lack of compliance with the Consent Judgment I. In support of its motion, the City proclaimed that "due to [its] limited financial resources," it has been unable to implement "certain monetary measures required under the [Consent Judgment 1.]" City's J\;Jot, at 2. Despite an inquiry by the Court on this issue during the hearing on August 25'\ the City has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation that its present tinancial condition constitutes a viable excuse tor its failure to comply with Consent Judgment 1.
SIn its motion and supporting papers, the City has raised some concerns as to dim"ring interpretations of compliance between the independent monitor and the City with Consent Judgment 1. However, in the absence of any formal challenge by either party to the opinions and conclusions of the independent monitor, the Court will rely upon her assessments and evaluations of the City'S progress. As of this date, no formal challenges have been presented to the COUl1 by either party
4

Case 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Document 124 Filed 12/27/2004 Page 5 of 9
The reasons that have been advanced by the City to implement the terms and conditions of Consent Judgment 1 are not justified, The City was presumptively aware of these financial obstacles in July 2003 when it joined with the 001 in submitting the two proposed consent judgments to the COllli. The commitments, which have now become a part of Consent Judgmcnt I, were freely negotiated and agreed upon by the parties. Nevertheless, the City now acknowledges that it cannot uphold its promises of compliance.
Given the City's abject failure to comply with Consent Judgment I. the Court mu~t now determine whether (1) an additional period of time is warranted under the circumstances which would allow the City to meet its legal obligations, or (2) some turther remedial action is required to direct the City to fulfill its legal obligations,
lIT
Based on its review of the record, the Court., with great reluctance, concludes that an extension ofConsent Judgment I is (1) an acceptable remedy under the circumstances and (2) in the interests or justice. The Court, in granting this motion, recognizes that the City has proffered a detailed plan and schedule tor achieving compliance with Consent Judgment T. On October 7, 2004, the COlili directed the City to (I) present a specific and detailed plan for achieving compliance with each paragraph of the Consent Judgment I, and (2) adequately explain why certain paragraphs would or should require different deadlines tor compliance. In response to this directive, the City provided the Court with an estimated completion date for each task, as well as a detailed description of the actions taken by the City to achieve compliance. See City's Reply, Ex, A. This proffered schedule ot1'ers a blueprint of the City's proposed plan of compliance with Consent Judgment 1. This Court is minimally satisfied that this proposal represents a well-intentioned commitment by
5

Case 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Document 124 Filed 12/27/2004 Page 6 of 9
the City to implement the required reforms in a more expeditious matter. In addition, the City has resolved that it has committed all of its resources to the
development of a comprehensive plan which will result in full and total compliance with the terms and conditions with the two consent judgments. Specifically, the City has committed to a formal plan of action for the physical overhaul of its holding cells. Some of the paragraphs within the Consent Judgment Tthat address this requirement, include, inler alia, (1) full compliance with the LiCe Safety Code, Consent Judgment Tat ~ 14-15, (2) the installation oHire-prevention systems, id at ~ 16, (3) the removal of suicide hazards, id. at ~ 34; and (4) the installation and operation of video cameras in all prisoner processing areas oflhe holding cells, id. at ~ 64.
In response to criticism by the OOJ and the October 7, 2004 directive, the City has now represented to the COUlt that it is committed to the constmction of a new detention facility. The City has also provided a timetable in which it has estimated that this new detention facility will be completed on or before April 2007.
In granting thi, extension, the Court notes that the vast majority of the provisions within the Consent Judgment I do not require the expenditure of substantial sums of money. Therefore, by granting the requested two year extension, the Court will neither condone nor permit the City to delay its obligations to fully satisfy the other reforms in Consent Judgment I.
or The Court notes that the City has recently secured a possible funding source as the result
the approval of Proposal S by the voters at the November 2nd election See attached Election
Results from Detroit City Clerk. This proposal establishes bonds in an amount 0[$78,000,000 to be used by OPO for their implementation of the consent judgments. The approval of the Proposal S underscores the importance of reforming the current practices and policies of the OPO, and
6

Case 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Document 124 Filed 12/27/2004 Page 7 of 9

represents the level of desire by the citizens for a safe and sound community. Having articulated a detailed plan and schedule for compliance to the satisfaction of the Court, the City must now demonstrate that it has the commitment and the willingness to meet its obligations without any further delays or extensions of time
In granting this motion for additional time in which to implement its reform initiatives, the Court will remind the City once again that any extension of time in which to complete its commitments under the two consent judgments will increase its costs and, in turn, will add an even greater burden upon the fiscal concerns of this community. Given the City's depleted I1nancial resources, it is in the best interests of this municipality to achieve substantial compliance with the consent judgment as soon as possible.6
Tn summary, the Court grants the City's motion to extend the duration of the Consent Judgment TfbI' two years until an efrective deadline date of July 18,2007. However, in granting this motion, the Court has not, and will not, relieve the City ofany other deadlines that are presently reflected in the Consent Judgment 1.
TT IS SO ORDERED

DATED:

Detroit, Michigan

6Under the terms 01' the consent judgments, the City is responsible fi)r costs that are incurred by the independent monitor, Consent Judgment I at 1]84. On August 29,2003, this Court entered an order which established a budget for the independent monitor and specifically provided, in part, that "[i]fthe term of either consent judgment is extended, it will require modification of the [independent monitor's] budget"
7

Case 2:F0ra3m--CcIvTY-7O2F2D5E8TR-OJIAT CCLERKSDOoFFcICuEment 124 +1FiIlIeId221421/42676 /2004 T-gP'IageP0801o/0f09a F-011

OFFICIAL CANVASS OF VOTES CAST AT THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN THE CITY OF DETROIT ON TUESDAY, NOVEMEER2, 2004

STATE OF MICHIGAN )

COUNTY OF WAYNE )

S5

CITY OF DETROIT

)

I, JACKIE L. CURRIE, City Clerk ofth" City ofDetroit in .Bid eounty and state, do herebyaenitY 1'hat the,proposals listed below received the nllinber of votes indicat~d at the Gener:iLl Election held in th" City of Detroit on Tuesday, Novemb"1 2, 2004, as sbown by the report of the Board of City
ClJIlvasSf.1.l"S noW on file and of r~ord in my office.

PROrOSAI. E - F..QBM OF GOVERNANCE FOR THE DETROIT PUBI,":; S£;;HOOI.S

NO YES

195,771 107,615

PROPOSAL I. - LIBRARY OlER.ATING MlLLAGE RENEWAL PROPOSAL

YES NO

116,044 68,742.

PROPOSAl.. M - LIBRARY OPERATING MlJ.LAGE INCREASE PROPOSAl.

YES NO

177,407 10S,860

PROPOSAL N - CIT)' OF DETROIT NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVEI.OPMENT AND
ECONOMIC DEVEI,OPMENT PROGRAMS BONDING PROPOS-I)L

YES NO

178,244 102,096

PROPOSAL P - CITY OF DETROIT PUBLIC LIGHTING SERVICE BONDING
PROPOSAL

YES NO

177,780 103.919

PRQPOSAl,R-ClTY O ;FUETBQJJ:UCBEATlNG.ZOO,ANPCULTtJ:RAJ"FAC1IjITlE§ BONDING PROPOSAL
,

YES NO

183,966 96,399

Case 2F:0rom3--CcITvY-7O2F 2D5ET8R-OJITACCLERKSDOoFFcICuEment 124 +1F3i1le3 d2214 21/42867/2004 T-.P" agep.D9O!o/0f039 F-DZ7
Page 2 OFFICIAL CANVASS OF VOTES CAST AT THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN THE CITY OF DETROIT ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2. 2004

~QZQ!iiaL ~ - CITY OF DgTROIT PUBUC SAFETY IMPROVEMENT5 BONDING PROPOSAl;

YES
NO

186.788
91,86l

PROPOSAL T -CITY OF PETROrr T)M.NSPORTATION F.d,gLlTlES BONDING PROPOSAl,

YES NO

176,978 IOS.Ull

"'PROVISIONAl. ENVELOPE BALLOTS

IN WTTNESS WHEREOF, I have heomnto sot DlY hand and affixed the: Corporate Seal
ofthe City ofDetroit. :Michigan. this 16" day o{November, A. D., 2004.

-- ""

..~ '.-
,.-"

-'. ----.--

-

 Case 2:03-cv-72258-JAC

Document 165

Filed 10/11/2005 Page 1 of 3
ORIGINAL 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION:

~[E rc fEU ~[E~
SEP 1 9 2005

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

CLERUK'S OFFICE, DETROIT,PSG SOlSTRICT COURT
Case No. 03-72258 HON. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. United States District Judge

CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,

Mag. Judge Donald Scheer

Defendant.

FILE 0

OCT 11 21m

ORDER

CLERK'S OFFICE U. S. DISTRICT COUAT /:ASTERN "'lICHIGAN

On July 12, 2003, the City of Detroit and the United States filed two

proposed Consent Judgments requiring the implementation of remedial

measures in the operation of the Detroit Police Department ("DPD"). The Court

entered the Use of Force and Arrest and Detention Consent Judgment

("UOF/A&D CJ"), as well as the Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment

on July 18, 2003.

The UOF/A&D CJ defines probable cause under paragraph "hh" as "a

reasonable belief that an individual has committed, is committing, or is about to

commit an offense." The City, concemed that the UOF/A&D CJ probable cause

definition might be misinterpreted by its police officers because the definition

does not describe or explain what establishes probable cause that an individual

is "about to commit" an offense, filed the aforementioned motion. The United

States asserted that the definition of "probable cause" that was approved by the

Case 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Document 165 Filed 10/11/2005 Page 2 of 3
Court in the UOF/A&D CJ was a legally valid definition supported by case law. The parties, believing that the resolution of the City's concerns regarding the probable cause definition is imperative and is in the best interests of the citizens of Detroit, as well as the parties, have agreed to the addition of a footnote to certain DPD policies and training materials that discuss probable cause. The footnote describes the conduct which probable cause that a crime is "about to be committed may be predicated upon, pursuant to the UOF/A&D CJ definition. The footnote reads as follOWS:
"The definition of probable cause includes a reasonable belief that a person is "about to commit" a crime. MCL 750.92 requires that "[a]ny person who shall attempt to commit an offense prohibited by law, and in such attempt shall do any act towards the commission of such offense" has committed an attempt crime. If a person has not taken any act towards the commission of a criminal offense, there is no probable cause for an arrest. However, an investigative detention (Terrv v. Ohio) is permitted when there exists reasonable articulable suspicion. Reasonable articulable suspicion exists where the facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts convince an ordinarily prudent person that criminality is at hand." The above footnote will only appear in relevant DPD policies and training materials. The consent judgments will not be amended, altered or modified in any manner and the City requests that their Motion to Amend the Use of Force and Arrest and Detention Consent Judgment be withdrawn. The Court has been advised of the stipulation between the parties that resolves this issue. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's request that their motion to
2

Case 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Document 165 Filed 10/11/2005 Page 3 of 3 amend the UOF/A&D CJ be withdrawn is here~~nted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PURSUANT TO RULE 77(0), FRClvP
COPIES HAVE BEEN MAILED TO ALL ATrO NEYS FO ALL PARTIES ON
-~""""-'j~--:;--:>r' 20..t£i....
3

 Case 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Document 401 Filed 07/24/2009 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

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

Case No. 03-72258 Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

ORDER On July 18,2003, the Court appointed Sheryl L. Robinson, now known as Sheryl Robinson Wood, with the assistance of Kroll, Inc., to serve as the Monitor in this case. During a status conference with the parties on July 22, 2009, the Court had an opportunity to review certain documents in camera that, in its judgment, were necessary in order to evaluate the then-current status of the Monitor and her continued role in this case. Immediately thereafter, the Court contacted the Monitor by telephone to discuss her ability to remain effective in this highly sensitive position. Following this telephonic conversation with the Monitor and based upon its thorough review ofthese documents, the Court has acceptedherresignation, effective as of5:00 p.m. on July 23. 2009. In accepting the Monitor's resignation. the Court concluded that she had engaged in conduct which was totally inconsistent with the terms and conditions ofthe two Consent Judgments in this litigation. Specifically, it has now become readily apparent to the Court that the Monitor had engaged in undisclosed communications, as well as meetings of a personal nature, with the

Case 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Document 401 Filed 07/24/2009 Page 2 of 3
former City of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick during the term ofthe Consent Judgments. which included inappropriate discussions with him about this lawsuit.
Under these circumstances, the Court finds that it is absolutely necessary to suspend all monitoring of this case immediately. Furthermore, the parties are directed to submit the name of an individual who, in their individual or collective judgment, is qualified to serve as an Interim Monitor as established by the criteria in Paragraph 124 ofthe Use ofForce and Arrest and Witness Detention Consent Judgment (Doc. # 21) and Paragraph 79 of the Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment(Doc. #22). This submission must be proffered to the Court not later than noon on July 31,2009. However, in the event that the parties are unable to jointly agree upon the name of a nominee. then, and under such a circumstance, each of them shall submit the name of one nominee to the Court for its consideration as the Interim Monitor. The parties are also directed to submit the name of an individual (I) whom they individually or collectively believe should be favorably considered by the Court as the successor Monitor in this legal proceeding, and (2) who possesses all of the qualifications that have been established by the Consent Judgments in this case (i.e., Paragraphs 124-130 ofthe Use ofForce and Arrest and Witness Detention Consent Judgment, and Paragraphs 79-85 ofthe Conditions ofConfinement Consent Judgment). This submission shall be presented to the Court on or before noon on August 31,2009.
Furthermore, Sheryl L. Robinson Wood is directed to release, surrender, and turn over forthwith any and all documents that are in her immediate and/or constructive possession and control which may have any reasonable relationship to her now-former duties in this case to Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.(l166 Avenue of the Americas. New York, New York 10036) who. as the temporary custodian, shall retain them until further order by the Court.
2

Case 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Document 401 Filed 07/24/2009 Page 3 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 24. 2009 Detroit, Michigan

slJulian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. United States District Court Judge

3

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 249 Filed 05/23/07 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 3208

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICIIIGAN

MAY 2 3 ZG\ll

SOUTHERN DIVISION

C:l.. ,lK'S \

U.S. :)ISTRIC

. Df

UNITED STATBS OF AMERlCA,

EASTERN ·~

:.. N i

Plaintiff,

Case No. 03-CV-72258-DT

v

HON. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR.

CITY OF DETROIT,

Defendant.

ORDER On March 16, 2007, Sheryl L. Robinson, the Federal Monitor who was appointed by the Court to oversee the controversial issues in the above-captioned matter, submitted a "Motion for Payment of Fees and Expenses" that covered a period from March 18, 2007 through April 17, 2007. Acting upon the "Amended Order Establishing the Monitor's Payment Schedule,'' which was entered on August 29, 2003, the Clerk of the Court established a non-interest bearing escrow account for the payment of her fees and expenses. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is authorized to remit the sum of one hundred forty six thousand seven hundred sixty dollars and eighty eight cents ($146,760.88) to Kroll Associates, Inc., Accounting Department, 7'h Floor, 900 'Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022-4751, which will reflect the payment of the Monitor's fees and expenses from March 18, 2007 through April 17, 2007. IT IS SO ORDERED.

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 288 Filed 10/04/07 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3642

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN and the DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

Case number 03-72258 Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

ORDER On August 18, 2007, the Court issued an order which directed one of the Defendants, the City of Detroit, to respond in writing why it should not be ordered to continue to pay the sum of $141,729.17 to the monitor on a monthly basis. Ten days later, the City, as well as the Plaintiff, the United States of America (through its Department of Justice) provided written responses to the August 18th order. For the reasons that were statedon the record during a hearing on September 21, 2007, the City is directed to continue its currnet payment of $141,729.17, plus expenses which shall not exceed 15%, to the independent monitor until further order from the Court. Furthermore, the City and the independent monitor are instructed to immediately enter into negotiations relating to the terms and conditions ofall future monthly obligations for monitoring services in this litigation. However, if they are unable to reach an agreement by October 22, 2007, and in the absence of a modification of this directive, the Clerk of the Court is direct ed to schedule a hearing on these issues as expeditiously as possible. IT IS SO ORDERED.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 288 Filed 10/04/07 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3643

Dated: October 4, 2007 Detroit, Michigan

s/ Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. United States District Court Judge

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on October4, 2007, I electronically filedthe foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system , and I furt her certify that I m ailed a copy to the non-ECF participant(s).
s/ Kay Alford Courtroom Deputy Clerk

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 302 Filed 12/06/07 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3801

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN and the DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

Case number 03-72258 Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

ORDER In 2003, the parties to this litigation entered into two Consent Judgments, both of which were designed to address and resolve certain claimed law enforcement problems with the Detroit (Michigan) Police Department. These two Consent Judgm ents - one entitled Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention and the other de scribed as Conditions of Confinement - were extended for a period of four years1 by the Court on October 26, 2007. A major issue within one of these Consent Judgments involved matters relating t o the conditions of confinement within the City of Detroit. In addressing the concerns by the Court regarding the status of the progress, if any, that had been made by the Detroit Police Department to upgrade all of its detention facilities, the City responded with a letter on November 14, 2007 in

1The Consent Judgments were extended by the Court through July 18, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 302 Filed 12/06/07 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3802

which it stated, in pertinent part, that “[W]e are confident we will be able to bring all the detention facilities currently in use into compliance with the Life Safety Code within one year.”
Acting upon this representation by the City, th e Court, being seriously concerned ove r personal safety of those persons who are, and will be, held in custody by the Detroit Police Department, determines that the deadline on which all of the law enforcement detention facilities must be brought into full com pliance with the terms and the spirit of the Life Safety Code 2 is midnight on the last day of December 2008.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2007 Detroit, Michigan

s/ Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. United States District Court Judge

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on Decem ber 6, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, and I further certify that I mailed a copy to the non-ECF participant(s).
s/ Kay Alford Courtroom Deputy Clerk

2“Life Safety Code” is defined by § I(1)(p) within the Consent Judgment of July 18, 2003, which addressed issues relating to conditions of confienment, as being “the version of the fire safety code promulgated by the National Fire ProtectionAssociation and adopted by the State of Michigan and the City of Detroit.”

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, et al.,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-72258 DISTRICT JUDGE JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONALD A. SCHEER

Defendants. _________________________________/

ORDER

This matter is before the magistrate judge pursuant to the October 26, 2007 Order

of Reference directing the resolution of a dispute related to the fees of the court appointed

Monitor. Following a series of status conferences, the matter was brought on for hearing

on February 13, 2008. Having reviewed the r ecord, and having had the benefit of oral

argument, the court now enters the within Order.

The Complaint in this action was filed on June 12, 2003. On the same date, the

parties submitted two proposed Cons ent Judgments and a Motion to Appoint a Monitor.

Following a hearing on July 18, 2003, the distri ct judge granted the Motion to Appoint a

Monitor (Docket Entry 20). On the same date, the court approved the proposed Consent

Judgments on use of force and arrest and witness detention (Docket Entry 22) and

conditions of confinement (Docket Entry 23). Those Judgments were entered on July 21,

2003.

Sheryl Robinson Wood was appointed to serve inthe role of Monitor. The Consent

Judgments provided that the no rmal contracting process observed by the City of Detroit

would not apply to the court’s selection of an independent Monitor in this case. Rather, a selection process was undertaken by which four potential candidates were interviewed at length. All of thoseentities proposed a fixed rate budget. Athe conclusion of the process, the parties settled upon Ms. Wood. On Augus t 4, 2003, the City filed a Motion Seeking Court Approval of the Monitor’s Proposed Budget, and the United States filed a concurring Motion to Implement a Monthly Payment Sc hedule (Docket Entries 26-27). F ollowing a hearing on August 19, 2003, the district judge entered an Order Adopting the Budget and Proposed Payment Schedule on August 26, 2003 (Docket Entry 30). The Order provided for a blended fee of $250.00 per hourover the projected life of the two Consent Judgments. Those Judgments will remain in effect through July 17, 2008, and the previously approved budget and billing structure remains in effect.
The parties originally anticipated that the reforms and policy implementations contemplated in the Consent Judgmentswould be completed within their original five month terms. Unfortunately, many commitments remainunfulfilled, and insufficient time remains within the original period to complete t he City’s undertakings. Accordingly, on June 20, 2007, Defendant City of Detroit filed a Motion to Extend the Consent Judgments (Docket Entry 255). The United States filed a Response to the Mo tion on July 31, 2007 (Docket Entry 269). On September 21, 2007, the Mo tion was brought on for hearing before the district judge. Thereafter, on October 26, 2007, the court granted the Motion in an Order which extended each of the Consent Judgments for an additional three years (Docket Entry 294). The Order did not address the issuesof budgeting, compensation or payment terms during the three year extension.
2

Since the issuance of the Order of Reference on October26, 2007, the parties have engaged in an ongoing dialog in an effort to resolv e all issues relating to the Monitor’s compensation. Significant progress has been made through that effort. Pursuant to the parties’ agreements, it is ordered that:
1) The previously approved budget and payment arrangements for work related to the use ofForce Consent Judgment and the conditions of Confinement Consent Judgments will remain in effect through July 17, 2008. That amount is $141,729.17 per month; 2) The Monitor’s fees for years 6 through 8 will be a flat fee, to be calculated by projecting the number of hours reasonably likely to be devoted to this caseduring the three year extension and multiplying that number bya reasonable composite hourly rate; 3) During years 6 through 8, the City will continue to pay into an escrow account maintained by the court one thirty-sixth of the total flat fee each month, as payment toward the Monitor’s fees and a fixed amount identified below for actual expenses; and 4) The flat fee will be reduced if the City achieves substantial compliance with both Consent Judgments in accordance with their terms such that the Monitor’s duties cease to be performed.
3

The parties have been unable to reach agreem ent as to other issues, which are committed by the Order of Reference to the magistrate judgefor resolution. Those include the Monitor’s proposal of a 15% increase in the hourly fee approved by the c ourt for the initial five year life of the Consent J udgments; the reasonableness of the Monitor’s projection as to the hours necessary to comp lete the oversight of the City’s unf inished commitments during the three year extension; and matters relating to the limitation and payment of expenses incurred by the Monito r in discharging it s obligations under the extended judgments. Allof those areas were addressed inthe February 13, 2008 hearing. Based upon the evidence and argumentpresented at the hearing, itis further ordered that:
5) The composite rate for calculat ing the flat fee for years 6 through 8 shall be $287.50 per hour; 6) The total number of hour s projected shall be 23,000, bringing the total flat fee foryears 6, 7 and 8 to $6,612,500.00, payable in pro rata mont hly installments on the schedule established in the Order of the district judge on August 25, 2003 (Docket Entry 30); 7) The Monitor shall continue to submit a Motion for Payment of Fees and actual expenses to the court on a monthly basis, and payment will be made by the court to the Monitor from its escrow account. The City shall be responsible for actual reasonable expenses up to $162, 000.00 per year over the remaining term of the ConsentJudgments. The City shall only be required to remit $10,000.00 per month to the court’s
4

escrow account, so long as the account is sufficient to disperse

all payments ordered by the court. If, at any time, the balance

in the escrow account is insufficient to make such payments,

the Defendant shall, with reas onable promptness after being

informed of the insufficiency, remit an additional payment to the

escrow account in an amount

that will eliminate the

insufficiency. The Monitor will continue to provide a det ailed

expense account statement, inthe form and manner employed

during the initial five year term of the Consent Judgments;

8) The Clerk of the Court sha ll provide the parties and the

Monitor with the balance in the escrow account on a monthly

basis, after all disbursements for that reporting period have

been made; and

9) Once each quarter, the Monitor shall provide to each party,

and by letter to the court, a fee statement that ident ifies each

team member who has rendered services in connection with

this case, the total number of hours worked by each team

member during the quarter and the general subject areas to

which the work pertained. The first such statement shall be

submitted after the first full quarter to occur after the new

budget is ordered by the court. The information contained in

the Monitor’s quarterly report of work performed may not be

used to challenge the Monitor’s flat fee or for any other

purpose related to this case or the work of the Monitor.

5

10) The reasonable expenses (excluding attor ney fees) incurred by the Monitor in connection with the resolution of the matters addressed in this Ordershall be chargeable to the City of Detroit in the same manner asother expenses relating to the performance of the duties of the Monitor as prescribed in the Consent Judgments. All of which is ordered at Detroit, Michigan, this 13th day of March, 2008.
s/Donald A. Scheer DONALD A. SCHEER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
______________________________________________________________________ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on March 13,2008 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court sendi ng notification of such fili ng to all counsel registered electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the f ollowing nonregistered ECF participants on March 13, 2008. Sheryl Robinson Wood.
s/Michael E. Lang Deputy Clerk to Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer (313) 234-5217
6

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 350 Filed 09/15/08 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 4419

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,

Case No. 03-cv-72258-DT
HON. JULIAN A. COOK, JR. MAG. JUDGE: DONALD A. SCHEER

Defendant. _______________________________/

STIPULATION TO AMEND CONSENT JUDGMENT USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION

The parties stipulate to entry of the following order.

TERRENCE BERG Acting United States Attorney

s/ with consnet Judith E. Levy

Judith E. Levy (P55882)

Assistant U.S. Attorney

211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, MI 48226

Detroit,

(313) 226-9727

(313)

Judith.Levy@usdoj.gov

s/ John P. Quinn John P. Quinn (P23820) Attorney for Defendant 7310 Woodward Avenue, 3rd Floor
MI 48202 596-2742 Quinj@LAW.ci.detroit.mi.us

ORDER AMENDING CONSENT JUDGMENT USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION

The Court has considered the above stipulation and is fully informed in the matter. IT IS ORDERED that the Consent Judgment Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention (Document No. 22, 7/18/03) is amended as follows:

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 350 Filed 09/15/08 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 4420
1. Paragraph 1.k. is amended to read as follows: AThe term >conveyance= means any instance when DPD transports a person who is not a DPD employee in a vehicle against that person=s will or for a law-enforcement purpose.@
2. Paragraph 35.c. is amended to read as follows: Athe supervisor responding to the scene to notify IAD of all serious uses of force, uses of force that result in visible injury, uses of force that a reasonable officer should have known were likely to result in injury, uses of force where there is prisoner injury; and@.
3. Paragraph 35.d. is amended to read as follows: AIAD to respond to the scene of, and investigate, all incidents where a prisoner dies, suffers serious bodily injury or requires hospital admission, and all incidents that involve serious uses of force, and to permit IAD to delegate all other use of force or prisoner injury investigations to the supervisor for a command investigation.@
4. Paragraph 67.g. is amended to read as follows: Arequire IAD and OCI to complete all investigations within 90 days of receiving the complaint; and@.
5. Paragraph 67.h. is amended to read as follows: Arequire that: (1) upon completion of the investigation by a command other than OCI, the complainant shall be notified of its outcome and, if the complaint is sustained, whether disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action has been recommended; and (2) upon completion of an investigation by OCI the complainant shall be notified of its outcome and, if the complaint is sustained, its referral to the Chief of Police for appropriate disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.@
-2-

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 350 Filed 09/15/08 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 4421

Dated: September 15, 2008

United

s/ Julian Abele Cook, Jr. Hon. Julian A. Cook, Jr.
States District Judge

-3-

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 372 Filed 01/28/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 4621

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,

Case No. 03-cv-72258-DT
HON. JULIAN A. COOK, JR. MAG. JUDGE: DONALD A. SCHEER

Defendant. _______________________________/

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND CONSENT JUDGMENT USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION

The parties stipulate to entry of the following order.

TERRENCE BERG Acting United States Attorney

s/Judith E. Levy Judith E. Levy (P55882) Assistant U.S. Attorney 211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-9727 Judith.Levy@usdoj.gov

w/consent John P. Quinn John P. Quinn (P23820) Attorney for Defendant 7310 Woodward Avenue, 3rd Floor Detroit, MI 48202 (313) 596-2742 Quinj@LAW.ci.detroit.mi.us

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 372 Filed 01/28/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 4622

ORDER AMENDING CONSENT JUDGMENT USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION
The Court has considered the above stipulation and is fully informed in the matter.
IT IS ORDERED that the Consent Judgment Use of Force and Arrest and Witness
Detention (Document No. 22, 7/18/03) is amended to read as follows:
Paragraph 41 shall read:
The commanding officer of Force Investigation or other appropriate DPD executive designated by the Chief of Police shall annually review critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths in aggregate to detect patterns and/or problems and report his or her findings and recommendations, including additional investigative protocols and standards for all critical firearm discharge and in-custody death investigations, to the Chief of Police. A copy of the report shall be submitted to the Monitor within five months after the end of the year reported on.

Dated: January 28, 2009

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. Hon. Julian A. Cook, Jr. United States District Judge

-2-

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 384 Filed 03/30/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 4786

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

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

Case No. 03-72258 Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

ORDER In 2003, the parties to this lawsuit, the United States of America and the City of Detroit, stipulated to the entry of two consent judgm ents (to wit, Use of Force and Arrest and Wit ness Detention and Conditions of Confinement), both of which were designed to address and r esolve certain alleged law enforcement problems with the Detroit Police Departm ent. On October 26, 2007, the consent judgments were extended for a period of four years by the Court (through July 18, 2011). Over the past several m onths, the parties have he ld extensive negotiations regarding potential amendments to the consent judgm ents. On March 30, 2009, the Cour t held a status conference with the parties regarding this issue and other matters. In an effort to bring a resolution to this long-standing issue, and so that the City can move forward in achieving compliance with the consent judgments in an expeditious manner, the Court directs the parties to submit a joint stipulation and proposed order regarding potential amendments
1

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 384 Filed 03/30/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 4787

to the consent judgments by April 6, 2009 at 5:00 pm. In the event that the parties are unable to reach an agreement by that deadline, the City is directed to file a m otion regarding its proposed amendments by April 13th at 5:00 pm.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 30, 2009 Detroit, Michigan

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. United States District Court Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counesl of record via the Court's ECFSystem to their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on March 30, 2009.
s/ Kay Doaks Case Manager

2

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 385 Filed 04/15/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 4791

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,

Case No. 03-cv-72258-DT
HON. JULIAN A. COOK, JR. MAG. JUDGE: DONALD A. SCHEER

Defendant. _______________________________/

STIPULATION TO AMEND CONSENT JUDGMENT USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION

The parties stipulate to entry of the following order.

TERRENCE BERG United States Attorney

s/Judith E. Levy Judith E. Levy (P55882) Assistant U.S. Attorney 211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-9727 Judith.Levy@usdoj.gov

w/consent Allan Charlton Allan Charlton (P11805) Attorney for Defendant 7310 Woodward Avenue, 3rd Floor Detroit, MI 48202 (313) 596-2742 Charltona@law.ci.detroit.mi.us

ORDER AMENDING CONSENT JUDGMENTS The Court has considered the above stipulation and is fully informed in the matter. IT IS ORDERED that the Consent Judgment Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention (“UF”) (Document No. 22, 7/18/03), and the Consent Judgment Conditions of Confinement (“COC”) (Document No. 23, 7/18/03) are amended to read as follows:

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 385 Filed 04/15/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 4792
-2UF Paragraph 50 shall read:
The DPD shall require that, for each arrestee, a warrant request for arraignment on the charges underlying the arrest is submitted to the prosecutor’s office within 48 hours of the arrest. UF Paragraph 51 shall read: The DPD shall document on an auditable form all instances in which the request for an arraignment warrant is submitted more than 48 hours after the arrest. The DPD shall also document on an auditable form all instances in which it is not in compliance with the prompt judicial review policy and in which extraordinary circumstances delayed the arraignment. The documentation shall occur by the end of the shift in which there was:
1) a failure to request an arraignment warrant within 48 hours, 2) a failure to comply with the prompt judicial review policy, or 3) an arraignment delayed because of extraordinary circumstances. UF Paragraph 53 shall read: The DPD shall document all holds, including the time each hold was identified and the time each hold was cleared. The DPD shall document on an auditable form each instance in which a hold is not cleared within 48 hours of the arrest. The documentation shall occur within 24 hours of each instance of a hold not being cleared.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 385 Filed 04/15/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 4793
COC Paragraph 72 shall read: The audits required by paragraphs 65 to 71 in this Agreement shall be submitted on a semiannual basis with the first and second semiannual periods ending on January 31 and August 31, 2004. Subsequent semiannual periods shall end on January 31, 2005, and every six months thereafter. Each of these audits may be conducted on an annual rather than a semiannual basis when the Monitor concludes that the most recently submitted audit for the same topic is compliant, and the remaining requirements of this paragraph have been met for the prior audit of that topic. The DPD shall issue all audit reports to the Chief of Police and also provide copies to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take nondisciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.

Dated: April 15, 2009

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. Hon. Julian A. Cook, Jr. United States District Judge

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 401 Filed 07/24/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 5076

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

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

Case No. 03-72258 Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

ORDER On July 18, 2003, the Court appointed SherylL. Robinson, now known as Sheryl Robinson Wood, with the assistanc e of Kr oll, Inc., to serve as the Monitor in this case. During a status conference with the parties on July 22, 2009, the Court had an opportunity to review cer tain documents in camera that, in its judgment, were necessary in order to evaluate the then-current status of t he Monitor and her continued role in this case. Im mediately thereafter, the Court contacted the Monitor by telephone to discuss her aiblity to remain effective in this highly sensitive position. Following this telephonic conversation with the Monitor and based upon its thorough review of these documents, the Court has acceptedher resignation, effective as of 5:00 p.m. on July 23, 2009. In accepting the Monitor’s resignation, th e Court concluded that s he had engaged in conduct which was totally inconsistent with theterms and conditions of the two Consent Judgments in this litigation. Specifically, it has now become readily apparent to the Court that the Monitor had engaged in undisclosed communications, as well as meetings of a personal nature, with the
1

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 401 Filed 07/24/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 5077
former City of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick during the termof the Consent Judgments, which included inappropriate discussions with him about this lawsuit.
Under these circumstances, the Court finds that it is absolutely necessary to suspend all monitoring of this case immediately. Furthermore, the parties are directed to submit the name of an individual who, in their individual or collective judgm ent, is qualified to serve as an Interim Monitor as established by the criteria in Paragraph 124 of the Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention Consent Judgment (Doc. # 21) and Pa ragraph 79 of the Conditions of Confinem ent Consent Judgment(Doc. #22). This submission must be proffered to the Court not later than noon on July 31, 2009. However, in the event that theparties are unable to jointly agree upon the name of a nominee, then, and under such a circum stance, each of them shall submit the name of one nominee to the Court for its consideration as the Interim Monitor. The parties are also directed to submit the name of an individual (1) whom they individually or collectively believe shoul d be favorably considered by the Court as the successor Monitor in this legal proceeding, and (2) who possesses all of the qualificationsthat have been established by the Consent Judgments in this case (i.e., Paragraphs 124-130 of the Use of Force andArrest and Witness Detention Consent Judgment, and Paragraphs 79-85 of the Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment). This submission shall be presented to the Court on or before noon on August 31, 2009.
Furthermore, Sheryl L. Robinson W ood is directed to rele ase, surrender, and turn over forthwith any and all docum ents that are in her immediate and/or constructive possession and control which may have any reasonable relationshipto her now-former duties in this case to Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.(1166 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036) who, as the temporary custodian, shall retain them until further order by the Court.
2

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 401 Filed 07/24/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 5078

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 24, 2009 Detroit, Michigan

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. United States District Court Judge

3

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

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

Case No. 03-72258 Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

ORDER On July 24, 2009, the Court entered an order which (1) accepted the resignation of Sheryl Robinson Wood as the independent monitor in this case, (2) suspended the immediate activities of the monitoring team until further notice, and (3) directed the parties to submit the name of a person who, in their collective judgment, would be qualified to serve as a successor in this highly sensitive position. On July 30, 2009, the Court - af ter receiving input from the parties - determined that the selection and appointment of an interim monitor would not effectively further the ultimate goal of this litigation (i.e., full compliance with the two consent judgments by the City of Detroit). As a result, the Court continued its suspension ofall monitoring activities in this case until such time as a successor monitor has been designated, with the caveat that the City of Detroit, through its law enforcement department, must continue to strive toward full compliance with all of the mandates within the two consent judgments.
1

Furthermore, the Court, acting upon recent discussions with both pa rties, now concludes that the previously established deadline of August 31, 2009 (which had been originally designated as the date when they would jointly submit their recommendation regarding a successor monitor) leaves an inadequate am ount of time to complete the necessary vetting process for this highly sensitive position. A ccordingly, the parties shall collectively (1) subm it a written report to the Court not later than August 31, 2009 which will outline their progress to date with reasonable specificity that has been undertaken by them in their effort to obtain the identity of a qual ified person to serve as the successor monitor1 and (2) proffer the name of the person to the Court on or before September 30, 2009 who, in their judgment, is qualified to serve as the successor monitor in this case.
In an additional effort to facilitate the transition to a successor monitor, the Court directs the current monitoring team to prepare a closing memorandum that will identify any work which has been completed between the date ofthe filing of the twenty third quarterly status report on July 16, 2009 and July 24, 2009 (the date of the temporary suspension of the monitoring in this case). A draft of this closing memorandum shall be submitted to the parties on or before August 31, 2009. Thereafter, the parties shall have a period of seven days in which to review and comment on the draft memorandum prior to its submission to the Court on September 8, 2009. An hourly fee of $287.50, which the Court had found to be a reasonable (Doc. #317), shall be paid for the work that
1The parties have also advised the Court that they have drafted a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) document which is designed to solicit applications from those individuals and groups who may wish to apply to serve as the successor monitor in this litigation. The Court directs that (1) the RFP be issued jointly by the City of Detroit and the Department of Justice not later than August 14, 2009 and (2) the parties allow a period of fourteen days period thereafter in which responses to the RFP can be submitted by interested persons.
2

is required to complete this draft m emorandum. Joseph Buczek, a m onitor team member with Marsh & McLellan Companies, Inc. who has agreed to obtain inform ation from the other team members, shall also submit to the Court the total number of hours worked by each team member in conjunction with this draft memorandum. If the submission of hours and fees is approved by the Court, those individuals who have been identified as having expended their time in the preparation of the closing memorandum, shall be compensated with funds from the escrow account in this case.
Finally, on July 24, 2009, the Court de termined that all docum ents which have any relationship to any monitoring activities in this case, including those under the control of Sheryl Robinson Wood, be turned over to Marsh & McLennanCompanies, Inc. However, the parties have informed the Court that these above-referenced documents have been placed in a secure location at the Venable, L.L.P. law firm (750 East Pratt Street, Suite 900, Baltimore, Maryland 21202). On the basis of the parties’ representations, the Court accepts their assurances that the documents are safe and secure fromtheft, loss, vandalism, and any unwarranted intrusion by unauthorized persons. Hence, the Court concludes that these documents shall remain at the Venable, L.L.P. law ifrm until further order, and, in so doing, does modify its order of July 24th to conform with this new directive. Furthermore, any other documents in the possessionof the monitor team members shall be retained by them in a secure manner until further order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 11, 2009 Detroit, Michigan

S/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. United States District Court Judge

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upocnounsel of record via the Court's ECFSystem to their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on August 11, 2009.
s/ Kay Doaks Case Manager
4

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
-vs-
CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN and the DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants. /

Case number 03-72258 Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

ORDER On March 4, 2010, the Court directed the Defendants, the City of Detroit (“City”) and the Detroit Police Department (“DPD”), to respond to several questions regarding, inter alia, (1) the procedures that had been adopted by the City’s Office of the Chief Investigator (OCI) for the handling of its 1,049 backlogged citizen complaints, and (2) the DPD’s proposed plan to combine a new early warning systemwith its existing Management Awareness System (“MAS”) in an effort to satisfy the demands within the Use of Force Consent Judgment. On March 17, 2010, the City tendered written responses that, in the opinion of the Court, were deficient and incomplete in many respects, as will be explained more fully below. I. Backlog of OCI Complaints As an initial matter, the Court is troubled by the language that was utilized by the City in describing the number of cases that had not been investigated by the OCI. It does not matter to the
1

Court whether (1) the City identified these cases with such words as backlogged, open, active, or aged, or (2) the numbe r of cases which rem ain amongst its file system without any m eaningful investigation and/or resolution begins at 1,049, 928, or 598.See City’s Response at 1-2. In the final analysis, the main concern of the Court is that the OCI continues to carry an unacceptably hi gh number of complaints from Detroit citizens which have yet to be investigated and/or resolved.
Similarly, in discussing the 314 citizen com plaints that were closed between Ja nuary 15, 2010 and March 1, 2010, the City issued a response wichh fosters confusion about many of the terms associated with the findings by the OCI. In its reading of the City’s response, the Court was given very little guidance about what was meant by the wording which indicated that a file had been closed because (1) the DPD personnel was “exonerated,” (2) a complaint was “void,” or (3) a charge was “not sustained,” and/or “unfounded.”
However and perhaps of most concern was theCity’s revelation that the OCI had unilaterally closed a number of its cases for a variety of non-administrative reasons, including but not limited to (1) the lack of a response from a complaining witness, (2) the absence of an independent source of evidence of criminality or misconduct, (3) the fact that an allegation had been made against an individual who was no longer employed by the DPD, or (4) a finding that the officer’s conduct was proper. The Court regards this practice as highly problematic and agrees with the City that any of the cases, which have been adm inistratively closed on or after Novem ber 20, 2009, m ust be immediately reopened and fully investigated al ong with the remaining other cases which were identified by the OCI as being open files as of December 15, 2009.
Therefore and in light of these and other problems, the City is directed to take the of llowing steps in order to expeditiously clear the backlog of pending cases within the OCI:
2

(1) Consistent with the representations that were made at the status conference on March 31, 2010, the City must develop a set of standard and consistently uniformoperating policies and procedures by which all of its cases are to be opened, investigated and closed in a manner which comports with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Use of Force Consent Judgment within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this order. These standard policies and procedures must be developed with the input and approval of the DOJ and the Independent Monitor.
(2) The City must develop a formalized case management system through which all OCI personnel (e.g., investigators and supervisors) m ust process their individual and collective caseloads. This case m anagement system must be developed within a period of thirty days (30) from the date of this order with the input and approval of the DOJ and the Independent Monitor.
(3) The City m ust also ensure that all of its OCI personnel (e.g., investigators and supervisors) are trained on, and thoroughlyfamiliar with, the new standard operating polices and procedures as well as the new case management system.
(4) Within a period of forty-five (45) days from the entry of thi s order, the City must furnish the Independent Monitor with a detailed written plan which identif ies the steps that it will undertake to (a) clear all of t he 1,049 backlogged cases, and (b) address and resolve any new cases.
(5) The City must resolve all of the 1,049 of the backlogged cases within a period of ninety (90) days from the entry of this order according to the standard operating policies and procedures identified above.
II. Management Awareness System (“MAS”)
During the March 1, 2010 show cause hearing, the City acknowl edged that MAS was not
capable of satisfying all of its needs for a succe ssful risk management database. The City also
indicated that it was strongly conside ring the creation of a two-pronged “early warning system ”
which would involve the supplem entation of the MAS with the IAPro system (developed by CI
Technologies). However, in its written response, the City appears to have changed course and
identified the Administrative Investigations Management (AIM) system (developed by On Target)
as the likely supplement to MAS.
On March 31, 2010, the vendor of the AIM system conducted a preliminary demonstration
3

of its compatibility with MAS to the parties andthe Independent Monitor. Although the presentation
revealed certain capabilities and positive outcomes, the Court believes that a more thorough vetting
process should be undertaken before the City invests its time, funds and other valuable resources in
a new technology which may or may not satisfy the demands of the Use of Force Consent Judgment.
Accordingly, the City is directed to adopt the following steps withregard to the development
of a risk management database:
(1) Within a period of thirty (30) days of the date of this order, the City must confer with the DOJ and the Independent Monitor to identify (a) a complete listing of companies that have developed successful risk management databases and/or systems for use by law enforcement agencies and/or departm ents throughout the nation, a nd (b) a complete listing of law enforcem ent agencies and/or departm ents that have implemented and are utilizing ef fective risk management databases and/or system s which track, and/or have the capacity to track, data sim ilar to that requi red by paragraph 80 of the Use of Force Consent Judgment.
(2) Within a period of sixty (60) days of the date of this order, the City m ust - with the assistance and joint participation ofthe DOJ and the Independent Monitor - visit those law enforcement departments and/or agencies throughout the nation that ha ve successfully utilized the ef fective risk management databases which have been identified in paragraph (1)(b) above. In making its selection of the law enforcement departments and/or agencies to be visited, the City is encouraged - with the input of the DOJ and the Independent Monitor - toidentify those law enforcement departments and/or agencies with similar sizes and/or needs of the DPD.
(3) On or before July 22, 2010, the City m ust furnish the Court with a written plan for engaging in a competitive “request for proposal” (RFP) process for the selection of a vendor to develop a risk management database which fully satisfies the requirements of the Use of Force Consent Judgment . In developing this written plan, the City is strongly encouraged t o seek the inclus ion and the input of the DOJ and the Independent Monitor- to the extent practicable - as a part of the RFP process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4

Dated:

April 19, 2010 Detroit, Michigan

S/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. United States District Court Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on April 19, 2010.
s/ Kay Doaks Case Manager

5

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 454 Filed 06/30/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 5819

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case number 03-72258

Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN and the DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

/ ORDER

On June 17, 2010, the Court issued an order inwhich it directed the Defendant, the City of

Detroit (“City”), to remit a $1,000 fine to the Clerk of the Court each business day commencing on

June 18, 2010 until such tim e as the City submitted to the C ourt final versions of the following

items:

(a) standard operating procedures for the Office of the Chief Investigator,

(b) a case management system, and

(c) a plan to clear the backl og of citizen complaints and address and resolve any new cases.

As reflected on the official docket entries in this cause, the City has remitted $1,000 to the

Clerk of the Court each business day fromJune 18, 2010 through June 29, 2010. On June 30, 2010,

the City filed a set of documents which it contends were developed with the input and approval of

the Independent Monitor and the Plaintiff, the Department of Justice. The City further asserts that

these submissions comport with the above-referenced requirements.

Based on its review of the record, the Court concludes that a cessation of the fines imposed

against the City is warranted. Therefore, effective June 30, 2010, the Court suspends the sanctions

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 454 Filed 06/30/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 5820

imposed against the City, with recognition that each of the f oregoing items must ultimately be

approved by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

June 30, 2010 Detroit, Michigan

S/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. United States District Court Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on June 30, 2010.
s/ Kay Doaks Case Manager

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case number 03-72258

Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN and the DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

ORDER

This civil rights action - now in its seventh year - involves an ongoing effort to enforce and

implement two Consent Judgments that were agreed upon by the City of Detroit (“City”) and the

Department of Justice (“DOJ”). These Consent Judgments arose in response to accusations by the

DOJ that the City, through its Police Department (“DPD”), had engaged in a pattern or practice of

(1) using unlawful levels of force in its arrests and detentions, and (2) providing unconstitutional

or otherwise unlawful living conditions to prisoners who had been confined in its holding cells.

On the same day that the Consent Judgments were entered, the Court appointed Sheryl L.

Robinson (now known a s Sheryl Robinson Wood), assisted by Kroll, Inc., 1 to serve as the

independent federal monitor in this case. On July 23, 2009, the Court accepted the resignation of

1Over the course of her appointment, Robinson Wood was initially employed as an attorney for Kroll, Inc., and, thereafter, for Saul Ewing, LLP, and Venable, LLP. All three entities will be referred to hereinafter collectively as “the Firms.”
1

Robinson Wood from her position as the independent federal m onitor following its review of documents in camera which led it to conclude that she “had engaged in conduct which was totally inconsistent with the term s and conditions of the two Consent Judgm ents . . . .” (July 24, 2009 Order, ECF No. 406, at 1-2). The conduct to whic h the Court had alluded included “undisclosed communications, as well as meetings of a personal nature, with the former City of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick during the termof the Consent Judgments,” as well as “inappropriate discussions with [Kilpatrick] about this lawsuit.” (Id.).
The City has now filed a motion in which it requests that the Court impose sanctions upon Robinson Wood and the Firm s in the form of a disgorgement of all th e payments - totaling $10,049,493.33 - that the City made during the six year s prior to her resignation. Thereafter, the DOJ, as the sole Plaintiff in this litigation, fileda response in which it generally supported the City’s request. However, the DOJ submits that the requested disgorgement should be limited only to the portion of the payments that is attributable to Robinson Wood. It should also be noted that the Firms and Robinson Wood - although they are not parties tothe present litigation - have filed unsolicited responses to the currently pending motion in whichthey vigorously oppose the City’s right to pursue and obtain - as well as the authority of the Court to grant - the requested relief.
A reading of the City’s motion reveals that it has attem pted to inject what is, in practical effect, an entirely new cause of action (i.e., breach of contract) into this long-running civil rights case. Yet, in so doing, it has bypassed the basic procdeural requirement that an aggrieved in a federal civil action under these circumstances must initiate; namely, the filing of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3. The gravamen of the City’s grievance is that it did not get what it paid for, as evidenced by the following statement: “The City of Detroit and its citizens paid the
2

Monitor more than $10 million, and in return, Kroll and [Robinson] Wood have managed to cast
doubt on the judicial process and its own perform ance irrespective of m erit.” (Defs.’ Mot. for
Sanctions at 3). Clearly, t he agreement between the City and the independent federal m onitor
contemplated that she and her monitoring team would faithfully perform their duties - and, in return,
the City would pay the monitoring team for its services - pursuant to the terms and the spirit of the
Consent Judgments. To the extent that (1) the Cons ent Judgments2 and the af firmative
representations of the monitoring team3 created an implicit contractual obligation that every member
of the monitoring team, including Robinson Wood, would be neutral, independent, and bi as-free
agents, and (2) Robinson Wood violated the spirit of this commitment, the City contends that it did
not receive the benefit of its bargain. Thus, the City’s motion is based on the principles of contract
law - a matter that is distinct and separate from the now-pending civil rights litigation before this
Court.
Moreover, although the City’s m otion bears all of the hallmarks of a breach of contract
claim, it is important to note that the individuals and/or entities who should properly be identified
2See Consent Judgment - Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention, Docket No. 22, at ¶ X.A.124 (“The DOJ and the City shall select a Monitor with law enforcement experience, a reputation for integrity and an absence of bias, including any appearance of bias, for or against the DOJ, the City or the DPD, who shall review and report on the City and the DPD’s implementation of this Agreement . . . .”); Consent Judgment - Conditions of Confinement, Docket No. 23, at ¶ XVII.A.79 (“The DOJ and the City shall select a Monitor with corrections experience, a reputation for integrity and an absence of bias, including any appearance of bias, for or against the DOJ, the City or the DPD, who shall review and report on the City and the DPD’s implementation of this Agreement . . . .”).
3See, e.g., Statement of Qualifications, Defs.’ Mot. for Sanctions, Ex. B. (“[S]uccess for the Monitor depends not on a sophisticated investigative strategy, the creation of oversight protocols, or on the creation of new innovative policing strategies. Rather the success of the Independent Monitor will be measured by its ability to . . . [e]nsure all parties and the public that the Independent Monitor’s oversight is truly independent and unbiased.”).
3

as defendants in such a claimare not parties to thiscivil rights lawsuit. Arguably, if the City desires to pursue its claim against Robinson Wood and the Firms, it should commence a lawsuit with all of the proper parties in their proper roles by filing a complaint to that effect, Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”), rather than attempting to append - by motion - a breach of contract action onto the existing civil rights litigation.
Not only would the injection ofsuch a claim into this lawsuit be procedurally improper, but it would also raise a host of practical issues thatare of serious concern to the Court. An evaluation and determination of the present m otion would necessita te extensive discovery, briefing, and argument. For example, the Firms have asserted intheir unsolicited responses that, if the Court gave serious consideration to the City’s pending m otion, “discovery [would be] necessary to evaluate [Robinson] Wood’s service, the services provided byother providers and contractors, the nature and duration of the ‘communications,’ ‘meetings,’ and ‘discussions’ between [Robinson] Wood and Mr. Kilpatrick, the ‘text messages,’ the culpability ofthe City, and other pertinent factors.” (Non-Parties Saul Ewing & Venable’s Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. for Sanctions at 29; see also United States’ Resp. to the City’s Mot. for Sanctions at 10-11 (“[P]rior to hearing oral argument or deciding this motion, we recommend that the Court set a briefing schedule for all parties in interest and, if requested by any party, an evidentiary hearing where Robinson Wood has both an opportunity to be heard and to be examined.”)). Thus, the City’s motion contemplates the relitigation of six of the seven years of this civil rights action - but with the scrutiny being shifted from the Defendants (the City of Detroit and its Police Department) to persons and entities who are not even parties to the present case. Such a change in focus would not only be improper, but it would also be severely detrimental to the progress - albeit extremely slow - of this action. Cf. City of Bangor v. Citizen Comm’ns Co.,
4

No. 02-183-B-S, 2007 WL 4233094 & 2007 WL 1557426 (D. Me. Nov. 28 & May 25, 2007)a, ff’d,
532 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2008) (dismissing without prejudice supplemental third-party complaints and
third- and fourth-party m otions for judgm ent that, in the opinion of the court, “would be best
pursued as an entirely new case,” where the initial case resulted in a consent decree f or
environmental remediation and the supplemental complaints were contribution claims against third-
party defendants).
In City of Bangor, the court noted that:
[I]t would seem that the already lengthy docket on this matter should remain open solely to deal with issues surrounding the i mplementation and enforcement of the Consent Decree. To the extent that Citi zens’ supplemental complaints seek only money damages and will clearly require extensive motion practice, including in all likelihood a new round of motions to dismiss, as well as discovery, it would seem that these matters should occupy their own separate docket.
City of Bangor, 2007 WL 1557426, at *10. The third-party plaintiff - ass uming that it wished to
continue to pursue its contribution claim s - was directed to f ile its com plaints as a new and
independent case. 2007 WL 4233094, at *1-2. In affirming this disposition by the trial court, the
First Circuit Court of Appeals noted that:
A district court enjoys inherent power to“control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Here, the district court decided that the entire subject matter to which the motions for judgment applied would be heard in a new case, where [the third-par ty plaintiff’s] opposing motion to file supplem ental claims for contribution would also be considered. Appellants have not shown theywould suffer the “plain legal prejudice” that parties seeking to challenge a dismissal without prejudice must demonstrate.
City of Bangor, 532 F.3d at 99 (citations omitted). Here, as in City of Bangor, the instant litigation
should and must remain focused on the implementation and enforcement of the Consent Judgments.
The factually and legally distinct and complicated matters that have been raised by the City through
5

its motion4 can be and should be the subject of an independent case with the relevant persons and entities properly joined as parties.
Furthermore, the Court has very serious reservations regarding its authority to order - and to enforce - the relief that the City seeks to obtain in its motion. Neither Robinson Wood nor the Firms are parties to this case. Although many courts have addressed the issue of whether the inherent authority of a court to sanction litigants extends to non-parties, no clear rule has eemrged, especially with respect to non-parties who did not violate any specific court order. See, e.g., In re So. Mich. Assocs., 175 B.R. 976, 981-87 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1994) (reviewing conflicting decisions rega rding whether district courts’ inherent authority to impose sanctions extends to non-parties, and holding that “as a matter of law [the court] is unable to impose sanctions under its inherent authority against . . . a non-party expert witness who has not appeared before this court nor violated a court order). Compare Amerisource Corp. v. Rx USA Int’l Inc. , No. 02-CV-2514, 2010 W L 2730748, at *5-6 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2010) (although non-parties are ordinraily not subject to court’s inherent authority to impose sanctions, ordering sanctions against non-party because, “as the m ajority shareholder, chief executive, and only person af filiated with [the defendant] to have a substantive role in this litigation, [purported non-party] is [the defendant]”),with Feldman v. Davidson, 2009 WL 995473, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2009) (citation omitted) (“The court’s inherent power to sanction includes sanctioning non-parties for bad faith conduct. However, additional safeguards m ay be warranted when a non-party is being sanctioned.”).
4Moreover, the Court notes that the City’s motion arguably raises issues of first impression. Although the parties and non-parties herein have cited cases involving bankruptcy examiners, special masters, agents, and attorneys, all of these positions and their attendant obligations and responsibilities are distinguishable from that of a federal monitor. Thus, none of these cases offer any realistic guidance on the proper resolution of this issue.
6

If the Court entertained the City’s present motion - despite its very serious doubts as to the propriety of doing so - it would run the risk obfogging down what has beena forward looking action that has been focused on continually improving the DPD’s compliance with the Consent Judgments with a backward-looking dispute between the Cityand the now-former independent monitor and her team. The Court notes that the DPD has made significant progress in coming into compliance with the mandates within the Consent Judgments during the past year. Thus, even if the Court did have the authority to address the concerns of the City - as reflected in its currently pending m otion appending the present claim to the instant litiga tion could have the unintended consequence of taking the attention of the parties and the Court away from the central goal of addressing the civil rights concerns of its citizenry and, in so doing, even reversing the progress that has been m ade, albeit slowly.
The Court understands the desire ofthe City to pursue the reliefthat it seeks to obtain in this motion. However, the Court has determined that it would be manifestly improper to evaluate and rule on the City’s motion in its present posture. Therefore, the Court denies the pending motion, but does so without prejudice to the City’s ability to file a separate civil case in which it would seek to recapture monies from those persons and/or entities to whom funds were extended.
In light of the Court’s disposition of the City’s motion, the following motions are denied for reasons of mootness: Saul Ewing and Venable’s motion for leave to file excess pages (ECF No. 498), the City’s motion to extend the time to file reply briefs (ECF No. 511), the City’s ex parte motion for leave to file excess pages (ECF N o. 514), and Kroll’s m otion for leave to file a supplemental brief (ECF No. 518).
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2010 Detroit, Michigan

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. United States District Court Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Orderwas served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System totheir respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on December 21, 2010.
s/ Kay Doaks Case Manager

8

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 531 Filed 02/15/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 7146

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

U IL ~
FEB 15 2011
CLER~ 01t:;:;';7;t-JSROOITFFICE

Plaintiff,

Case No. 03-CV-72258-DT

v

HON. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR.

CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant.
------------------------------~/
ORDER

On February 5, 2011, Robert Warshaw, the Federal Monitor who was appointed by the

Court on October 5, 2009 to oversee the controversial issues in the above-captioned matter,

submitted a "Motion for Payment of Standard Fee" that covered a period from January 6, 2011

through February 5, 2011. Acting upon the "Amended Order Establishing the Monitor's

Payment Schedule," which was entered on August 29, 2003, the Clerk of the Court established a

non-interest bearing escrow account for the payment of fees and expenses. Accordingly, the

Clerk of the Court is authorized to remit the sum of ninety one thousand seven hundred forty six

dollars ($91,746.00) to Police Performance Solutions, L.L.C., located at P.O. Box 396,

Dover, New Hampshire, 03821.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FEB 1 5 20\1
DATED:

Detroit, Michigan

JR.

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case number 03-72258

Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN and the DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

ORDER

Currently before the Court are two motions from the Petitioners, Kroll (ECF No. 437) and

Venable, LLP (ECF No. 460), both ofwhom seek to obtain the payment of fees and expenses there

were incurred pursuant to the monitorship of the above-entitled action. The Defendant, the City of

Detroit, has expressed its objections to both m otions (ECF Nos. 450; 464), but the Plaintiff, the

United States of America (represented in this action by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)), does

not object to requested payment of fees and/or expenses. (ECF Nos. 447; 468).

On July 23, 2009, the Court accepted the resignation of Sheryl Robinson W ood from her

official position as the independent federal monitor in this cause following a review of documents

in camera that led it to conclude that she “had engaged in conduct which was totally inconsistent

with the terms and conditions of the two Consent Judgments.” (ECF No. 401). The following day,

the Court entered an order which suspended all monitoring of this case effective immediately. On

August 11, 2009, the Court ordered the former monitoring team to prepare a closing memorandum

that would identify any work that (1) had been cmo pleted prior to the suspension ofthe monitorship,

1

and (2) had not been m emorialized in its then-most recent quarterly report. (ECF No. 403). This order also directed the City to com pensate the former team members for any work required to complete the memorandum at an hourly rate of $287.50.
Acting upon this order, Kroll filed a motion on June 9, 2010, for the payment of fees in the amount of $17,077.48 and expenses in the sum of $297.57 which were a ssociated with the preparation of the final memorandum. While the City does not have any objection to the requested fees, it does object to a portion of the claimed expenses; to wit, $222.60 for expenses incurred by Robinson Wood. These expenses are (1) $195.20 in travel expenses for a July 22, 2009 flight; (2) a $23.45 service fee arising out of the July 22nd fgliht; and (3) $3.95 in connection with conferences services on July 29, 2009. The City states that it “dosenot believe that payment of expenses incurred by Ms. Wood was contemplated in [the] August 11, 2009 order.” (Def.’s Resp. ¶ 2). The Court agrees. The order of August 11 th addressed charges that would be incurred by the Petitioner s exclusively for the preparation of the final m emorandum. Accordingly, Kroll’s motion expressly relates to the period of July 25, 2009 - the day after the m onitorship was suspended - through September 10, 2009 - the date on which Kroll submitted the required memorandum. In summary, those expenses which pertained to a July 22 flgiht are neither within the time period nor the subject matter covered by the August 11 order. Furthermore, the Court also agrees that the claimed expense by Robinson Wood for conference services on July 29, 2009, is inappropriate inasm uch as her resignation had been proffered, accepted, and finalized six days prior to July 29th conference date. Furthermore, there is no evidence that she was a m ember of the team that worked on the final
2

memorandum.1 Therefore, the City will not be required to pay the three contested charges. Kroll’s motion will be granted only to the extent of the remaining charges; namely, (1) $17,077.48 in fees for professional services and (2) $74.97 in expenses.
Turning to the second motion now pending beforethe Court, the record indicates that on July 10, 2010, Venable filed a m otion for t he payment of (1) professional fees and expenses which covered the period of June 18, 2009, through July17, 2009, and (2) expenses for the period of May through October 2009. Although the DOJ does not object to the motion, deeming this Petitioner’s request to be “consistent with the Court’s . . . ordres regarding payment.” (Pl.’s Resp. at 1), the City objects, contending that such a remittance “would constitute a reward for improper conduct [and] may also act as an impediment to the City in itsefforts to seek a determination whether it is entitled to a recovery of all, or any portion, of monies paid to Wood and her employers.” (Def.’s Resp. at 2). For the reasons that were stated in the December 21, 2010 order (ECF No. 519) - in which the City’s request for an order im posing sanctions on Robinson Wood and her monitoring team was denied - the Court concludes that it will overrule the City’s objections.
For the reasons that have been set forth above, (1) Kroll’s motion is granted in part, in the amount of $17,152.45, and (2) Venable’s motion for payment of fees and expenses in the amounts of (a) $95,251.92 for the period of June 18 to July 17, 2009, and (b) $1,281.72 for expenses from May to October of 2009 is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1The only individuals listed on the fees invoice are: Ron Filak, Denise Lewis, Lane McFarlane, Thomas DeGonia, and Ruth Lathe.
3

Dated: February 28, 2011 Detroit, Michigan

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. United States District Court Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counesl of record via the Court's ECF System to theirespective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on February 28, 2011.
s/ Kay Doaks Case Manager

4

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 548 Filed 06/01/11 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 7439

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, -vsCITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,

CASE NO. 03-cv-72258
Hon. Julian Abele Cook, Jr. United States District Judge

Defendant. /

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND CONSENT JUDGMENTS

The parties hereby stipulate to the entry of the following Order.

BARBARA L. McQUADE United States Attorney

KRYS Corporation

TAL A. CRITTENDON Counsel

s/Judith E. Levy

JUDITH E. LEVY

ALLAN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, MI 48226

Detroit,

(313) 226-9727

(313)596-2742

Judith.Levy@usdoj.gov

P-55882

P-11805

s/Allan M. Charlton w/ consent M. CHARLTON
Counsel for Defendant 1650 First National Building
MI 48226
CharltonA@detroitmi.gov

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General

s/Jeffrey R. Murray TAMMIE M. GREGG JEFFREY R. MURRAY U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, SPL 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 353-9269 Jeff.Murray@usdoj.gov

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 548 Filed 06/01/11 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 7440

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, -vsCITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,

CASE NO. 03-cv-72258
Hon. Julian Abele Cook, Jr. United States District Judge

Defendant. /

ORDER TO AMEND CONSENT JUDGMENTS

The parties have stipulated to the following amendments to the Consent Judgments in this

case, and the Court, having fully considered the stipulation and proposed amendments hereby

amends the Consent Judgments in the following manner:

The Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention Consent Judgment (Doc. #22),

paragraph 22 currently reads as follows:

“The firearm policy shall prohibit shooting at or from a moving vehicle. The policy shall also prohibit officers from intentionally placing themselves in the path of a moving vehicle.”
The amended paragraph1 shall read as follows:

“The firearm policy shall prohibit shooting at or from a moving vehicle except in exceptional circumstances. The policy shall also prohibit officers from intentionally placing themselves in the path of moving vehicle.”

The Use of Force and Arrest and Detention Consent Judgment paragraph 48 currently

reads as follows:

1

After consultation with the Monitor, the Parties have agreed that the absolute prohibition of shooting at or

from moving vehicles is impracticable (as it might pose a safety concern) and not required by law.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 548 Filed 06/01/11 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 7441

“The DPD shall document the content and circumstances of all interviews, interrogations and conveyances during the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD shall review in writing all interviews, interrogations and conveyances and document on an auditable form those in violation of DPD policy within 12 hours of the interview, interrogation or conveyance.”
The amended paragraph2 shall read as follows:
“The DPD shall document the content and circumstances of all interviews, interrogations and conveyances during the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD shall review in writing all interviews, interrogations and conveyances and document on an auditable form those in violation of DPD policy within 24 hours of the interview, interrogation or conveyance.”
The Use of Force and Arrest and Detention Consent Judgment definition provided in
paragraph f currently reads as follows:
“The term ‘canine deployment’ means any situation, except in cases involving an on-leash article search only, in which a canine is brought tothe scene and either: i) the canine is released from the police car in furtherance of the police action; or ii) the suspect gives up immediately after anannouncement is made that if he/she does not surrender the canine will be released.”
The amended paragraph3 shall read as follows:
“The term ‘canine deployment’ means any situation, except in cases involving an on-leash article search only, in which a canine is brought tothe scene and either: i) the canine is released from the police car in furtherance of the police action and a suspect is apprehended; or ii) the suspect gives up immediately after an announcement is made that if he/she does not surrender the canine will be released.”
Finally, the Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment (Doc. #23) paragraph 64(a)
reads as follows:
“the installation and continuous operation of video cameras in all prisoner processing areas of DPD holding cells within one year of the effective date of this Agreement;”

2

The Parties agree that changing the requirement from 12 to 24 hours will better ensure that supervisors are

able to review the conduct of officers on their respective shifts, and therefore are better able to adequately review the

actions of officers within their most immediate chain of command.

3

This amendment is intended to alleviate administrative burdens related to supervisory reviews currently

required by the mere presence of a canine at the scene of police activity.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 548 Filed 06/01/11 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 7442

The amended paragraph4 shall read as follows:
“the installation and continuous operation of video cameras in all prisoner processing areas within one year of the effective date of this Agreement;”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2011 Detroit, Michigan

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. United States District Court Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on June 1, 2011
s/ Kay Doaks Case Manager

4

This amendment is intended to clarify the original intent of the parties that video cameras shall be installed

and operated to monitor the specific areas where prisoners are processed, rather than all areas of the holding cells.

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 561 Filed 08/11/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 7695

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

FILED

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v

AUG 1 1 2011
CLERK's U.s. DISTRJc'fFlCF: EASTERN MICHCOURT
IGAN Case No. 03-CV-72258-DT HON. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR.

CITY OF DETROIT,
_____________________D_e_fe_n_da_n_t.______/

ORDER
On August 9, 2011, Robert Warshaw, the Federal Monitor who was appointed by the Court on October 5, 2009 to oversee the controversial issues in the above-captioned matter, submitted a "Motion for Payment of Standard Fee" that covered a period from July 6, 2011 through July 31, 2011. Acting upon the "Amended Order Establishing the Monitor's Payment Schedule," which was entered on August 29, 2003, the Clerk of the Court established a noninterest bearing escrow account for the payment of fees and expenses. The Monitor is requesting payment of the prorated monthly fee of$85,335.00, pursuant to this Court's orders dated October 28, 2009 and August 5, 2011. Said figure is based on proration for the month of July 2011 of$77,280.00 and $8,055.00; a figure derived from nine months ofthe uncollected difference between the first year's monthly payment of$91,746.00 and the second year's monthly payment of $92,145.00. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is authorized to remit the sum of eighty five thousand three hundred thirty five dollars ($85,335.00) to Police

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 561 Filed 08/11/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 7696

Performance Solutions, L.L.C., located at P.O. Box 396, Dover, New Hampshire, 03821. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

AUG 1 1201t
Detroit, Michigan

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 583 Filed 01/30/12 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 8182

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case number 03-72258

Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN and the DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

ORDER

On July 18, 2003, the parties (namely, the United States of America, through its Department

of Justice (“DOJ”), and the Defendants, the City of Detroit, Michigan, and its Police Department

(collectively identified as the “City”)) agreed to the entry of two Consen t Judgments that would

affect their relationship with each other in thilsitigation. These Consent Judgments arose in response

to accusations by the DOJ that the City, through its Police Department (“DPD”), had engaged in a

pattern or practice of (1) using unla wful levels of force in its arrests and detentions, and (2)

providing unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful living conditions to prisoners who had been

confined in its holding cells.

On April 19, 2010, the Court issued an order that, inter alia, required the City, through the

Office of the Chief Investigator (“OCI”), toresolve all of its backlogged citizen complaints1 within

a period of 90 days. On J uly 23, 2010, the City filed a motion in which it sought to obtain an

1Every citizen complaint that has been pending in excess of 90 days without reaching final resolution is considered to be “backlogged.”
1

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 583 Filed 01/30/12 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 8183
additional six months to resolve its backlogged OCI cases. The Court, in granting this motion, set January 19, 2011, as the new deadline for resol ving the OCI backlog. However, the City filed a second motion on January 13, 2011, seeking to garner another extension of the time (i.e., 60 days) to complete its mission of addressing the OCI b acklog. This request was reluctantly granted. I n March 2011, the City finally achieved substantial compliance with its obligation to resolve its backlogged complaints.
However, the Court has now been inform ed that the num ber of backlogged citizen complaints has returned to an unacceptable level and continues to rise. According to the City, there were only 14 backlogged cases in March 2011. However, this num ber began to rise during the following month and each month thereafter to such an extent that - as of January 2012 - the re are now more than 400 citizen complaints which can be, and are, classified as backlogged. This, quite simply, is totally unacceptable. In fact, the failure of the City to address this problem immediately will have the practical effect of undermining its slow but steady progress toward satisfying all of its obligations to the citizens of Detroit under the two Consent Judgments.
The City, while proffering a variety of reasons for this precipitous backslide, primarily points to the termination of the Chief Investigator and fourinvestigators in August of last year. While these factors doubtlessly contributed to the problem , the Court is not persuaded that t hese staffing deficiencies fully explain the problem, especially when the evidence indicates that the backlog began to reappear several months prior to the terminations.
This dramatic failure is especially distressing to the Court when it is noted that the City has otherwise made tremendous strides in the past two years. Overall, the City is now in full compliance with eighty percent (80%) of the requirements of the two Consent Judgments. However, the timely
2

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 583 Filed 01/30/12 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 8184
and appropriate resolution of citizen complaints is absolutely central to this entire endeavor. The Court fears that the OCI - and, by extension,the City and the Board of Police Commissioners2 - do not fully understand the gravity of this situation.
In order to ensure that this issue receives the prompt attention it requires, the Court issues the following mandates: (1) Within a period of thirty (30) days of the entry of this order, the City must submit a written
plan which specifically and clearly identifies the steps that it will undertake to (a) clear each and every backlogged case, and (b) ensure that the backlog does not reoccur. This plamn ust (a) identify the specific date by which the backlog will be fully eradicated , and (b) include specific commitments that will identify the percentage of its open cases that will be current (i.e., 90 or fewer days old) by the end of eachmonth between now and the projected backlog elimination date. This plan must be developed with the input and approval of t he Independent Monitor and the Department of Justice. If the City fails to timely submit this plan, it will be required to remit the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) to the Clerk of the Court each business day, commencing on March 1, 2012 - a sanction which shall continue unabated until further order of the Court. (2) The City must submit a written report to the Indepe ndent Monitor and the Department of Justice on or before April 2, 2012, and each m onth thereafter to advise each of these two entities of its progress in complying with the benchmarks within this plan. In the event that the City does not m eet these benchmarks, it will be required to show cause as to why it
2The Board of Police Commissioners oversees the Detroit Police Department, including the Office of the Chief Investigator. In this capacity, the Board is the entity that is responsible for hiring investigators and the Chief Investigator.
3

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 583 Filed 01/30/12 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 8185

should not be sanctioned for this failure. (3) The City must also provide separate reports to the Independent Monitor that will detail the
progress that has been made in filling the now-vacant investigator and Chief Investigator positions on or before February 6, 2012, and every two weeks thereafter until all of these positions are staffed. In addition, the Chief Investigator shall be hired in consultation with, and with the appr oval of, the Independent Monitor. The investigators shall be hired in consultation with, and with th e approval of, the Chief Investigator, or, if the Chief Investigator has not yet be en hired, in consultation with, and with the approval of, the Independent Monitor.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 30, 2012

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. U.S. District Court Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Orderwas served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System totheir respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on January 30, 2012.
s/ Kay Doaks Case Manager

4

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 597 Filed 04/23/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 8413

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, -vsCITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,

CASE NO. 03-cv-72258
Hon. Julian Abele Cook, Jr. United States District Judge

Defendant. /

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND CONSENT JUDGMENTS

The parties hereby stipulate to the entry of the following Order.

BARBARA L. McQUADE United States Attorney

KRYSTAL A. CRITTENDON Corporation Counsel

s/Judith E. Levy JUDITH E. LEVY Assistant U.S. Attorney 211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-9727 Judith.Levy@usdoj.gov P-55882

s/Allan M. Charlton w/ consent ALLAN M. CHARLTON Counsel for Defendant 1650 First National Building Detroit, MI 48226 (313)596-2742 CharltonA@detroitmi.gov P-11805

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General

s/Jeffrey R. Murray LAURA L. COON JEFFREY R. MURRAY U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, SPL 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 353-9269 Jeff.Murray@usdoj.gov

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 597 Filed 04/23/12 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 8414

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, -vsCITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,

CASE NO. 03-cv-72258
Hon. Julian Abele Cook, Jr. United States District Judge

Defendant. /

ORDER TO AMEND CONSENT JUDGMENTS

The parties have stipulated to the following amendments to the Consent Judgments in this

case, and the Court, having fully considered the stipulation and proposed amendments hereby

amends the Consent Judgments in the following manner:

1. The Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention Consent Judgment (Doc. #22),

paragraph 38(c) currently reads as follows:

“the investigation to be completed within 30 days of the incident. If a Garrity statement is necessary, then that portion of the investigation may be deferred until 30 days from the declination or conclusion of the criminal prosecution."
The amended paragraph1 shall read as follows:

"the investigation to be completed within 60 days of the incident. If a Garrity statement is necessary, then the investigation shall be completed within 30 days from the declination or conclusion of the criminal prosecution."

2. The Use of Force and Arrest and Detention Consent Judgment paragraph 40(a) currently

reads as follows:

1

After consultation with the Monitor, the Parties have agreed to this modification so that there will be

consistency in the command reviews of use of force incidents.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 597 Filed 04/23/12 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 8415

"complete its review of critical firearm discharges that result in injury and in-custody deaths within 90 days of the resolution of any criminal review and/or proceedings and all other critical firearm discharges within 60 days and require the Chief of Police to complete his or her review of the team's report within 14 days."
The amended sub-paragraph2 shall read as follows:
“complete its review of critical firearm discharge investigations and in-custody death investigations within 21 days from the completion of the investigation and require the Chief of Police to complete his or her review of the team's report within 14 days."
3. The Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment (Doc. #23) paragraph 44 reads as follows:
"The DPD shall ensure that lighting in all cell block areas is sufficient to reach 20 foot candles of illumination at desk level and personal grooming areas"
The amended paragraph3 shall read as follows:
"The DPD shall ensure that the lighting in all cell block areas is maintained at an appropriate level for all tasks related to the housing of DPD detainees, including but not necessarily limited to, security, safety, cleaning and disinfection of housing areas."

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: April 23, 2012

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. U.S. District Court Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on April 23, 2012.
s/ Kay Doaks Case Manager

2

The parties, in consultation with the Monitor, agree that the time limits for completion of the review by the

CLFRT should be based upon the Department’s internal investigation rather than an external review by the County

Prosecutor, or another agency.

3

This amendment is intended to clarify the original intent of the parties regarding lighting in the holding cells.

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 646 Filed 05/21/13 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 9302

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 03-CV-72258

v

HON. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR.

CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant. /

ORDER

On May 1, 2013, Robert Warshaw, the Federal Monitor who was appointed by the Court

on October 5, 2009 to oversee the controversial issues in the above-captioned matter, submitted

a "Motion for Payment of Standard Fee" that covered a period from April 1,2013 through April

30,2013. In order to ensure that the Monitor’s fee is paid in a timely manner, the City of Detroit

shall deposit a sum of not less than $94,909.00 into the escrow account of the Court within three

days of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 21, 2013

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. U.S. District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on May 21, 2013.
s/ Kay Doaks Case Manager

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 1 of 193 Pg ID 8904

	
   THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT
	
  

Independent Monitor 	
  

	
  

	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

	
E   l

	
  

ev

e

	
  

nt

	
  

h	
  

Q

	
  

u

ar

	
  

te

	
  

rl

	
  

Robert S. Warshaw 	
  
	
  

y	
  

R

Office of the Independent Monitor 	
  

Police Performance Solutions, LLC

	
   e

	
   	
  

p

or

January 16, 	
2   013

t

	
  

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 2 of 193 Pg ID 8905
Table of Contents
SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................7
SECTION TWO: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT ...............................................................................................11 III. USE OF FORCE POLICY..................................................................................................................................11
A. General Use of Force Policy ............................................................................................................................11 CJ Requirement U14 ...........................................................................................................................................12 CJ Requirement U15 ...........................................................................................................................................13 CJ Requirement U16 ...........................................................................................................................................14 CJ Requirement U17 ...........................................................................................................................................15 CJ Requirement U18 ...........................................................................................................................................16 CJ Requirement U19 ...........................................................................................................................................16 CJ Requirement U20 ...........................................................................................................................................17 CJ Requirement U21 ...........................................................................................................................................17
B. Use of Firearms Policy ....................................................................................................................................18 CJ Requirement U22 ...........................................................................................................................................18 CJ Requirement U23 ...........................................................................................................................................18
C. Intermediate Force Device Policy....................................................................................................................19 CJ Requirement U24 ...........................................................................................................................................19
D. Chemical Spray Policy ....................................................................................................................................20 CJ Requirement U25 ...........................................................................................................................................20 CJ Requirement U26 ...........................................................................................................................................21
IV. DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW ............................................................................22 A. General Investigations of Police Action ..........................................................................................................22 CJ Requirement U27 ...........................................................................................................................................22 CJ Requirement U28 ...........................................................................................................................................25 CJ Requirement U29 ...........................................................................................................................................27 CJ Requirement U30 ...........................................................................................................................................30 CJ Requirement U31 ...........................................................................................................................................32 CJ Requirement U32 ...........................................................................................................................................33 CJ Requirement U33 ...........................................................................................................................................38 B. Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations ................................................................................................40 CJ Requirement U34 ...........................................................................................................................................40 CJ Requirement U35 ...........................................................................................................................................40 CJ Requirement U36 ...........................................................................................................................................42 CJ Requirement U37 ...........................................................................................................................................43 CJ Requirement U38 ...........................................................................................................................................44 CJ Requirement U39 ...........................................................................................................................................45 CJ Requirement U40 ...........................................................................................................................................46 CJ Requirement U41 ...........................................................................................................................................47
V. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES........................................................................50 A. Arrest Policies ....................................................................................................................................................51 CJ Requirement U42 ...........................................................................................................................................51 CJ Requirement U43 ...........................................................................................................................................51 B. Investigatory Stop Policies.................................................................................................................................52 CJ Requirement U44 ...........................................................................................................................................52 CJ Requirement U45 ...........................................................................................................................................53 C. Witness Identification and Questioning Policies ...............................................................................................55 CJ Requirement U46 ...........................................................................................................................................55

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 3 of 193 Pg ID 8906

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 2

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement U47 ...........................................................................................................................................56 CJ Requirement U48 ...........................................................................................................................................56 D. Prompt Judicial Review Policies........................................................................................................................57 CJ Requirement U49 ...........................................................................................................................................57 CJ Requirement U50 ...........................................................................................................................................58 CJ Requirement U51 ...........................................................................................................................................58 E. Hold Policies ......................................................................................................................................................60 CJ Requirement U52 ...........................................................................................................................................60 CJ Requirement U53 ...........................................................................................................................................60 F. Restriction Policies ..............................................................................................................................................61 CJ Requirement U54 ...........................................................................................................................................61 CJ Requirement U55 ...........................................................................................................................................62 G. Material Witness Policies...................................................................................................................................62 CJ Requirement U56 ...........................................................................................................................................62 CJ Requirement U57 ...........................................................................................................................................63 H. Documentation of Custodial Detention..............................................................................................................63 CJ Requirement U58 ...........................................................................................................................................63 I. Command Notification ........................................................................................................................................64 CJ Requirement U59 ...........................................................................................................................................64 CJ Requirement U60 ...........................................................................................................................................66
VI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS.............................................................................................................................69 CJ Requirement U61 ...........................................................................................................................................70 CJ Requirement U62 ...........................................................................................................................................71 CJ Requirement U63 ...........................................................................................................................................72
A. Intake and Tracking ...........................................................................................................................................73 CJ Requirement U64 ...........................................................................................................................................73 CJ Requirement U65 ...........................................................................................................................................73 CJ Requirement U66 ...........................................................................................................................................74
B. External Complaint Investigations .....................................................................................................................74 CJ Requirement U67 ...........................................................................................................................................74 CJ Requirement U68 ...........................................................................................................................................77 CJ Requirement U69 ...........................................................................................................................................78
VII. GENERAL POLICIES .....................................................................................................................................81 CJ Requirement U70 ...........................................................................................................................................81 CJ Requirement U71 ...........................................................................................................................................81 CJ Requirement U72 ...........................................................................................................................................82 CJ Requirement U73 ...........................................................................................................................................83 CJ Requirement U74 ...........................................................................................................................................83 CJ Requirement U75 ...........................................................................................................................................84 CJ Requirement U76 ...........................................................................................................................................84 CJ Requirement U77 ...........................................................................................................................................85
VIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION........................................................................................................87 A. Risk Management Database ...........................................................................................................................87 CJ Requirement U78 ...........................................................................................................................................87 CJ Requirement U79 ...........................................................................................................................................88 CJ Requirement U80 ...........................................................................................................................................89 CJ Requirement U81 ...........................................................................................................................................92 CJ Requirement U82 ...........................................................................................................................................92 CJ Requirement U83 ...........................................................................................................................................93 CJ Requirement U84 ...........................................................................................................................................94 CJ Requirement U85 ...........................................................................................................................................96

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 4 of 193 Pg ID 8907

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 3

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement U86 ...........................................................................................................................................97 CJ Requirement U87 ...........................................................................................................................................97 CJ Requirement U88 ...........................................................................................................................................98 CJ Requirement U89 ...........................................................................................................................................99 CJ Requirement U90 .........................................................................................................................................100 B. Performance Evaluation System ......................................................................................................................100 CJ Requirement U91 .........................................................................................................................................100 C. Oversight ..........................................................................................................................................................100 CJ Requirement U92 .........................................................................................................................................100 CJ Requirement U93 .........................................................................................................................................101 CJ Requirement U94 .........................................................................................................................................102 CJ Requirement U95 .........................................................................................................................................103 CJ Requirement U96 .........................................................................................................................................103 CJ Requirement U97 .........................................................................................................................................103 CJ Requirement U98 .........................................................................................................................................104 CJ Requirement U99 .........................................................................................................................................104 D. Use of Video Cameras .....................................................................................................................................107 CJ Requirement U100 .......................................................................................................................................107 CJ Requirement U101 .......................................................................................................................................107 CJ Requirement U102 .......................................................................................................................................109 0E. Discipline........................................................................................................................................................110 CJ Requirement U103 .......................................................................................................................................110 CJ Requirement U104 .......................................................................................................................................110 CJ Requirement U105 .......................................................................................................................................111
IX. TRAINING ......................................................................................................................................................113 A. OVERSIGHT AND DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................113
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  CJ Requirement U106 .......................................................................................................................................113 CJ Requirement U107 .......................................................................................................................................113 CJ Requirement U108 .......................................................................................................................................115 CJ Requirement U109 .......................................................................................................................................116 CJ Requirement U110 .......................................................................................................................................116 CJ Requirement U111 .......................................................................................................................................116
B. USE OF FORCE TRAINING................................................................................................................................117 CJ Requirement U112 .......................................................................................................................................117
C. FIREARMS TRAINING .......................................................................................................................................118 CJ Requirement U113 .......................................................................................................................................118
D. ARREST AND POLICE-CITIZEN INTERACTION TRAINING ......................................................................119 CJ Requirement U114 .......................................................................................................................................119
E. CUSTODIAL DETENTION TRAINING .............................................................................................................120 CJ Requirement U115 .......................................................................................................................................120 CJ Requirement U116 .......................................................................................................................................121 CJ Requirement U117 .......................................................................................................................................121
F. SUPERVISORY TRAINING ...............................................................................................................................122 CJ Requirement U118 .......................................................................................................................................122 CJ Requirement U119 .......................................................................................................................................122 CJ Requirement U120 .......................................................................................................................................123
G. INVESTIGATOR TRAINING.............................................................................................................................123 CJ Requirement U121 .......................................................................................................................................123 CJ Requirement U122 .......................................................................................................................................124
H. FIELD TRAINING...............................................................................................................................................124 CJ Requirement U123 .......................................................................................................................................124

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 5 of 193 Pg ID 8908

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 4

January 16, 2013

SECTION THREE: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT .........................................................................................................................................126 III. FIRE SAFETY POLICIES ..........................................................................................................................127
CJ Requirement C14 .........................................................................................................................................127 CJ Requirement C15 .........................................................................................................................................128 CJ Requirement C16 .........................................................................................................................................128 CJ Requirement C17 .........................................................................................................................................129 CJ Requirement C18 .........................................................................................................................................130 CJ Requirement C19 .........................................................................................................................................130 CJ Requirement C20 .........................................................................................................................................130 CJ Requirement C21 .........................................................................................................................................131 CJ Requirement C22 .........................................................................................................................................131
IV. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES...............................................................................................132 CJ Requirement C23 .........................................................................................................................................132 CJ Requirement C24 .........................................................................................................................................132 CJ Requirement C25 .........................................................................................................................................133
V. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES ............................................................................135 CJ Requirement C26 .........................................................................................................................................135 CJ Requirement C27 .........................................................................................................................................136 CJ Requirement C28 .........................................................................................................................................137 CJ Requirement C29 .........................................................................................................................................139 CJ Requirement C30 .........................................................................................................................................140 CJ Requirement C31 .........................................................................................................................................141 CJ Requirement C32 .........................................................................................................................................142 CJ Requirement C33 .........................................................................................................................................143 CJ Requirement C34 .........................................................................................................................................144 CJ Requirement C35 .........................................................................................................................................145 CJ Requirement C36 .........................................................................................................................................145 CJ Requirement C37 .........................................................................................................................................146 CJ Requirement C38 .........................................................................................................................................147
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES .......................................................................148 CJ Requirement C39 .........................................................................................................................................148 CJ Requirement C40 .........................................................................................................................................149 CJ Requirement C41 .........................................................................................................................................150 CJ Requirement C42 .........................................................................................................................................150 CJ Requirement C43 .........................................................................................................................................151 CJ Requirement C44 .........................................................................................................................................151 CJ Requirement C45 .........................................................................................................................................152 CJ Requirement C46 .........................................................................................................................................153
VIII. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ...............................................................153 CJ Requirement C47 .........................................................................................................................................153 CJ Requirement C48 .........................................................................................................................................153
IX. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES ..........................................................................................................................154 CJ Requirement C49 .........................................................................................................................................154 CJ Requirement C50 .........................................................................................................................................154
X. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES.................................................................................................................156 CJ Requirement C51 .........................................................................................................................................156 CJ Requirement C52 .........................................................................................................................................156

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 6 of 193 Pg ID 8909

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 5

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement C53 .........................................................................................................................................157 CJ Requirement C54 .........................................................................................................................................158
XII. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW ....................................................159 CJ Requirement C55 .........................................................................................................................................159 CJ Requirement C56 .........................................................................................................................................159 CJ Requirement C57 .........................................................................................................................................160
XIII. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS ........................................................................................................................161 CJ Requirement C58 .........................................................................................................................................161 CJ Requirement C59 .........................................................................................................................................162
XIV. GENERAL POLICIES ...................................................................................................................................163 CJ Requirement C60 .........................................................................................................................................163 CJ Requirement C61 .........................................................................................................................................163
XV. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION ........................................................................................................164 CJ Requirement C62 .........................................................................................................................................164 CJ Requirement C63 .........................................................................................................................................164 CJ Requirement C64 .........................................................................................................................................165 CJ Requirement C65 .........................................................................................................................................166 CJ Requirement C66 .........................................................................................................................................167 CJ Requirement C67 .........................................................................................................................................168 CJ Requirement C68 .........................................................................................................................................169 CJ Requirement C69 .........................................................................................................................................170 CJ Requirement C70 .........................................................................................................................................171 CJ Requirement C71 .........................................................................................................................................172 CJ Requirement C72.........................................................................................................................................172 CJ Requirement C73.........................................................................................................................................174 CJ Requirement C74.........................................................................................................................................175 CJ Requirement C75.........................................................................................................................................175 CJ Requirement C76.........................................................................................................................................176 CJ Requirement C77.........................................................................................................................................176 CJ Requirement C78.........................................................................................................................................177
APPENDIX A: USE OF FORCE - DIRECTIVES/POLICIES...........................................................................179
APPENDIX B: CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT - DIRECTIVES/POLICIES ........................................184
APPENDIX C: ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................187
APPENDIX D: MONITORING TEAM ................................................................................................................190
APPENDIX E: Detroit Police Department Management Dashboard Data………………………………….. 192
	
  

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 7 of 193 Pg ID 8910

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 6

January 16, 2013

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION
On October 5, 2009, the Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr., United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division (the Court), appointed me to serve as the Independent Monitor of the Use of Force and Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgments in the case United States of America v. City of Detroit, Michigan (the City) and the Detroit Police Department (DPD) No. 03-77758, decided in June 2003. With this appointment and assisted by a team of highly respected professionals, I assumed responsibility for monitoring compliance with the requirements of these Judgments – the implementation of a compilation of generally accepted professional police and confinement policies, procedures, and related practices.
Our Team conducted our first quarterly site visit in November 2009, and has conducted subsequent site visits each subsequent calendar quarter. We have observed considerable change within the City and the Detroit Police Department during our engagement.
Similar to previous reports, the issuance of this report follows an onsite visit to assess and guide the Department’s ongoing efforts. This report includes our assessment of the Department’s compliance with each of the requirements contained in Judgments. Our findings are based on the results of discussions and meetings with City and DPD staff, observations of operational activities, inspections of facilities, and our review of documents and data covering the period of July 1, through September 30, 2012.
The body of this report is comprised of our assessments of compliance with the individual requirements of the Consent Judgments. We include introductory narratives for each major section of the Use of Force Judgment and one overall narrative for the Conditions of Confinement Judgment. Following these narratives are their respective requirements and our comments regarding the compliance status for each. After these are summary notations of Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance. A statement of “Critical Issues” follows the reviews of the requirements in each major section of the Judgment. A brief statement of “Next Steps” follows, in which we describe a plan of work for the next visit including a discussion of the data we plan to review. Finally, a table summarizes the compliance finding for that particular section of the Judgment.
Our Team determines compliance through an examination of policies and implementation of practices that support each requirement in the Consent Judgments. Phase 1 compliance is dependent upon the development and adoption of a policy or set of procedures that supports each Consent Judgment requirement. Phase 2 compliance is dependent on the effective implementation of the practices necessary to meet the requirements, consistent with the applicable policy. Full compliance is dependent on both Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance. Accordingly, we note our finding of “in compliance” or “not in compliance” for each requirement.
Additionally, in the limited circumstances where substantial work and time is required to achieve implementation of a policy or procedure and the related practices, and where ongoing progress is clearly evident, we recognize that progress with the designation “pending compliance.” Where there are circumstances in which we are unable to fully determine the compliance status of a requirement due to a lack of data or other reasons, we identify that status with the designation “deferred.”

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 8 of 193 Pg ID 8911

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 7

January 16, 2013

Verification of compliance with the many parts of the Consent Judgments requires the analysis of multiple instances of activity, reviewing cases, or observations of the practical application of policies and procedures. In those circumstances, our first option is to conduct an analysis-based on a review of all cases or data. Where that is not appropriate or possible, we rely on statistically valid samples of the population. To reach conclusions based on analyses of cases, a minimal standard must be met. To achieve compliance based on these analyses, we have determined that more than 94% of relevant indicators must conform to the provisions articulated in the Judgments.
The independent monitoring of two Consent Judgments is a complex process involving complex issues. The delivery of police services to a community – and the simultaneous retention of the public trust – are perhaps the most fundamental and sacred roles of government. In the course of our responsibilities, we shall endeavor at all times to fulfill our mandate in a manner consistent with these principles.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is our thirteenth quarterly report of the Independent Monitor in the case of United States of America v. City of Detroit No. 03-72258. The report is for the period of July 1, through September 30, 2012; and is based on our site visit of October 22, through October 26, 2012; and our subsequent analyses of relevant data from this period. Consistent with the practice we established in our first review, we continue to assess all requirements of both active Judgments for compliance. This includes 110 requirements in the Use of Force Judgment, and an additional 65 requirements in the Conditions of Confinement Judgment. In this executive summary, I will review the levels of compliance found for the reporting period.
With regard to Phase 1 (policy) compliance, for the sixth consecutive reporting period, we found the City and the Police Department in compliance with all requirements of both Judgments. Following the practice we established in previous reports, all references to supporting policies, directives, and other relevant documents are listed in Appendices A (Use of Force) and B (Conditions of Confinement).
As noted above, the Department is again in Phase 1 compliance with all 110 (100%) of the Use of Force requirements. For the current reporting period, we also found the Department in Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance (full compliance) with 94 (85%) of the 110 Use of Force requirements. One requirement, U25, which addresses the use of chemical spray, went from pending compliance to out of compliance. During this reporting period, one Use of Force requirement (U18, regarding the use of force policy) is again deferred.
As noted above, the Department is again in Phase 1 compliance with all 65 (100%) of the Conditions of Confinement requirements. This level has been maintained since the fourth reporting period. We found the Department in Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance (full compliance) with 60 (92%) of the 65 requirements – an increase of four from the previous reporting period. The current figures are presented in the table below.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 9 of 193 Pg ID 8912

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 8

January 16, 2013

Use of Force Cond of Conf

Total

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2

Paragraph Numbers Number of Requirements Pending Compliance Not in Compliance Deferred In Compliance

14-123

110 110

0

0

0

15

0

1

110

94

14-78

65

65

0

0

0

5

0

0

65

60

175 175

0

0

0

20

0

1

175 154

Percent in Compliance

100% 85% 100% 92% 100% 88%

In summary, this is the sixth consecutive report in which we have found DPD in Phase 1 compliance with all (100%) of the 175 monitored requirements. We found the Department to be in full compliance (that is, both Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance) with 154 (88%) of the 175 monitored requirements of the applicable paragraphs of both Consent Judgments. One additional compliance determination is deferred.
The chart below illustrates the levels of compliance achieved on both Judgments and across all 13 reporting periods.

The table below provides the summary data illustrating the status of compliance over the course of all of our quarterly reporting periods.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 10 of 193 Pg ID 8913

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 9

January 16, 2013

Q uarterly	
  R eport
Report 1 Report 2 Report 3 Report 4 Report 5 Report 6 Report 7 Report 8 Report 9 Report 10 Report 11 Report 12 Report 13

Use of Force Phase 1 Phase 2
81% 24% 94% 41% 96% 49% 98% 62% 97% 61% 99% 68% 99% 75% 100% 79% 100% 82% 100% 84% 100% 85% 100% 86% 100% 85%

Percent in Compliance

Cond of Conf

Total

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2

83% 37%

82% 29%

92% 51%

93% 44%

95% 54%

96% 51%

100% 51%

99% 58%

100% 60%

98% 61%

100% 58%

99% 65%

100% 68%

99% 72%

100% 75% 100% 78%

100% 77% 100% 80%

100% 83% 100% 83%

100% 85% 100% 85%

100% 88% 100% 87%

100% 92% 100% 88%

The summary tables again highlight progress over the course of our 13 reports. The pattern, without a single overall decline, is noteworthy – particularly against the backdrop of continuing budgetary issues facing the City of Detroit, and the recent transition in the office of the Chief of Police. Stubborn compliance problems remain – particularly around investigations a critical police function. But I am confident, as is my Team, that those problems will be resolved.
It is important that the readers of this report appreciate, as we do, the context surrounding our work. In the face of challenging times for the City and the Department, the Detroit Police have made remarkable progress in implementing the reforms of these Consent Judgments.
Important tasks remain. These include achieving compliance with the remaining requirements and, of course, stabilizing and institutionalizing the reforms. Despite the progress noted, it is important not to underestimate the work ahead. It is instructive to look back to when this process began – now nearly a decade ago – to remind ourselves not just of the recent efforts that have been made – good as they are – but of the starting point, and the importance of not regressing. The Department is now under the leadership of Interim Chief Chester Logan, who has recently appointed an executive staff to assist the Department in both its anti-crime strategies and compliance with the Judgments. It will fall to them to inspire a new level of commitment to the reforms – a commitment that must flourish at a time when depleting resources and growing challenges shall be testing the resolve of the Department. Mayor Bing; Deputy Mayor Lewis; and the City’s Counsel, Allan Charlton; have provided essential and unyielding support to the efforts of the Department and the monitoring process and for this, we are most grateful.

Chief (Ret.) Robert S. Warshaw Monitor

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 11 of 193 Pg ID 8914

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 10

January 16, 2013

The Monitoring Team: Chief (Ret.) Charles D. Reynolds, Deputy Monitor
Lt. Colonel (Ret.) J. Rick Brown Division Chief (Ret.) Rachel M. Burgess
Commander (Ret.) John M. Girvin Chief (Ret.) Eduardo Gonzalez John M. Klofas, Ph.D. Leonard F. Rice, M.E.S., R.S. Chief (Ret.) Billy R. Riggs
Asst. Director (Ret.) Joseph R. Wolfinger Robin Busch-Wheaton, Editor

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 12 of 193 Pg ID 8915

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 11

January 16, 2013

SECTION TWO:
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT

III. USE OF FORCE POLICY
This section of the Consent Judgment, containing paragraphs U14 through U26, requires that DPD review and revise its general use of force, firearms, and chemical spray policies; select an intermediate impact device and develop guidelines on its use; and provide appropriate training relating to the use of force. To determine compliance with this section’s various requirements, we verify that DPD has both developed the required policy and effectively implemented the policy, including providing any necessary and appropriate training.
DPD has conducted the requisite reviews and revisions of policies, which have been approved by the Department of Justice. The revised policies include a force continuum that identifies lethal and less lethal force options; relates the force options to the types of conduct by the individuals justifying the various force options; and describes de-escalation, disengagement, and other appropriate tactics and responses. The revised firearms policies address qualification requirements, approved firearms and ammunition, and a prohibition on the firing at or from moving vehicles. DPD also selected an intermediate impact device, developed guidelines on its use, and provided the required training. The chemical spray policy requires, when appropriate, a verbal warning prior to the deployment of chemical spray; sets forth requirements for decontamination, medical assistance, and requires supervisory approval if the chemical spray is to be used against a crowd. It prohibits officers from using chemical spray on a handcuffed individual in a police vehicle or keeping a sprayed individual face-down.
To assess implementation of these policies for this and previous reporting periods, we visited police districts, precincts, and other commands; met and discussed operational activities with command, supervisory, and training staff; observed training classes; reviewed arrest, use of force, and related police reports; and reviewed investigations of force, detainee injuries, and allegations of force.
This quarter, DPD reports that it enhanced its efforts toward compliance with the reporting and investigation requirements of uses of force and detainee injuries.1
“These requirements have proven to be the most challenging for the DPD thus far. Currently, a patrol sergeant and a sergeant from the Office of Civil Rights are assigned to conduct supervisory training on a weekly basis on the proper completion of investigations of uses of force. In addition, additional focus was directed toward the effective implementation of documenting the delivery of meals to detainees and the cleaning of the

1DPD 36th Quarter Status Report, September 30, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 13 of 193 Pg ID 8916

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 12

January 16, 2013

holding cells. All of these topics were the focus of the Command Accountability Meetings during the quarter.”

To assess compliance with the requirements relating to the issuance and carrying of authorized weapons and ammunition, we examined the investigations of critical firearm discharges by FI. During this reporting period, we reviewed documentation that included 13 critical firearm discharges.

The DPD selected the PR-24 collapsible baton as its impact device, and has provided training on its use to 604 members (25%) during the first quarter of the fiscal year. In the use of force reports we reviewed during this reporting period, there were no PR-24 related incidents where a subject was struck in the head. We reviewed instances of chemical spray deployments during this reporting period, and found that there were six cases in which chemical spray was utilized. A warning was articulated prior to its use in four of those cases.

During this reporting period, DPD continued its practice of issuing Roll Call Information Bulletins that are designed to improve member compliance with DPD policy reflecting the Consent Judgment requirements. Below are some examples of some of the pertinent bulletins relating to both Judgments; these were issued between June 28, and September 22, 2012

Date

Teletype No. Subject

6/28/2012 12-0514

7/6/2012 7/11/2012 7/23/2012

12-0549 12-0567 12-0597

7/27/2012 12-0618 8/17/2012 12-0706

9/18/2012 12-0816

9/22/2012 12-0825

Responding Supervisor-Category One Use of Force/Detainee Injury Investigations
Prohibited Harassment or Discrimination Activity by Members
Distribution of Forms in the Management Awareness System
Supervisory Review of the Use of Force/Detainee Injury Report (UF-002)
Documentation of De-Escalation Tactics
Discontinuation of the Daily Video Review Log – Implementation of the In-Car Video Review Form
Traffic Stop/Subject Investigatory Stop Notification to Communications Operations Zone Dispatchers
Citizen Complaint Report (DPD 512) Available in MAS and its Confidentiality

A. General Use of Force Policy CJ Requirement U14 The DPD shall revise its use of force policies to define force as that term is defined in this Agreement. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 14 of 193 Pg ID 8917

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 13

January 16, 2013

To assess Phase 2 compliance with this requirement, we reviewed completed use of force investigations, met with DPD staff, and observed relevant operational activities. We also determined that DPD generated 384 uses of force numbers during the last reporting period, and 324 during this reporting period. This is a 16% reduction in the numbers issued.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U15
The use of force policy shall incorporate a use of force continuum that:
a. identifies when and in what manner the use of lethal and less than lethal force are permitted;
b. relates the force options available to officers to the types of conduct by individuals that would justify the use of such force; and
c. states that de-escalation, disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units are often the appropriate response to a situation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our previous reviews of use of force reports found that they lacked sufficient documentation or specificity with regards to de-escalation and details of actual disengagement to make a definitive determination regarding Phase 2 compliance.2 In the last reporting period, we found that 72% of the Command Level Investigations we reviewed contained sufficient explanations of officers’ efforts to de-escalate or implement some of the disengagement responses suggested in U15c.
Command Level Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 88 Command Level Investigations, which described the conduct of individuals against whom force was used and the corresponding response from the involved officers.3 In evaluating de-escalation techniques utilized by the officers, we eliminated 27 incidents in which there were no opportunity to attempt de-escalation.4 There were 61 cases evaluated; in 44 of them, we found evidence of some efforts

2 Twelfth Report of the Independent Monitor, issued September 15, 2012.
3 We randomly selected 104 cases for review. Of the 104, 16 had no SIR investigations, leaving 88 cases for review; of the 16 cases eliminated, seven were assumed by Force Investigations; two were canine deployments with no contact, and seven were acquired targets, which do not require SIR investigations.
4 Twenty-seven were eliminated: 10 in June; seven in July; and 10 in August. Cases that were eliminated included, but were not limited to, the subject fleeing as soon as he sees officers; subjects engaged in assaults as officers

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 15 of 193 Pg ID 8918

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 14

January 16, 2013

at de-escalation (72%), the same percentage that we found during last reporting period. We continue to encourage DPD to emphasize the importance of de-escalation techniques as a means of avoiding violent confrontations between citizens and police, and to emphasize the importance of adequately documenting the steps taken by the officers to minimize the use of force. Deescalation efforts for the purposes of this requirement are those attempted prior to the force being used. Increased video/audio recordings of encounters with the citizens would prove beneficial in documenting compliance with this requirement.
During a meeting with CRIB personnel, we also recommended that CRIB insert a specific requirement for the first endorser of the Command Level Investigations – who is generally the Inspector – to specifically address this issue in all reviews. This added emphasis in the command review may encourage officers to make more de-escalation efforts before force is used; and, if they find it necessary to use force, to properly document their de-escalation efforts.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 20 use of force investigations. We found five cases where officers inappropriately escalated force by using a choke hold, using head strikes (two separate events), discharging their firearm at a subject, and discharging their firearm at a moving vehicle. See U17.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U16
The use of force policy shall reinforce that individuals should be provided an opportunity to submit to arrest before force is used and provide that force may be used only when verbal commands and other techniques that do not require the use of force would be ineffective or present a danger to the officer or others.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 202 use of force reports, of which 184 were applicable to this paragraph. We found that 180 (98%) of the 184 included verbal commands and an opportunity to submit to arrest prior to the use of force; or provided a reason why the verbal command was not given.5
arrived; subject striking officers without warning; detainee injury; canine apprehensions with no contact, and attempted suicides. 5 The base was reduced from 202 to 184 by one canine deployment, 6 detainee injuries, and five instances of insufficient time; six commands issued by a lead officer.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 16 of 193 Pg ID 8919

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 15

January 16, 2013

DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 20 force investigations and found that officers appropriately used verbal commands and provided an opportunity for subjects to submit to arrest prior to the use of force in four cases.
The requirements of this CJ paragraph were not applicable in the remaining cases, which involved vehicle pursuits ending in crashes, with fatalities and/or injuries to involved subjects; firearm discharges; or exigent circumstances in which opportunities to give verbal commands were not present. This represents a 100% compliance rate. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Force Investigations portion of this paragraph.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U17
The use of force policy shall prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we reviewed 202 use of force reports and 88 Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs).6 There were five cases in which a subject claimed that s/he was choked. In one of the cases, the investigating supervisor established that what had been utilized was a head restraint and not a chokehold, resolving the claim. The remaining four allegations remained unresolved, and there is no evidence that they were reported to Force Investigations.7
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Force Investigations: Our review of 20 force investigations for this reporting period identified one incident wherein a DPD officer used a choke hold to restrain a subject. The DPD investigation determined that the officer used excessive force. The officer is facing formal discipline.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

6 The terms Command Level Investigations and Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs) are used interchangeably throughout the quarterly report.
7 Three allegations in June; one resolved, two were not and neither was reported to FI; one alleged choking in July which remained unresolved and was not reported to FI; one alleged choking in August which remained unresolved and which was not reported to FI. The failure to notify FI is addressed in the review of U35c.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 17 of 193 Pg ID 8920

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 16

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U18
The DPD shall develop a revised use of force policy within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The policy shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the revised use of force policy within three months of the review and approval of the DOJ.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the effective field implementation of the requirements contained in paragraphs U14-17 and U19. We found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with U14, U16, U17, and U19, but not in compliance with U15; therefore, DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Deferred

CJ Requirement U19
The use of force policy shall provide that a strike to the head with an instrument constitutes a use of deadly force.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: Our review of 202 use of force reports found no instances of any strikes to the head. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for use of force reports in this paragraph.
Force Investigations: Our review of 20 investigations completed by Force Investigations revealed two instances that were relevant to this paragraph: one in which a DPD officer used a flashlight, and another in which an officer used the open palm of his hand, to strike subjects on the head. Both officers are facing formal disciplinary action.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 18 of 193 Pg ID 8921

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 17

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement U20
The DPD shall revise its use of firearms policies to provide that officers must successfully qualify with their department-issued firearm and any other firearm they are authorized to use or carry on-duty on a bi-annual basis, as described in paragraph 113.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD policy requires officers to attend and qualify at firearms training sessions in the six-month periods ending on December 31 and on June 30 of each year. During the six-month qualification period that ended on June 30, 2012, 98% of the DPD officers who were available to train attended firearms and qualified.
On September 30, 2012 – the mid-point of the current six-month qualification period – 1,172 of the 2,436 officers available to train attended firearms training and qualified. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement; 98% of the officers available to train qualified during the six-month period that concluded in December 2011.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U21
Officers who fail to re-qualify shall be relieved of police powers and relinquish immediately all department-issued firearms. Those officers who fail to re-qualify after remedial training within a reasonable time shall be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the current six-month firearms qualification period (July 1, through December 31, 2012), no DPD members failed to qualify.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 19 of 193 Pg ID 8922

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 18

January 16, 2013

B. Use of Firearms Policy
CJ Requirement U22
The firearm policy shall prohibit shooting at or from a moving vehicle except in exceptional circumstances. The policy shall also prohibit officers from intentionally placing themselves in the path of a moving vehicle.8
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: During this reporting period, we reviewed 202 use of force reports and 88 Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs), and found no incidents involving officers firing at or from moving vehicles. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for use of force reports in this requirement.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 20 FI investigations, and found one incident involving an officer firing at a moving vehicle. In this case, the suspect vehicle was being pursued for traveling at a high speed; after crashing it into a DPD scout car, the driver moved the vehicle back and forth, striking an officer in the leg and impacting another scout car. The officer who was struck intentionally placed himself in the path of the moving vehicle and discharged one round from his DPD-issued firearm at the driver. The projectile missed its intended target, and the driver of the suspect vehicle was not injured. The DPD found the application of lethal force unjustified in this case.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U23
The DPD shall identify a limited selection of authorized ammunition and prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition. The DPD shall specify the number of rounds DPD officers shall carry.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During previous site visits, we found officers to be carrying authorized weapons and ammunition, and that the Department had implemented a procedure requiring the inspection of officers’ weapons and ammunition as part of its required biannual firearms training program which officers are required to attend.

8 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011; approved by the BOPC, November 3, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 20 of 193 Pg ID 8923

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 19

January 16, 2013

During firearms training, officers fire the ammunition that they are carrying and are issued a new supply of approved ammunition. Ammunition is also checked periodically at roll calls when other police equipment (e.g., handcuffs, chemical spray) is inspected.
During the last full six-month firearms qualification period that ended on June 30, 2012, 98% of DPD officers participated in the biannual qualifications, where they shot their old ammunition, which was replaced with authorized ammunition.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Intermediate Force Device Policy
CJ Requirement U24
The DPD shall select an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The DPD shall develop a policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: During this reporting period, we reviewed 202 use of force reports, and found no strikes to the head with the designated intermediate force device (PR-24). DPD provided training on its use to 604 members (25%) during the first quarter of the fiscal year. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for use of force reports.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 20 cases completed by FI; there was one case where an intermediate force device (PR-24) was used. The DPD officer in this case was exonerated in the use of the PR-24.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for Force Investigations.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 21 of 193 Pg ID 8924

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 20

January 16, 2013

D. Chemical Spray Policy
CJ Requirement U25
The DPD shall revise its chemical spray policy to require officers to:
a. provide a verbal warning and time to allow the subject to comply prior to the use of chemical spray, unless such warnings would present a danger to the officer or others;
b. provide an opportunity for decontamination to a sprayed subject within twenty minutes of the application of the spray or apprehension of the subject;
c. obtain appropriate medical assistance for sprayed subjects when they complain of continued effects after having been de-contaminated or they indicate that they have a pre-existing medical condition (e.g., asthma, emphysema, bronchitis or heart ailment) that may be aggravated by chemical spray and if such signs are observed the subject shall be immediately conveyed to a local hospital for professional medical treatment; and
d. obtain the approval of a supervisor any time chemical spray is used against a crowd.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 202 use of force reports and 88 Command Level Investigations. We found six deployments of chemical spray, with warnings or danger articulated in four (67%) of the cases9. This is a decrease from the 100% registered during the last reporting period. During our evaluation of decontamination requirements, we found that five (83%) of the six cases provided details of decontamination within 20 minutes of spraying or capture. This is a decrease from the 100% registered during the last reporting period.
There were no complaints of ill effects from the spraying noted in any of the six cases nor were any signs observed requiring transport to a local hospital for medical attention.
As we continue to note, the use of chemical spray by DPD officers is very limited; consequently, the Department’s compliance numbers are affected by the failure of one or two officers to document their actions when using chemical spray.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 20 cases completed by FI, and there were no cases of chemical spray being used during the arrest of a subject. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the reporting of the use of chemical spray in the use of force investigations.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
9 There were two cases in August where the warnings were not properly documented. In one, the Officer does not document any warning in his 002 form or in Crisnet Report; when he is interviewed 15 days later he is asked a leading question regarding and responds that he provided a warning; in the second case there is no documentation of a warning in the 002 or Crisnet report but states in his interview that he gave a warning.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 22 of 193 Pg ID 8925

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 21

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not In Compliance

CJ Requirement U26
The DPD shall prohibit officers from using chemical spray on a handcuffed individual in a police vehicle. The DPD shall also prohibit officers from keeping any sprayed subject in a face down position, in order to avoid positional asphyxia.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 202 use of force reports, and 88 use of force Command Level Investigations. No handcuffed individuals in a police vehicle were sprayed, and no sprayed individuals were placed face-down. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of the requirement.
Force Investigations: During our review of 20 force investigations, we found no instances of DPD officers using chemical spray on a subject who was handcuffed and in the police scout car. There were no incidents of DPD officers deploying chemical spray on a subject that was in a face-down position.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
• The issue of how best to determine DPD’s efforts at deescalating and disengaging with respect to use of force situations remains a perplexing issue, and one that affects DPD’s compliance with several of the requirements. As we have noted above, an improved reliance on body microphones and a strict requirement that officers utilize them when engaging Detroit citizens could prove beneficial to better documenting the de-escalation techniques. Unfortunately during this reporting period, DPD experienced major systemic issues with its new video/audio recording system, which has significantly reduced our ability to review many recordings. DPD advises that it is making the system operational again; we look forward to improvements during the next reporting period.
• DPD continues to provide improved documentation of officers’ actions associated with their acquiring of a target when the acquiring of a target is the only force utilized. The districts/precincts are providing DPD 568 Forms that include references to the availability of video/audio recordings – and, if they exist – a detailed description of the contents.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 23 of 193 Pg ID 8926

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 22

January 16, 2013

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to monitor the numbers of use of force reports generated during the next reporting period, and continue to discuss with DPD the issue of documenting the deescalation of use of force situations in an effort to identify a sound methodology for measuring the effort. We will monitor any increase in the reliance on audio recordings to enhance the documentation provided by the officers. We will also meet with CRIB personnel to further discuss issues associated with use of force compliance.

¶ Requirements 14 Revise use of force policies 15 The use of lethal, less lethal force 16 Opportunity to submit to arrest 17 Prohibit choke holds 18 Approval of policy 19 Strike to the head-deadly force 20 Bi-annual firearms qualification 21 Failure to qualify with firearms 22 Prohibit firing at vehicles 23 Selection of ammunition 24 Intermediate force device 25 Chemical spray policy 26 Spraying handcuffed subjects

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Deferred In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance

IV DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW
A. General Investigations of Police Action
CJ Requirement U27
The DPD and the City shall revise their policies regarding the conduct of all investigations to ensure full, thorough, and complete investigations. All investigations shall, to the extent reasonably possible, determine whether the officer’s conduct was justified and the DPD and the City shall prohibit the closing of an investigation being conducted by the DPD and/or the City simply because a subject or complainant is unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate, including a refusal to provide medical records or proof of injury.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 24 of 193 Pg ID 8927

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 23

January 16, 2013

To assess compliance with these requirements, we meet on a quarterly basis with Command, Internal Affairs, Force Investigations, OCI and other staff. We also review relevant investigative and other reports, including the Department’s quarter status reports.
Command Level Investigations: To assess DPD’s Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for this reporting period, we again met with relevant staff and reviewed 202 use of force reports resulting in 88 SIRs.10 There were no instances where a SIR was closed simply because a subject or complainant was unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate, including a refusal to provide medical records or proof of injury. We also found sufficient justification for officers’ conduct in 86 (98%) of the SIRs. We found one investigations that was closed prematurely, based on the amount of missing information submitted with the package.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: In our previous reports, we noted that our reviews of FI and JIST investigations – which included critical firearm discharges, pursuits, and allegations of excessive force – found these investigations sufficiently detailed to support the findings relating to the conduct of the officer(s) in each case. In addition, no investigations were closed because the subject or complainant was unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate. Although we noted lack of detail or required specificity in early cases, FI addressed these issues with strengthened supervision and in-service training.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 20 FI cases, and found them in compliance with the requirements. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI cases portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During our previous reviews of completed cases, we noted that while the case files generally contained sufficient facts to support a determination that justified or did not justify an officer’s actions, there were several inconsistencies between investigators, and some cases lacked the necessary information to reach a proper determination. Additionally, we noted cases that were improperly administratively closed, and cases that were significantly overdue, impacting DPD’s ability to reach appropriate conclusions many months after the alleged occurrence.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled cases from the 357 cases that were closed in July, August, and September 2012. (This represents a 38% decrease in closed cases over the previous reporting period.) Generally, the investigations established sufficient facts to support determinations that justified or did not justify the actions of the officer(s) or non-sworn member of the Department.11 We noted a significant decrease in the number of cases that appear to have been closed prematurely (from 16 cases during the previous reporting period, to nine cases during this reporting period). During this reporting period, three of these cases were closed administratively.

10 Many of the command-level investigations contained multiple use of force forms. Canine deployments with no contact, acquired target cases, and cases assumed by FI were removed from the numbers reported as SIRs.
11 If an allegation appropriately received a finding of unfounded or not sustained, justification for the conduct was not assessed since, by definition, its occurrence was either refuted or not substantiated.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 25 of 193 Pg ID 8928

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 24

January 16, 2013

The three administratively closed cases each did not meet one of the five criteria for administrative closure (lack of sufficient details as to officers involved, lack of sufficient details as to facts surrounding the incident, lack of merit, or no allegation of misconduct and an uncooperative complainant). One involved force (handcuffs applied too tightly) and an allegation that officers left the complainant’s children unattended. The other two cases stemmed from the execution of search warrants. In the first, the complainant alleged that the list of items seized was inaccurate. The complainant’s dog was also shot during the incident. These allegations were inappropriately classified as “service complaints.” In the second case, the complainant alleged damage to property. The investigator inappropriately characterized this as “innocence of the charge.”
Two cases were closed prior to all involved personnel being interviewed. In one, a sergeant who was called to the scene to take the complaint ended up in a foot pursuit with the complainant. The investigator indicated that “Sgt. D[] was not interviewed since he answered after the alleged incident occurred." In the other, a target officer simply failed to show for her Garrity interview. This appropriately resulted in a sustained procedure charge, but she was never interviewed regarding her involvement in the original incident.
Four cases were closed prior to each allegation being addressed. In one case, allegations documented in the Citizen Complaint Report (CCR) were not investigated. In the others, we learned of additional, unaddressed allegations only by listening to interviews. These cases are further described in CJ Requirement U69.
While complainants failed to cooperate in 27% of the cases, their lack of cooperation was not a factor in the closing of these cases.
With an 81% compliance rate, the City is not in compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, we interviewed IAD supervisors and selected staff, and reviewed the 37 cases that were closed by IAD in July, August, and September 2012. We assessed the investigations for consistency with the procedures contained in applicable DPD directives and generally accepted law enforcement techniques – specifically relating to procedural fairness, timeliness, confidentiality, and the meticulous reporting of facts and results of an investigation.
We found that all of the cases were sufficiently investigated – including five cases where the complainants and/or witnesses failed to respond to requests to be interviewed. In two of the five cases, the complainants withdrew the complaints and refused to participate with the prosecuting attorneys. All of the cases met the requirements of this paragraph.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 26 of 193 Pg ID 8929

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 25

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement U28
The DPD and the City shall ensure that investigations are conducted by a supervisor who did not authorize witness or participate in the incident and that all investigations contain:
a. documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene during the incident and a canvas of the scene to identify civilian witnesses;
b. thorough and complete interviews of all witnesses, subject to paragraph 31 below and an effort to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements;
c. photographs of the subject’s(s’) and officer’s(s’) injuries or alleged injuries; and
d. documentation of any medical care provided.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: During the last reporting period, we found that thorough and complete interviews were conducted in only 75% of the cases. In addition, of the cases we reviewed that contained material inconsistencies, supervisors attempted to resolve these inconsistencies in only 33%. Photos of officer or subject injuries were ordered in 83% of the cases where they should have been requested.
During this reporting period, we determined the following:
• There were three cases in which the investigating supervisor authorized, witnessed, or participated in the incident. This resulted in a 96% compliance rate. In 85 (96%) of the cases, the names of all of the officers involved or on the scene during the incident were included. In 84 (95%) of the cases, the investigating supervisor conducted a canvass to identify civilian witnesses or explained why a canvass was not conducted.
• Thorough and complete interviews were conducted in 74 (84%) of the cases. We continue to encourage supervisors to focus on the who, what, where, when, why, and how questioning used by journalists and other investigative writers for basic information gathering. DPD reports that “specific training relative to supervisory UOF investigating and this paragraph is a focal topic for the supervisory/leadership training block during the 2012-2013 annual training period.” 12 The increase in compliance from 75% during the last reporting period, to 84% this reporting period, is encouraging. Continued critical reviews at the Command level can improve compliance with this requirement. Twentyeight of the cases we reviewed contained material inconsistencies; supervisors resolved the inconsistencies in eight (28%) of these. In many of these cases, the inconsistencies were not identified or acknowledged, making resolution impossible.13 We reiterate that it
12 DPD 36th Quarter Status Report, September 30, 2012.
13 Examples are incidents such as one in which an officer states he flashed his credentials before taking action; the subjects and witnesses state he advised he was an officer after throwing subject to ground; a choking allegation was not addressed and not resolved. Another example deals with the number of PR-24 strikes delivered by an officer. The subject states 7-10 on each leg and the sister reports 15 times; the officer states twice on one leg and once on the other; no other officers observed the strikes.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 27 of 193 Pg ID 8930

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 26

January 16, 2013

is incumbent on individuals involved in the command-level review to question material inconsistencies that are not addressed and resolved by the investigator, taking the appropriate corrective actions. First-line supervisors must conduct more critical reviews.
• In 61 cases, photos should have been requested for officer or subject injuries. The reports noted that photos were ordered in 53 (87%) of the cases. Sixty of the cases could have included documentation of medical care and all 60 (100%) did. Not all of the administered medical care was related to police actions. Thirteen of the cases involved care ranging from psychiatric evaluations to diabetes to a need for medications.
DPD issued Directive 201.11, Use of Force and Use of Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012, which addresses the requirements of this paragraph. CRIB personnel believe that the implementation of this directive, which consolidates many of the previously scattered policies, will have a positive impact on the investigations and documentation of the reports. We agree that it is an important step forward, but continue to emphasize the need for the critical review of completed investigations, especially at the first reviewing supervisory level. Inspectors and commanders are becoming more involved in the reviews and that is a positive step, but it is important that they ensure that levels below them are also complying with their responsibilities.
The Command Level Investigations are not in Phase 2 compliance with these requirements.
Force Investigations: Our previous reviews of force investigations found appropriate documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene of the various incidents. The cases also contained witness interviews (recorded and written). The investigations we reviewed also contained documentation of canvasses for civilian witnesses and any medical care provided.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 20 force investigations.14 The case files included complete documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene of the various incidents, canvasses for civilian witnesses in all applicable cases, and any medical care that was provided.
The investigations contained witness interviews, both written and recorded. We noted continued improvement by FI in addressing material conflicts in investigations. Investigators used recorded statements and video evidence to address material inconsistencies and identify when officers or citizens were untruthful during an investigation. Photographs were taken as required. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled OCI investigations. All of the cases were investigated by investigators who did not authorize, witness, or participate in the incidents being investigated. In nine cases, involved officers were not identified by both name and badge number. Three cases were transferred to Internal Affairs based on the allegations and before steps were taken to identify the officers involved. In one case, the officers were apparently known but not identified by name and badge

14 These investigations included nine critical firearm discharge events and five vehicle pursuits.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 28 of 193 Pg ID 8931

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 27

January 16, 2013

number in the investigative summary. In the remaining cases, OCI took diligent steps to identify involved personnel. If they were not identified, they were listed as “unknown.”
Canvasses were generally deficient, as outlined in U32. We did not identify any cases in which investigators failed to attempt to contact potential witnesses. As noted above, two cases were closed prior to all involved personnel being interviewed. In many cases, witnesses refused to cooperate, but investigators documented their steps to try to obtain statements.
In all but two of the cases alleging excessive force that were retained by OCI (one case was transferred to the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office), photographs were referenced where appropriate. In most of the cases, force could not be substantiated and use of force documentation, including photographs, did not exist. In 11 cases, it was appropriate to reference medical care; and in all but two, the documentation was included in the investigative packages.
With greater than 94% compliance with the paragraph requirements, the City is in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: We reviewed all 37 cases that were completed by IAD during this reporting period. The investigations consistently included the names and badge numbers of all officers who were involved in or on the scene during an incident. IAD expended particular efforts in identifying officers when allegations of criminal misconduct were reported and the officer(s) was unknown to the complainant. IAD conducted canvasses to identify witnesses or obtain any video recordings that might be available from businesses near the location. IAD now has the capacity to access recordings from in-car video storage from the division’s desktop computers. If any related evidence has been recorded, it can be requested from the Technical Services Unit within a 90-day period. In an effort to resolve the allegations, in-car video was requested in six of the cases. Only one recording was available, and it was used to successfully conclude the case and exonerate the officers. We also found in the cases that we reviewed that witnesses were interviewed, and that the investigators made an effort to resolve inconsistencies between witness statements.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U29
The DPD and the City shall revise their procedures for all investigatory interviews to require:
a. officers who witness or are involved in an incident to provide a timely statement regarding the incident (subject to paragraph 31 below);
b. whenever practicable and appropriate, interviews of complainants and witnesses be conducted at sites and times convenient for them, including at their residences or places of business; and

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 29 of 193 Pg ID 8932

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 28

January 16, 2013

c. that all IAD, OCI and Critical Firearm Discharge Investigations shall also include inperson video or audio tape-recorded interviews of all complainants, witnesses, and involved DPD officers and prohibit group interviews. In cases where complainants/witnesses refuse in-person video or audio tape recorded interviews, written statements shall be taken and signed by the complainant/witness along with a signed refusal statement by the complainant/witness.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: During the last reporting period, we found that in 87% of the cases we reviewed, timely statements were taken from officers who were involved or who witnessed the incident. We also found that the interviews of complainants and witnesses were conducted at sites and times convenient for them in 98% of the cases we reviewed.
During this reporting period, we determined that in 74 (84%) of the 88 cases we reviewed, timely statements were taken from officers who were involved in or witnessed the incident. This percentage is lower than the 87% noted in our last report. The interviews of complainants and witnesses were conducted at sites and times convenient for them in 86 (98%) of the 88 cases we reviewed. This is the second consecutive reporting period in which DPD failed to maintain the timely statements of involved officers at the >94% level; and consequently, DPD has been removed from Phase 2 compliance status.
DPD is not Phase 2 compliance for use of force reports.
Force Investigations: In previous reporting periods, we noted that statements were generally taken at sites and times convenient for the person(s) being interviewed. However, we expressed concerns that statements from witness officers were unnecessarily delayed, or that investigators instead relied on the officer’s Crisnet report. We noted that there were significant delays in taking Garrity statements due to the practice of awaiting prosecution declinations from the District Attorney. We also noted our concerns regarding the variance in practice between FI and Homicide members of the Joint Incident Shooting Team (JIST) when interviewing witnesses and taking statements. Specifically, we were concerned with the practice adopted by Homicide members of JIST to take written, rather than recorded, statements. This is a longstanding issue that the Department has not yet addressed.
To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 20 closed FI cases, and continued to find much the same as described above. Statements were generally taken at sites and times convenient for the person(s) being interviewed. Statements of non-police witnesses were generally taken in a timely manner, usually within minutes or hours of the event; however statements from involved officers or witness officers under the provisions of Garrity were sometimes unnecessarily delayed.
Our review found that Garrity interviews of involved officers in five cases ranged from 62 to 507 days from the date of the incident. In addition, we found three cases involving Garrity interviews of witness officers ranged from 105 to 411 days from the date of the incident. We have discussed with FI our concern regarding interview delays for a host of reasons – not the least of which is credibility. As we have previously noted, officers’ recollections of the facts, weeks and months after an event, particularly one involving the use of deadly force, are

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 30 of 193 Pg ID 8933

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 29

January 16, 2013

externally and perhaps significantly affected by news accounts and their interactions with friends, family, and colleagues, and thus, often altered. The practice of delaying interviews, for whatever reason, mitigates the accuracy and credibility of the information provided by officers. In addition, aside from investigative reasoning regarding the delaying of interviews of involved officers, we find no legitimate basis to delay interviews of witness officers; quite the contrary, there is a compelling need to interview all witnesses – including witness officers – in an expeditious manner.
As reported, the delays discussed above often result from the desire to await a declination decision from the District Attorney. Accordingly, we examined 20 cases closed by FI during this reporting period, and found six where a prosecutorial decision from the Wayne County District Attorney’s Office was sought with the following results:
• Three of the six cases involved critical firearm discharge events, and the other three cases involved allegations of excessive use of force.
• Five of six cases included Garrity interviews conducted by FI prior to the prosecutorial decision by the District Attorney.
• One of the six cases includes a request for a prosecutorial decision that is still pending receipt. The one prosecutorial decision pending as of September 30, 2012 is 63 days.
• One of the six cases included Garrity interviews completed within 30 days after the prosecutorial decision was rendered or completion of the criminal prosecution as required by paragraph U38.
There are few situations requiring more diligence or a professional police response than an allegation or a perceived use of excessive force – especially when involving a critical firearm discharge. All warrant a priority, thorough response and expeditious conclusion. We encourage the DPD, with the cooperation of the District Attorney, to resolve these issues.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph, with a compliance rate of 75%.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During previous reporting periods, we noted ongoing issues with untimely interviews, particularly of officers. Interviews of sworn personnel frequently take place many months after the incident complained of. Often, no reason is given for the delay other than the difficulty in scheduling the interviews. We noted that complainant/witness and officer interviews were, with limited exceptions, properly recorded.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled investigations. Timely interviews of involved parties, particularly officers, continue to be an issue. In 17 of the cases we reviewed, employee interviews were untimely. This represents a 53% reduction when compared to the last reporting period, and it is a direct result of OCI addressing its backlog of cases. Most of these cases were closed in July and August, when the last of the backlogged cases were approved and thus ended up in our sample.
Complainants were identified as uncooperative in 27 of the investigations we reviewed. OCI investigators relied on the synopsis contained in the Citizen Complaint Report in these cases. When complainants and witnesses were available for interviews, they were recorded, either over

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 31 of 193 Pg ID 8934

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 30

January 16, 2013

the telephone or in person. Timeliness issues notwithstanding, when interviews were conducted, they were administered and recorded in accordance with requirements. We noted one instance in which an otherwise cooperative complainant refused a recorded statement, but she provided a detailed written statement.
The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: During earlier reporting periods, we found that the DPD directive requiring timely statements from officers was inconsistently applied. Interviews of involved witness officers were often delayed with little justification other than unavailability. There were exceptions involving pending criminal proceedings against officers in some cases.
During this reporting period, timely interviews were appropriately conducted in all of the 37 cases that we reviewed.
When the Internal Affairs Alert Teams, who are available or on-call 24 hours a day, respond to a complaint or allegation of criminal activity or serious misconduct by a Department member, preliminary interviews are conducted immediately and according to DPD directives.
In all of the investigations, complainants and witnesses were interviewed at times and sites convenient for them. DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U30
The DPD and the City procedures for all investigatory interviews shall prohibit:
a. the use of leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s(s’) actions when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques; and
b. the use of interviews via written questions when it is contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command-Level Investigations: During the last reporting period, we found 81 cases (94%) in which the question-and-answer format was used to document officer interviews in the SIR; in six (7%), investigators asked improper leading questions.
During this reporting period, we found that in 83 (94%) of 88 cases, the question-and-answer format, without the use of leading questions, was used to document officer interviews in the SIR. In six (6%) of these cases, the investigator utilized leading questions. There were no interviews via written questions contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level portion of this requirement.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 32 of 193 Pg ID 8935

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 31

January 16, 2013

Force Investigations: Our previous review of FI cases for compliance with these requirements found instances where leading questions were contained in written statements. Additionally, when listening to randomly selected recorded interviews conducted by various investigators, we noted that investigators asked leading questions in 80% of the interviews.
We also noted that the details of Garrity interviews are often adversely affected by the excessive delays in scheduling them. Officers being interviewed are routinely referring to their Crisnet reports and/or do not have a recollection of specific details because so much time has elapsed between the incident and the day of their interview. We noted that investigators routinely fail to ask appropriate follow-up questions leaving the interviews appearing to revolve around reporting – not investigating. And finally we noted our continued concern with investigators’ lack of preparation to conduct Garrity interviews.
To assist with the assessment of compliance for this reporting period, we listened to six randomly selected recorded interviews of police officers. We noted that, although the interviews were not primarily based on leading questions, the use of leading questions has not been entirely eliminated. We have a continuing concern with the tendency of some interviewing officers to preface questions with “Do you remember…do you recall” or similar phrases, which tend to prompt “I do not remember…I do not recall” responses. While recognizing that interviewing skills must be acquired through training and experience and also that the DPD has attempted to address these issues, the overall quality of the interviews remains marginally acceptable. Accordingly, we encourage the DPD to seek comprehensive interview training and also to carefully supervise and critique all interviews in order to avoid a future non-compliant finding.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: OCI supplied digitally recorded interviews for both sworn and civilian interviewees for a randomly selected subset of our review sample. During this reporting period, we listened to 106 interviews (74 employees, 32 citizens) associated with 26 cases. Generally, investigators are employing proper interviewing techniques, using open-ended rather than leading questions. We continue to note some OCI investigators using “Do you recall,” rather than simply directly asking a question. This occurred mainly in the older cases in our sample, since we have been encouraging OCI to address this poor interviewing technique for several reporting periods.
During this reporting period, we noted two instances in which leading questions were used. This is a notable improvement over past reporting periods. Written questions were included in two cases, although it is probable that they were used to structure interviews in most, if not all, of the cases involving interviews. In each case, the questions we reviewed were appropriate and in keeping with accepted law enforcement practices.
We note a wide disparity in the interviewing skills of OCI’s investigators, and have recommended that supervising investigators either observe the interviews conducted by OCI’s investigators or listen to the recordings, in order to identify training needs and provide appropriate, individualized corrective measures. We advised the Chief Investigator that during this reporting period, we would review a list of interviews monitored by the supervising investigators. The supervising investigators provided documentation that they either observed, or reviewed recordings of, interviews in 63 cases during the reporting period.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 33 of 193 Pg ID 8936

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 32

January 16, 2013

The City is in compliance with the OCI portion of this requirement.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: Since the first reporting period, we have found no evidence of the use of leading questions during IAD interviews. During this reporting period, we reviewed all 37 investigations that were completed by IAD, and again, did not find any indication that investigators conducted interviews via the use of leading questions. In all cases, we sought evidence in the case summary that the investigators had asked particular questions to clarify complainants’ and witnesses statements, and/or physical evidence.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U31
The DPD and the City shall develop a protocol for when statements should (and should not) be compelled pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The directive provides criminal and administrative guidelines for investigators and supervisors regarding when statements should and should not be compelled from officers during internal investigations. In addition, it requires that all officers sign a Certificate of Notification of Constitutional Rights - Departmental Investigations prior to any interview.
The protocol also requires that all officers sign a Certificate of Notification of Constitutional Rights - Departmental Investigations prior to any interview.
Our reviews of SIR, IAD, FI, and OCI investigations found supervisors and investigators compliant with applicable Garrity requirements. Each case contained documentation that officers were advised of their rights, and each officer interview we listened to began with an on– the-record acknowledgement of Garrity rights. However, we continue to note unnecessary delays of interviews with both involved and witness officers due to a misconception that these interviews must be delayed pending the completion of a criminal review. This practice mitigates the credibility of both the interviews and the investigations.
Despite this, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 34 of 193 Pg ID 8937

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 33

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement U32
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding all investigatory reports and evaluations to require:
a. a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident, including a detailed account of the subject’s(s’) or complainant’s(s’) and officer’s(s’) actions and an evaluation of the initial stop or seizure;
b. a review of all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence;
c. that the fact that a subject or complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense shall it justify discontinuing the investigation;
d. reasonable credibility determinations, with no automatic preference given to an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement or discounting of a witness’s statement merely because the witness has some connection to the subject or complainant
e. an evaluation of whether an officer complied with DPD policy;
f. an evaluation of all uses of force, including the officer’s tactics, and any allegations or evidence of misconduct uncovered during the course of the investigation;
g. all administrative investigations to be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard;
h. written documentation of the basis for extending the deadline of a report and evaluation and provide that the circumstances justifying an extension do not include an investigator’s vacation or furlough and that problems with investigator vacations or workload should result in the matter being reassigned; and
i. any recommended non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action be documented in writing.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our assessment of compliance with the Phase 2 requirements of this paragraph included interviews with relevant staff; and a review of closed command-level, FI, IAD, and OCI cases.
Command Level Investigations: During the current reporting period, we found the following:
• The data reflects a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident, including a detailed account of the subject(s) or complainants and officer(s) actions in 63 (72%) of the investigations, an increase from the 64% registered during the last reporting period. Some of the issues that continue to adversely affect compliance in this area include: insufficient details in any of the interviews; no information as to how the prisoners were handcuffed; interviews that appear almost verbatim from officer to officer; officers providing statements which are evasive and nebulous, and investigators not asking follow-up questions; investigators failing to address discrepancies between

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 35 of 193 Pg ID 8938

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 34

January 16, 2013

officer statements; and investigators failing to interview complainants/victims.15 In 86 (99%) of the cases, an evaluation of the initial stop or seizure was conducted.16
• In 37 (59%) of the cases, all of the relevant evidence – including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence – was reviewed.17 This is a decrease from the 72% we found during the last reporting period. A major issue with the newly acquired recording system occurred, which prevented the video/audio recordings during most of the quarter for all units equipped with the new equipment. The setback appeared to also affect recording in holding facilities. We were able to identify at least 31 cases that were affected by the breakdown, and have eliminated them from the count as well. During a briefing with the individuals responsible for making the system operational again, DPD advised us that the issue had been identified and that the Department was taking steps to rectify the problem. We continue to assert that the review of both video and audio recordings of citizen contacts with DPD members is essential to use of force investigations and consequently we continue to recommend, in the strongest of terms, that DPD initiate all of the corrective actions necessary to ensure that encounters are captured in both video and audio recordings. Every effort should be made to review video/audio recordings prior to the submission of the SIR. The failure to have these reviews conducted prior to the submission of the final report is an unacceptable practice. In the use of force investigations, we find that audio recordings are more integral to the investigations than video recordings as uses of force routinely occur out of line of sight of the cameras. DPD is encouraged to explore all current technologies that could enhance audio recordings, to include body-worn audio recorders.18 Eighty-six (98%) of the investigations contained evidence that reasonable credibility determinations, with no automatic preference given to an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement, were made to reach conclusions regarding the investigations. This is an increase from the 97% we found during the last reporting period. Eighty-three (94%) of the investigations contained an evaluation of whether or not an officer complied with DPD policy. This is an increase from the 91% we found during the last reporting period. The primary issues impacting on compliance with this requirement continue to include the failure to document officers not recording the shift (no audio recordings of citizen contacts), the officers failing to make force notifications from the scene, officers not utilizing the zone dispatcher to notify of the use of force, and officers not completing their 002 forms in a timely fashion or supervisors not approving them in a timely basis. As previously noted, this failure to deal with policy violations can be corrected through more critical reviews of the investigative work product, getting the issues corrected before submission to MAS. Eighty-four (100%) of

15 This is not an all-inclusive list.
16 One of the 88 cases was NA as it was a DI that occurred in the rear of the prisoner van with no evaluation to conduct. The base was reduced to 87.
17 Twenty of the units had no equipment installed.
18 The Future is Near: Getting ahead of the Challenges of Body-Worn Video, The Police Chief Magazine, September 20, 2012 issues, p. 54.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 36 of 193 Pg ID 8939

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 35

January 16, 2013

the 84 cases that we reviewed contained an evaluation of the use of force.19 Officers’ tactics were evaluated in 81 (94%) of the 86 cases reviewed, an increase from the 89% we found during the last reporting period.20 There were no cases with misconduct identified.
• Eighty-six (98%) of the 88 cases were evaluated on a preponderance of the evidence standard. This is a increase from the 95% that we found during the last reporting period. Sixty-eight of the cases (77%) had no extension request; of the remaining 20 cases, 15 (75%) contained documentation of the delays, either by a formal extension request or by notations in the file reflecting submission dates, return for corrections dates, and final submission dates. Of the 15 cases in which there were requested extensions, seven cases included references to investigators vacations/furloughs. We continue to urge DPD to provide guidance to the various commands regarding the importance of properly documenting the extensions and the returns of reports for corrections routinely documented in the Timeline section of the SIRs. Documents returned for corrections should reflect the new due dates. There were 69 SIRs in which corrective action might have been taken; corrective action was documented in 66 (96%) of the investigations, an increase from the 83% recorded during the last reporting period. Inclusive in the corrective action were misconduct investigations, negative administrative counseling registers, re-instructs, re-training, written reprimands, and verbal counseling.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level Investigations portion of this requirement.
Force Investigations: Our review of completed FI cases for previous reporting periods found them to be in overall compliance, but we noted cases wherein there was no evaluation of the initial stop and/or seizure; no reference to the presence or absence of circumstantial evidence; and a lack of reference to the conducting of credibility determinations.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we examined 20 completed case files and noted the continued inclusion of a detailed account of the facts of the event.21 Investigators evaluated the initial stop/contact in each case, but need to more thoroughly evaluate available direct, circumstantial, and physical evidence. For example, investigators need to review related police reports; medical documentation for injured subjects; and autopsy reports. Investigators miss opportunities to complete thorough and factual investigations when evidence is obtained and not properly analyzed. This also includes the lack of satisfactory ballistics examinations. Lastly, command/supervisory personnel are reviewing a number of these investigations and are rendering findings based upon incomplete information.
During this reporting period, there were no instances where a subject’s court-related appearances had any effect on the outcome of investigations.

19 Four cases were eliminated, as they were detainee injuries or attempted suicides, with no use of force. 20 Two cases were eliminated; they were detainee injuries in which tactics played no role. 21 These investigations included nine critical firearm discharge events and five vehicle pursuits.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 37 of 193 Pg ID 8940

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 36

January 16, 2013

The files documented some reasonable credibility determinations, but demonstrated the need for FI to continue to provide training on this issue. We found that investigations contained reviews of tactics and identified officers’ unrelated conduct violations. Findings were based mostly on a preponderance of evidence standard, and recommended referrals for disciplinary intervention were documented.
We found that investigations contained reviews of tactics and identified officers’ unrelated conduct violations. Findings were based mostly on a preponderance of evidence standard, and recommended referrals for disciplinary intervention were documented.
We noted during this assessment that extensions were requested and documented in two cases. Nonetheless, despite the lack of requested extensions, only five (25%) of the 20 submitted FI cases were timely; extensions should have been requested and documented in the other 15 cases. We recognize the challenges inherent with effective case management, and recognize the continued efforts of DPD – particularly IAD and FI staff – to address them. Regardless, it is difficult to justify the approval of deadline extensions to conduct interviews, obtain an officer’s discipline history, obtain videotapes relating to an event, or locate complainants or subjects weeks or months after an incident.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: We noted in our previous reports that OCI investigations were most often not completed within the prescribed 90-day timeframe. Requests for extensions were frequently submitted well after the case was overdue, and adequate justification of the need for the extension was rarely provided. The delay in securing timely interviews has been a recurring problem that has impacted the quality of the investigations. However, OCI investigations have generally been factual and complete, and more often than not the preponderance of evidence standard is used in reaching determinations.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected cases. Five complaints were lodged in 2011. Ninety-five cases were received – and closed – in 2012. In all of the cases, there was a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident complained of. However, we noted three cases in which additional allegations were raised during interviews, but not documented or addressed. In one case, a complainant described in great detail a threatening gesture made by one of the officers. In the summary of his statement, the investigator wrote, “Mr. M[] stated there were no threats made to him…” In two other cases, witnesses complained of force and/or profanity directed at them; these were not documented as separate allegations.
We did not note any cases in which OCI did not consider the relevant evidence available in a case. We observed that investigators generally explore the availability of video evidence in cases where it is appropriate. In 45 cases, investigators inquired as to the availability of video. In 34, or 76%, of these cases, video evidence was not available. This is concerning, given the large monetary and resource investment that DPD has made in this technology. We continue to recommend that investigators inquire about video as early in the investigation as possible, as retention times for both DPD and private sources can result in the deletion of the video before it can be acquired. In addition, there were two other cases in which video evidence might have been available, but OCI did not document any efforts to obtain it.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 38 of 193 Pg ID 8941

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 37

January 16, 2013

We found no evidence where a complainant’s conviction or guilty plea had a bearing on the investigation. However, credibility assessments were lacking for both officers and complainants/witnesses.
In all of the cases we reviewed, we noted appropriate evaluation of whether officers complied with DPD policy.22
In two cases, OCI failed to discover potential misconduct. In one, it appeared that an off-duty officer took enforcement action on behalf of an acquaintance in a landlord-tenant dispute. In the other, a complaint originating from a holding cell, two separate detainees indicated that officers ignored pleas for medical assistance and placed cardboard over the observation window so that the detainees could not see the officers.
In 13 cases, the preponderance of evidence standard was not used. This is based on our determination that not all potential evidence was considered, or different findings were warranted based on the documentation provided for our review. For example, allegations that were unfounded or exonerated by investigators would more appropriately be classified as not sustained based on the information in the case file.
Twenty-nine of the cases we reviewed were not completed within the prescribed 90-day time period. Written requests for extension were submitted in only nine of these cases. None of the requests mentioned workload as a reason for the extension in contradiction of policy and this paragraph. As a rule, the extension requests do not adequately identify why the extensions are required. During the reporting period, OCI eliminated its backlog, and OCI command has announced its goal to render extension requests obsolete. They will not be necessary as long as cases are completed within the prescribed time period.
There were no cases in which corrective action or disciplinary action was recommended as a result of the investigation. All sustained cases were referred to the Office of the Chief of Police “for appropriate action.”
We reviewed several cases in which the canvasses were either deficient or performed so long after the alleged occurrence as to have no investigative value.
In summary, although appropriate directives are in place, our analysis of OCI investigations does not yet support a Phase 2 compliance finding with this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: Our review during this reporting period found that the IAD investigative packages continue to be well organized, and elements of the investigation are easy to locate. We found that the IAD investigations were conducted in a professional manner. The supervisor meets with the investigators every two weeks to discuss the case progress and grant extensions when necessary. During this review of 37 completed IAD investigations, we found that there were precise descriptions of the incidents and reviews of all relevant evidence. There were 12 cases that exceeded the 90-day requirement. All 12 cases were delayed due to the criminal court process. In those cases, extensions were requested and appropriately granted.

22 If an allegation appropriately received a finding of unfounded or not sustained, evaluation of policy compliance was not assessed since, by definition, its occurrence was either refuted or not substantiated.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 39 of 193 Pg ID 8942

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 38

January 16, 2013

Appropriate credibility determinations were made in all of the cases, and ultimately the determinations were made using the preponderance of evidence standard. In four of the 37 investigations, additional DPD policy violations were identified and sustained.
DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U33
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding the review of all investigations to require:
a. investigations to be reviewed by the chain of command above the investigator;
b. the reviewing supervisors to identify any deficiencies in those investigations and require the investigator to correct any deficiencies within seven days of the submission of the report and evaluation to the reviewing supervisor;
c. the reviewing supervisors to recommend and the final reviewing authority to refer any incident with training, policy or procedural implications to the appropriate DPD unit;
d. appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action when an investigator fails to conduct or reviewing supervisor fails to evaluate an investigation appropriately; and
e. a written explanation by any supervisor, including the Chief of Police, who disagrees with a finding or departs from a recommended non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action, including the basis for the departure.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our assessment of compliance with the Phase 2 requirements of this paragraph included interviews with staff; and a review of closed command-level, FI, IAD, and OCI cases.
Command Level Investigations: Our assessment for this reporting period found that in 88 (100%) of the 88 SIRs reviewed there was a chain of command review above the investigator. DPD identified deficiencies in 86 (98%) of the 88 cases, with 75 (85%) requiring corrections within seven days of submission. In 11 of the cases, DPD made recommendations that training, policy, or procedural issues be referred to the appropriate DPD unit. In 12 instances, the final reviewing authority referred the matter to an appropriate DPD unit. There were 12 instances of DPD taking corrective action for investigations that were not conducted properly; the corrective action included re-instruction, training, and the issuance of corrective memos. There were three instances where appropriate actions were taken for investigations that had not been evaluated appropriately by the reviewing supervisor. As we have previously mentioned, the review of SIRs by the command level remains the most critical step in the conduct of these investigations. As previously noted, DPD reports that specific training relative to supervisory UOF investigating

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 40 of 193 Pg ID 8943

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 39

January 16, 2013

is a focal topic for the supervisory/leadership training block during the 2012-2013 annual training period. With specific training and more critical reviews of the investigations during the command review, DPD should be able to improve the quality of investigations conducted at the command level. It is incumbent on the Inspectors and Commanders to continue to ensure that deficiencies in the investigations are corrected, and to consult the appropriate units if any procedural or tactical issues are identified.
DPD is not in compliance with the Command Level Investigations portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: In our previous reviews of FI cases for compliance with these requirements, we noted that the case files included chain of command reviews and recommended referrals to training. The investigations also included references to supervisors’ requests for additional information or investigative work.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 20 completed FI cases. Although we are sufficiently satisfied, based on our discussions with FI staff, that supervisory reviews and evaluations are occurring, we were unable to find some supporting documentation referred by FI as Case Review Sheets. We recommend that these reviews be more thoroughly documented. Considering the fact that 15 of the cases we reviewed were late, correcting deficiencies within seven days in these investigations is insignificant for the purpose of compliance with this paragraph. Only 25% of the cases we reviewed were timely.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: In our previous reports, we noted our inability to determine what appropriate supervisory intervention has taken place when investigations are deficient. While there has been evidence of supervisory review in most cases, when investigations are returned, specific issues and corrective measures were usually not documented. Glaring deficiencies such as chronic timeliness issues, which would warrant counseling and/or discipline, were not addressed in writing.
For the current reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 100 closed investigations. During this reporting period, 50 cases were returned for deficiencies. Most of these were for spelling, grammar, and formatting. In 21 of the cases, deficiencies were either missed or not corrected within seven days. These include lack of investigative activity for long periods of time, as well as many of the issues cited above, such as investigative shortcomings and failure to submit proper extension requests.
We did not review any cases in which a reviewer disagreed with the recommended findings of the investigator.
The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of the paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: During this reporting period, the IAD supervisor used the case management system, Case Trax, to record any deficiencies and instructions in the investigators’ progress notes. All of the investigations were reviewed and approved by the chain of command above the investigators within the required timeframe.
IAD is in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 41 of 193 Pg ID 8944

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 40

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

B. Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations
CJ Requirement U34
The DPD shall revise its reporting policies to require officers to document on a single auditable form any prisoner injury, use of force, allegation of use of force, and instance in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In the last reporting period, we found that 83% of the auditable forms (UF002) forms we reviewed were prepared correctly and documented the prisoner injuries, uses of force, and allegations of force. The forms included 15 cases that were referred to FI/IAD.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 202 auditable forms, and found that 168 (83%) were prepared correctly and documented the prisoner injuries, uses of force, and allegations of force. The forms include eight forms that were referred to FI/IAD, and 10 in which the officers acquired a target.
The DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U35
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding use of force and prisoner injury notifications to require:
a. officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or prisoner injury;
b. that upon such notice, a supervisor shall respond to the scene of all uses of force that involve a firearm discharge, a visible injury or a complaint of injury. A supervisor shall respond to all other uses of force on a priority basis. Upon arrival at the scene, the supervisor shall interview the subject(s), examine the subject(s) for injury, and ensure that the subject(s) receive needed medical attention;
c. the supervisor responding to the scene to notify IAD of all serious uses of force, uses of force that result in visible injury, uses of force that a reasonable officer should have known were likely to result in injury, uses of force where there is prisoner injury; and

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 42 of 193 Pg ID 8945

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 41

January 16, 2013

d. IAD to respond to the scene of, and investigate, all incidents where a prisoner dies, suffers serious bodily injury or requires hospital admission, or involves a serious use of force, and to permit IAD to delegate all other use of force or prisoner injury investigations to the supervisor for a command investigation.23
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the last reporting period, we found that in 97% of the Command Level Investigations cases we reviewed, a supervisor was notified following a use of force or a prisoner injury. Supervisors responded to 100% of cases in which the use of force involved a firearms discharge, a visible injury, or a complaint of injury. Supervisors responded to other uses of force on a priority basis in 95% of cases. In combination, a supervisor responded to 97% of the cases that we reviewed. Ninety-five percent of the cases reflected supervisory efforts to interview the subject, either on the scene or at the district. In 95% of the cases, the supervisor examined the subject on the scene or at the district/precinct for injuries, and ensured that the subjects received the needed medical attention. Force Investigations was notified in 22 cases, and assumed responsibility for seven cases.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 88 Command Level Investigations cases and found that in 86 (97%), a supervisor was notified following a use of force or a prisoner injury. There were 32 cases in which the use of force involved a firearms discharge, a visible injury, or a complaint of injury; and a supervisor responded to all of them. Supervisors responded to other uses of force on a priority basis in all (100%) of the remaining 56 cases. In combination, a supervisor responded to 88 (100%) of the 88 cases reviewed, an improvement over the 97% registered in the last reporting period.
In 85 (96%) of the 88 cases, a supervisor interviewed the subject at the scene, at the district/precinct, or at DRH.24 Also in 86 (98%) of the 88 cases, a supervisor examined the subject for injury and ensured that the subject received needed medical attention.25 Force Investigations (FI) was notified in 27 of the cases, and assumed responsibility for eight of them. We note that there were five choking allegations, one of which was resolved during the investigation; four remained unresolved and there is no evidence that they were reported to Force Investigations. We would suggest to DPD that any allegations of choking be communicated to FI, allowing them to determine if they need to respond or allow the Command to investigate. Continued failures to advise FI of choking allegations will jeopardize the Phase 2 compliance.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for Command Level Investigations with this paragraph.
Force Investigations: Our review of 20 FI cases relevant to this requirement shows that officers failed to report the use of force to supervisors as required in no cases.
23 Amended by Court Order dated September 15, 2008
24 In some instances, a subject is moved to the District/Precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject.
25 In some instances, a subject is moved to the District/Precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 43 of 193 Pg ID 8946

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 42

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U36
The DPD shall revise its use of force and prisoner injury investigation policies to require:
a. command use of force preliminary investigations to be completed within 10 days of the incident. These investigations shall include a synopsis of the incident, photographs of any injuries, witness statements, a canvas of the area, and a profile of the officer’s prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct, and a first-line supervisory evaluation. The final command use of force investigation shall be completed within 30 days of the incident;
b. IAD investigations to be completed within 90 days of the incident; and
c. copies of all reports and command investigations to be sent to IAD within 7 days of completion of the investigation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: In the last reporting period, we found that 88% of the Command Level Investigations were completed within 10 days of the event. Ninety-nine percent of the investigations contained the required synopsis of the event. There were four photographs of injuries in the files. In 92% of the cases, the canvass and witness information was included in the file. Officers’ prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct were included in 99% of the cases. Ninety-seven percent of the cases reflected first-line supervisor evaluations. The final command use of force investigations were completed within 30 days in 84% of the cases. Copies of completed Command Level Investigations were transmitted to IAD within seven days of completion of the investigations in 98% of the cases.
During this reporting period, we found that 78 (89%) of the preliminary investigations were completed within 10 days of the event, an increase over the previous reporting period’s 88%. Eighty-eight reports (100%) included a synopsis of the incident. There were photographs of injuries in 12 of the files.
In 84 (95%) of the cases, the canvass and witness information was included in the file. Officers’ prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct were included in 88 cases (100%). Eightyeight of the 88 cases (100%) reflected first-line supervisor evaluations. The final command use of force investigations were completed within 30 days in 77 (87%) of the cases. Copies of completed Command Level Investigations were transmitted to IAD within seven days of completion of the investigations in 85 (96%) of the 88 cases.
Cases failing to meet the 30-day requirement ranged from 32 to 43 days after the incident. We recognize that some cases may be quite complex, but our review of the delayed cases did not find

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 44 of 193 Pg ID 8947

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 43

January 16, 2013

them to be particularly complex. DPD has not achieved Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for the Command Level Investigations.
Force Investigations: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 20 completed FI cases.26 Fifteen of the 20 cases we reviewed were untimely. Our review of the untimely cases revealed a troubling pattern, in which FI conducted a portion of the investigations soon after the event, but then took from several months to more than three years to complete the actual investigative reports. None of these cases included any justification for investigators to require several months or even years to complete a report long after the investigative work had been completed.
We continue to recommend that DPD closely evaluate case management and related issues, including staffing, and more closely monitor FI investigators’ time management and report preparation to more expeditiously complete these investigations.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U37
The DPD has created a Shooting Team, composed of officers from the Homicide Section and IAD. The Shooting Team shall respond to the scene and investigate all critical firearms discharges and in-custody deaths.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Previously, we found that the JIST appropriately responded to critical firearm discharge events; accordingly, we found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. There were nine critical firearm discharge investigations and one in-custody death investigation completed during this reporting period. JIST appropriately responded to all of the events.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

26 These investigations included nine critical firearm discharges and five vehicle pursuits.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 45 of 193 Pg ID 8948

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 44

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement U38
The DPD shall develop a protocol for conducting investigations of critical firearm discharges that, in addition to the requirements of paragraphs 27-36, requires
a. the investigation to account for all shots fired, all shell casings, and the locations of all officers at the time the officer discharged the firearm;
b. the investigator to conduct and preserve in the investigative file all appropriate ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests; and
c. the investigation to be completed within 60 days of the incident. If a Garrity statement is necessary, then that portion of the investigation may be deferred until 30 days from the declination or conclusion of the criminal prosecution.27
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our review of critical firearm discharge investigations for previous reports noted a number of significant issues relating to the requirements of this paragraph. We found that although investigators inventoried the officers’ ammunition to assist with determining the number of shots fired, and collected shell casings at the scene, there were instances where the number of shots believed to have been fired did not match the inventory of officers’ ammunition and/or the number of retrieved shell casings. We emphasized the importance of accounting for all rounds that are fired, and where there appears to be a discrepancy due to the described magazine problems, documenting it in the case reports. The DPD attributed this to an ongoing problem with the ammunition magazines that sometimes prevented officers from loading them to capacity and indicated its intent to correct the problem with the issuance of replacement equipment.
In addition, we noted that while the locations of officers were generally described, diagrams depicting their positions were not consistently included in the case files. We also expressed concern regarding the absence of gunshot residue and DNA collection and analysis. The DPD advised that gunshot residue analysis is no longer available; that DNA analysis is limited and that there are significant delays in ballistics analyses, which are conducted by the State Crime Lab. These have been – and remain – issues mitigating the ability of FI to conduct complete and timely critical firearm discharge investigations. And finally, we have repeatedly expressed concern with the failure to complete these investigations within the prescribed 30-day time limit.
To assess compliance with requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed nine completed critical firearm discharge investigations, none of which involved fatalities. One case contained a discrepancy between the number of rounds (ammunition) officers were carrying at the time of the event and the number of rounds they are required to carry by policy. This discrepancy illustrates the need for investigators to document DPD policy violations relating to the carrying of a specified amount of ammunition and the need for DPD to take corrective action.

27 Consent Judgment amendment April 23, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 46 of 193 Pg ID 8949

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 45

January 16, 2013

The investigations that we reviewed described the locations of the officers; however, the diagrams that were included did not specifically indicate them. The locations of shell casings were noted. Additional evidentiary issues of concern pertinent to the requirements of this paragraph include: the failure of FI to reconcile the number of shots believed to have been fired and an accounting for all shell casings; and the failure of FI to collect and submit DPD firearms for ballistic testing, and to conduct gunshot residue tests in three cases where residue testing would have been an investigative aid in the case. In one case, the officer overseeing the investigation neglected to submit collected ballistics evidence to the MSP lab for analysis due to the involved officers’ acknowledgement that they fired the shots, and the facts that no weapons were recovered, and no one was injured. The lack of an adequate crime search for weapons was apparent. Lastly, the investigation failed to address the conflicts involving the officers’ ammunition count with shell casings collected at the scene.
We also are concerned that ballistic testing and analysis was not conducted on recovered spent shell casings due to the procedures and protocols of the State Lab; we are further concerned that certain firearms evidence was not submitted to the State Lab for testing due to the DPD practice of only submitting evidence for ballistic testing/analysis when there is an injury due to gunfire and/or unless the Prosecutor’s Office requested it.
Only two, or 22%, of the nine critical firearm discharge investigations we reviewed were timely. These cases were closed in a timeframe of one month to three years – a range of time well outside of the 60-day requirement.
These above-cited ongoing issues are significant and continue to mitigate the quality; thoroughness; and, moreover, the credibility of these investigations. Each critical firearm discharge must be investigated with a focus on whether the deadly force was used in accordance with DPD policy, regardless of whether or not it resulted in injury or death. Crime scene activities and the analyses of all evidence – including important ballistic evidence – often form the basis for making appropriate decisions regarding these most serious issues. Therefore, the deficiencies described herein and in our previous reports must be addressed.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U39
The DPD shall require a Command-level Force Review Team to evaluate all critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths. The team shall be chaired by the Deputy Chief who directly supervises IAD. The DPD shall establish criteria for selecting the other member of the team.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 47 of 193 Pg ID 8950

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 46

January 16, 2013

The Team is chaired by the Commander, Internal Affairs/Force Investigations, and includes Deputy Chiefs, the Training Commander, and a specified Chief of Police designee.
The DPD failed to submit six CLFRT reports that met the time limitations for completion during this reporting period. Should the DPD fail to submit the CLFRT reports as required for a second and subsequent assessment period, this requirement will be removed from compliance.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U40
The DPD policy that defines the Command-level Force Review Team’s role shall require the team to:
a. complete its review of critical firearm discharges that result in injury and in-custody deaths within 21 days from the completion of the investigation and require the Chief of Police to complete his or her review of the team’s report within 14 days;28
b. comply with the revised review of investigations policies and procedures;
c. interview the principal investigators; and
d. prepare a report to the Chief of Police in compliance with the revised investigatory report and evaluation protocol.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD failed to submit six CLFRT reports that met the time limitations for completion during this reporting period. Should the DPD fail to submit the CLFRT reports as required for a second and subsequent assessment period, this requirement will be removed from compliance.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

28 Amended by Court Order dated April 23, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 48 of 193 Pg ID 8951

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 47

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U41
The commanding officer of Force Investigation or other appropriate DPD executive designated by the Chief of Police shall annually review critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths in aggregate to detect patterns and/or problems and report his or her findings and recommendations, including additional investigative protocols and standards for all critical firearm discharge and in-custody death investigations, to the Chief of Police. A copy of the report shall be submitted to the Monitor within five months after the end of the year reported on.29
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The CLFRT Chair previously prepared an annual report and critique of critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths and was found in compliance with this paragraph. These reports are due by May of the year following the year under review.
We received the CLFRT 2011 annual report on June 6, 2012. The report, prepared by Force Investigation, included a description of investigative processes; case summaries; and various analyses of fatal and non-fatal firearm discharges, in-custody deaths, and pursuits. As in previous reports, the report indicated a downward trend in critical firearm discharges during the latest six-year period. After peaking at 59 in 2006, DPD recorded 30 critical firearm discharges in 2011. There were two fatal shootings in 2010, after peaking at nine in 2006. The most common encounter involved armed subjects.
The CLFRT made recommendations to revise the policy dealing with the Discharging of a Weapon at or from a Moving Vehicle; directed officer safety training after detecting a pattern of officer reaching inside vehicles to turn off the ignition during traffic stops, which were resulting in officers being dragged by the vehicle as operators attempted to escape; and recommended the Training Commander re-assess instruction relating to dealing with subjects with mental conditions and/or subjects who display symptoms of Excited Delirium. In addition, the report addressed the issue of unintentional/accidental discharges by officers. There were three total listed in the report – one of which occurred off-duty. The accidental discharge information has been communicated to the CLFRT by FI for further evaluation. In the interim, all officers involved in the accidental discharges were found negligent and directed to Firearms Training for additional instruction on proper weapon handling and firearm safety.
The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

29 Amended by Court Order dated January 28, 2009.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 49 of 193 Pg ID 8952

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 48

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
• The failure to conduct quality investigations within prescribed timelines remains a critical issue. We continue to assert that a more sophisticated case management program would prove beneficial. We again emphasize the need to provide formal documentation of reasons for delays in the completion of investigations. Many cases indicate that they are returned for corrections, but do not explain what is needed to be corrected, nor what new time limits have been established for re-submission.
• OCI successfully addressed its backlog of cases during this reporting period. Our review samples during the last several reporting periods were populated with scores of closed, backlogged cases. This reporting period’s sample included 13 such cases. These cases were replete with deficiencies – many related to timeliness issues, and many related to investigative shortcuts apparently taken to expeditiously address the backlog. Now that the backlog has been addressed, OCI must shift its focus to addressing the qualitative deficiencies we have identified and discussed during each of our site visits. While this report documents some success in these areas, there are still many opportunities for improvement.
• DPD needs to provide more attention to the quality of interviews; some lack details regarding the incident and exactly how the officers on the scene responded to the incident; investigators armed with new information from interviews seldom re-interview officers to resolve differences. Video and audio recordings must be reviewed as part of the investigative process; the Department needs to place greater emphasis on the appropriate use of the body microphones to capture interactions between officers and the public/subjects. Supervisors need to ensure that activity logs are properly completed with respect to the video and audio capabilities; and when equipment is inoperative, the proper documentation should be prepared and commented on in the investigation. Consideration should be given to the use of body worn audio recorders.
• We have previously mentioned the fact that the DPD does not have a formalized practice of forwarding complex/faulty investigations to the Training Division and/or the Policy Section for review to ensure that both units are aware of the situations officers are confronting in the streets. The reviews of the use of force reports reflects some tactical concerns that would be best addressed through a critical review by tactical personnel at the Training Bureau. Improved tactics will improve interactions with the public; even more importantly, they will improve officer safety. The review of these cases by those specialized units could result in enhanced training curricula or improved DPD policies.
• The DPD has ongoing ballistics issues involving critical firearm discharges investigated by FI. These issues are significant and continue to mitigate the quality and thoroughness

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 50 of 193 Pg ID 8953

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 49

January 16, 2013

of these investigations. The DPD needs to develop an expeditious resolution to this important issue.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to assess compliance, paying particular attention to the thoroughness and completeness of investigations, their review by supervisors, and compliance with the timelines.
• The new Chief Investigator assumed her duties during this reporting period. We note that she has already had a very positive impact on OCI operations, and we look forward to working with her as she addresses the remaining challenges to achieving full compliance.

¶ Requirements 27 Revise investigative policies 28 Investigation by uninvolved supervisor 29 Procedures for investigative interviews 30 Leading questions prohibited, etc. 31 Garrity Protocol required 32 Revise investigatory report policies 33 Chain of command reviews 34 Auditable form required 35 Notification of supervisors, etc. 36 Completion of command investigations 37 Joint Incident Shooting Team 38 Protocol for critical discharge investigations 39 Command Level Force Review Team 40 Review critical firearm discharges 41 Command-level force review requirements

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 51 of 193 Pg ID 8954

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 50

January 16, 2013

V. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES
The arrest and detention policies and practice requirements are a critical component of this Agreement. The policies prohibit an officer from making an arrest without probable cause, and the existing policy requires supervisory review within 12 hours of the arrest. It further requires that for an arrest that is unsupported by probable cause, or a warrant that is not sought, an auditable form must document the circumstances within 12 hours of the event.
The DPD revised its investigatory stop-and-frisk policies to appropriately define investigatory stops and reasonable suspicion and supported this effort by frequent roll call training and two Administrative Messages issued in January and April 2011. As a result of additional emphasis by the Department on investigatory stops/frisks, DPD has been in compliance in this area for three consecutive reporting periods. DPD also revised its witness identification policies to comply with the revised arrest and investigatory policies. Policy establishes that a material witness can only be taken into custody by obtaining a Court order prior to such taking.
The revised policies and procedures in this area require significant documentation and reviews by supervisors. Command notification is required in all instances where there exists a reported violation of DPD arrest, holds/warrants, investigatory stop-and-frisk, witness identification and questioning policies, and all reports in which an arraignment warrant is not sought. While previous compliance has been achieved in these areas, we have noted during this and the two previous reporting periods the inability of personnel to indicate holds over 48 hours on the Warrant Tracking Form. This has been problematic in that when command review occurs, the commanders had relied solely on whether the OIC had indicated on the Warrant Tracking Form the hold status of the detainee. Due to previous compliance, the current issues stem from combining the general investigative units that were previously housed in the districts and precincts into two central facilities. Compliance review in this area thus draws heavily on the detailed records required in this section.
DPD has made significant progress in documenting Investigatory Stops, Detainee Registration and following their internal witness identification policies during the previous four reporting periods. DPD had been in compliance with its investigatory stop policies for three consecutive reporting periods; in order to remain in compliance, supervisory personnel must ensure the preparation of auditable forms when reasonable suspicion is not properly articulated for the stop. During this reporting period, DPD’s ability to articulate reasonable suspicion with frisks and the lack of supervisory review has placed the Department in jeopardy of not being in compliance during our next assessment.
The Department’s ability to document and timely prepare warrant submittals to the prosecutor had been problematic, in that the failure to do so caused other violations of policy. (See U50, U51, and U53.) We have found that in a few instances, the failure to prepare the required auditable form or timely review by a commanding officer has kept DPD from compliance with certain paragraphs. Supervisory and command review continues to be lacking in some areas, and that documentation of violations should be a Departmental priority.
In the fifth reporting period, DPD assigned a commanding officer (lieutenant) to coordinate the efforts of the different districts/precincts and other investigative operational units in their reviews of witness identification and questioning policies. This strategy has been successful, as we have

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 52 of 193 Pg ID 8955

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 51

January 16, 2013

found the applicable CJ paragraph in compliance for eight consecutive reporting periods. This strategy may prove successful in other areas such as investigatory stops and command review.
All paragraphs under the Arrest and Detention Policies and Practices require supervisory and command review. On August 7, 2012, Administrative Message (Teletype 12-066) mandates a 12-hour work shift for police officers in the field and the holding facilities. However, sergeants and higher level ranks will remain on eight-hour shifts. Since adequate supervisory and command review has been major issues for compliance purposes, it appears that consistency of supervision for field personnel could jeopardize DPD’s ability to monitor subordinates’ activity.

A. Arrest Policies CJ Requirement U42 The DPD shall revise its arrest policies to define arrest and probable cause as those terms are defined in this Agreement and prohibit the arrest of an individual with less than probable cause. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance is linked to and dependent upon the implementation of U43. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U43
The DPD shall review all arrests for probable cause at the time the arrestee is presented at the precinct or specialized unit. This review shall be memorialized in writing within 12 hours of the arrest. For any arrest unsupported by probable cause or in which an arraignment warrant was not sought, the DPD shall document the circumstances of the arrest and/or the reasons the arraignment warrant was not sought on an auditable form within 12 hours of the event.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 106 arrest case files. The review included Crisnet reports, Detainee Input Sheets, DPD Warrant Verification Logs, officers’ Daily Activity Logs, Arraignment Verification Logs, and detainee file folders. In all cases sufficient probable cause for the arrest was present.
In all cases but two, supervisory approval occurred within 12 hours of the arrest. In these cases, the time of approval was not listed on the Crisnet report and/or the reviewing supervisor in the holding facility failed to list the date/time (required) of the probable cause approval on the Detainee Information Sheet.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 53 of 193 Pg ID 8956

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 52

January 16, 2013

When an officer is not seeking an arraignment warrant, the Department is required to complete Auditable Form U004, Warrant Tracking Hold Form (effective September 2009). Of the 106 arrest cases we reviewed, the Department did not seek a warrant in 19. In all of the cases except one the required auditable form was completed in a timely basis. In the one exception the auditable form was completed five weeks after the arrest.
We did review an arrest packet that was not in our sample where the arrestee was held for six days in a homicide case. There were numerous errors made by the OIC and the reviewing supervisor failed to conduct a proper review. If the supervisor had conducted the required review those issues could have been addressed and not 46 days after the event when the auditable form was completed. This detainee, after six days, was released and a warrant not sought. After reviewing this case with the Commander of Homicide during our on-site visit corrective action or discipline will be taken with the employee and supervisor.
We are observing more Corrective Action Notices being issued when DPD discovers violations of policy. DPD’s compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon probable cause to arrest and timeliness in preparing the required auditable forms.
DPD’s compliance rate for this reporting period is 97%, an increase from the last reporting period’s 96%, for the three separate and distinct requirements of this paragraph. DPD has been in compliance with Phase 2 of this paragraph in all our previous reports.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Investigatory Stop Policies CJ Requirement U44 The DPD shall revise its investigatory stop and frisk policies to define investigatory stop and reasonable suspicion as those terms are defined in this Agreement. The policy shall specify that a frisk is authorized only when the officer has reasonable suspicion to fear for his or her safety and that the scope of the frisk must be narrowly tailored to those specific reasons. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of U45. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 54 of 193 Pg ID 8957

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 53

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement U45
The DPD shall require written documentation of all investigatory stops and frisks by the end of the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD shall review all investigatory stops and frisks and document on an auditable form those unsupported by reasonable suspicion within 24 hours of receiving the officer’s report.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In our tenth quarterly report, we determined that DPD was in compliance with the provisions of this paragraph; this was the first reporting period that DPD achieved compliance in this area. DPD had previously come into compliance with traffic and investigatory stops. In the last reporting period, DPD’s compliance rate for frisks was 96%.
Unlike the two previous reporting periods, we noted that officers have significantly declined in their ability to articulate reasonable suspicion with frisks, and that some supervisors are not properly checking the officers’ Daily Activity Log entries. During the current reporting period, as in our previous review, we found that DPD personnel have made significant progress in documenting investigatory stops. We continue to find that some supervisors, when reviewing officers’ Daily Activity Logs, checked or circled each frisk on their subordinates’ logs or completed an auditable form when the frisk was not articulated. This sound accountability practice by DPD supervisory personnel should be continued.
Due to settling a previous litigation, DPD issued Training Directive 12-03 on January 12, 2012 reinforcing Detroit City Code 38-1-3 as it pertains to the loitering ordinance. The new guidelines clearly define the rights of the individual and provide clarity to personnel when enforcing loitering violations.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 322 officers’ Daily Activity Logs completed on three randomly selected dates.30 Each district/precinct provided the logs requested, which included traffic stops and other situations where officers made investigatory stops of individuals who were not in vehicles or in vehicles stopped in places where a police inquiry was warranted.
Our review yielded 75 investigatory stops, of which 72 indicated a lawful purpose. We observed and noted in previous reports that supervisors are now more thorough in their reviews of officers’ Daily Activity Logs and would complete auditable forms for violations; that is no longer the case, as we did not review any auditable forms (traffic stops, investigatory stops or frisks) for this reporting period. Most of the investigatory stops involved subjects being in a park after posted hours, entering premises/property without owner’s permission, and loitering. In all instances, supervisors reviewed all investigatory stops within the required timeframe. DPD’s
30 For this review, we randomly selected Daily Activity Logs completed on July 5, August 3, and September 1, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 55 of 193 Pg ID 8958

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 54

January 16, 2013

compliance rate for investigatory stops only (excluding frisks and traffic stops) during this reporting period is 96%, a decrease from the 100% registered in the last reporting period.
The logs included 166 traffic stops, and our review indicated that five did not contain sufficient information to justify the stop, which is a basic requirement. For example, the officers failed to describe the initial necessity or purpose of the traffic stop. Supervisors reviewed all traffic stops in a timely fashion, marking their signatures, and dates and times of review.
DPD’s compliance rate for traffic stops is 97%, a slight decrease from the previous reporting period.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 51 frisks appearing on officers’ Daily Activity Logs. We found that 45 of the frisks met the requirement. There were six cases where the officers failed to articulate reasonable suspicion for the frisks. Supervisors reviewed the logs in each of these instances but failed to note that they did not describe reasonable suspicion for the frisk. On one of the officer’s frisks the reason for the frisk was articulated as “administrative search.” The sergeant evidently believes that this description describes reasonable suspicion or merely approved the Activity Log without reviewing it. One scout car team of three officers began each frisk description with “furtive gestures” without further explanation for the reason for the frisk.
On July 28, 2011, DPD issued an Administrative Message (Teletype #11-0925) to be read at 10 consecutive roll calls instructing supervisors how to address consent frisks by officers. Another Administrative Message (Teletype 11-1497) was issued on December 24, 2011 emphasizing the importance of officers describing the frisk and supervisors’ responsibilities completing the auditable form when required.
Officers are required to complete the “Recap of Activity” portion of the log to indicate their total daily activities and also mark the “Frisk” box in the narrative portion of the report. This is a tool for the supervisor to locate and review the frisks that occur by his/her subordinates. However, supervisors have not used this tool – as we continue to find instances where the officer properly conducts a frisk but does not mark either of the appropriate boxes and the supervisors fail to discover the omissions.
During a previous site visit, the Parties held a meeting to discuss DPD’s request that consent searches (frisks) met the legal requirements of the Consent Judgment. No changes were made as a result of that meeting and we have found that on the few occasions when an officer conducts a consent frisk the supervisors have completed the auditable form.
During this reporting period, we found that all frisks were documented by the end of the officers’ shifts. The Department’s compliance rate for frisks during this reporting period is 88%.
In previous audits, to ensure compliance with the Department’s stop-and-frisk policies, the Audit Team recommended a number of steps, including retraining officers and reviewing all stop-andfrisk situations by supervisors and command personnel in a timely fashion. We have found that the emphasis DPD has placed on officers properly documenting investigatory stops and supervisory review had previously paid dividends toward compliance.
A review of in-car video of frisks by the training staff and commanders is helpful in ensuring that legal authority exists for the frisks. In our eleventh quarterly report, we noted that supervisors conducted in-car video review of their subordinates’ investigatory stops and frisks.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 56 of 193 Pg ID 8959

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 55

January 16, 2013

During other previous reporting periods, we reviewed auditable forms (Stop and/or Frisk Exception form, DPD UF-003, effective October 31, 2009) from supervisors indicating that they had challenged an improper investigatory stop-and-frisk. Supervisors should review all in-car video of investigatory stops/frisks when the legality of the stop is in question. As noted above, Administrative Message 11-0151, issued on January 28, 2011; Administrative Message 11-0477, issued on April 22, 2011; and a subsequent Administrative Message 11-1497, issued on December 22, 2011; emphasized the recording of investigatory stops and frisks by officers and supervisory review. We note that OCR continues to send Corrective Action Notices to the various commands when they review our document request for Daily Activity Logs; however, this responsibility lies with the individual commands, and commands need to take action immediately when the violations occur.
In previous reporting periods we found in a few cases where auditable forms were completed after they were requested by the Monitoring Team and reviewed by DPD personnel. DPD personnel have been trained; this is no longer a training issue but one of accountability. Command personnel must ensure that their sergeants/lieutenants are reviewing investigatory stops and taking action when it occurs. The failure here is supervisory and command review. First-line supervisors are the key personnel in ensuring that all investigatory stops are in compliance with policy. DPD’s compliance rate for frisks is 88%, a decrease from the 96% we found during the previous reporting period. DPD’s overall compliance rate for all investigatory stops and frisks increased from 96% to 98% during this reporting period. Conducting frisks that follow appropriate guidelines and meet established law is an important part of this paragraph and must be compliant.
If DPD is not in compliance with investigatory stops (frisks) during the next reporting period, we will remove the Department from compliance.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Witness Identification and Questioning Policies
CJ Requirement U46
The DPD shall revise its witness identification and questioning policies to comply with the revised arrest and investigatory stop policies. The DPD shall prohibit the seizure of an individual without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual and require that the scope and duration of any seizure be narrowly tailored to the reasons supporting the police action. The DPD shall prohibit the conveyance of any individual to another location without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 57 of 193 Pg ID 8960

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 56

January 16, 2013

Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U48; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
	
   CJ Requirement U47 The DPD shall develop the revised witness identification and questioning policies within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The revised policies shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the revised witness identification and questioning policies within three months of the review and approval of the DOJ. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U48; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U48
The DPD shall document the content and circumstances of all interviews, interrogations and conveyances during the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD shall review in writing all interviews, interrogations and conveyances and document on an auditable form those in violation of DPD policy within 24 hours of the interview, interrogation or conveyance.31
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the last reporting period, we reviewed interviews and interrogations from the Central District, the Sixth Precinct, Homicide, and the Tenth Precinct; and found them in Phase 2 compliance with these requirements.
On June 1, 2011, the Court issued an order relevant to a DOJ letter dated May 1, 2010, where an agreement was accepted for timelines required for the review of all interviews, interrogations, and conveyances. The Court order permits that supervisors can review all interviews,

31 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 58 of 193 Pg ID 8961

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 57

January 16, 2013

interrogations, and conveyances within 24 hours, compared to the 12 hours previously mandated by the paragraph.
On June 13, 2012, DPD advised us that all general investigative operational units would be merged under one command, the Criminal Investigation Unit, and be divided geographically into East and West facilities (Central District and Second Precinct). Although this should be more efficient, it has created an issue with commanders’ reviews of holds (U53, U60). During our most recent site visit, a lieutenant in one district/precinct advised us that prior to merging the investigative operational units, if there was an issue with an auditable form, it usually occurred at that location, and the lieutenant could contact the officer and correct the problem immediately.
We reviewed 114 interviews/interrogations (DPD Form 103, revised April 2019) at Central District (East) and found 111 in compliance. The four interviews/interrogations not in compliance had three without ending interview times that were not discovered by the supervisor when they approved the report, and one interview/interrogation that did not contain supervisory review.
We reviewed 87 interviews/interrogations from the Second Precinct (West) and found two that did not contain supervisory review. DPD’s compliance rate for interviews/interrogations for both the East and West investigative facilities this quarter is 97%.
We reviewed 34 interviews/interrogations from the Sex Crimes Unit and found all in compliance.
We reviewed all (18) witness conveyances from Homicide during the reporting period and found them in compliance. During our review of general investigative units witness interviews, for the first time we discovered a witness conveyance not from homicide. Due to the nature of homicide investigations, witness conveyances are generally exclusive to more serious crimes. DPD’s compliance rate for this paragraph is 98%.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

D. Prompt Judicial Review Policies
CJ Requirement U49
The DPD shall revise its policies to require prompt judicial review, as defined in this Agreement, for every person arrested by the DPD. The DPD shall develop a timely and systematic process for all arrestees to be presented for prompt judicial review or to be released.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U50; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 59 of 193 Pg ID 8962

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 58

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U50
The DPD shall require that, for each arrestee, a warrant request for arraignment on the charges underlying the arrest is submitted to the prosecutor’s office within 48 hours of the arrest.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Due to a few case reports involving traffic, probation violations, and warrant arrests that are handled by other means, or where the arrestee is taken directly to court, we reviewed 85 case reports that eventually were submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office for arraignment. The documentation supporting this review included Crisnet reports, Warrant Verification Logs, Arraignment Sheets, Detainee Input Sheets, and Warrant Tracking Hold Forms. Of the 85 cases we reviewed where an arraignment warrant was submitted, all but three met the 48-hour requirement. One of the cases contained the required auditable form, but the OIC indicated a 16:45 arrest time, when the actual arrest was made at 04:45. This error put the warrant submittal to the prosecutor past the 48-hour requirement, and the OIC failed to indicate the submittal was late. The time entry error caused the commander reviewing the form not being aware of the lateness. In another case, an auditable form was generated for the arraignment exceeding the 48hour requirement but not for the warrant being submitted to the prosecutor on time. When the commanding officer reviewed the auditable form the arrest time and time of the warrant submittal was clear and she should have made notice it was in violation. In the remaining case the auditable form was completed for failing to submit the warrant request timely and lateness of arraignment, but it was completed 48 hours late. DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement remains at 97%.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U51
The DPD shall document on an auditable form all instances in which the request for an arraignment warrant is submitted more than 48 hours after the arrest. The DPD shall also document on an auditable form all instances in which it is not in compliance with the prompt judicial review policy and in which extraordinary circumstances delayed the arraignment. The documentation shall occur by the end of the shift in which there was: 1) a failure to request an arraignment within 48 hours, 2) a failure to comply with the prompt judicial review policy, or 3) an arraignment delayed by extraordinary circumstances.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 60 of 193 Pg ID 8963

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 59

January 16, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with these requirements, we reviewed the same documents referenced in U50. Of the 106 arrest case reports we reviewed, there were 85 that began at the initial arrest and in which a warrant was submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office for arraignment. There were three cases where there were issues with the submittal of warrants to the prosecutor. We excluded cases that involved warrant arrests, juvenile arrests, and traffic cases.
There were 62 detainees who went to arraignment and 35 of these where the arraignment occurred more than 48 hours from the time of the initial arrest. In all cases except one, an auditable form was completed timely. In one other case, a sergeant approved and signed the auditable form instead of a commanding officer. As in the last reporting period, there were three instances where the warrant submittal to the prosecutor was late or did not exist. When the commanding officer reviews the auditable form, s/he must inspect the document to ensure that the OIC is dating or placing the time the event was recognized. On January 11, 2011, we reviewed a Departmental Message that indicated UF-004/007 had been combined and entered into MAS. The new form has a designated box for the OIC to place the date and time the form is generated and areas to indicate the time the warrant was submitted and the detainee arraigned. If the commanding officer reviews the dates and times of the events prior to approval, determining compliance is straightforward. We have observed that the new form is being utilized properly and the before mentioned issues have been resolved.
DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement for the current reporting period is 96%, an increase from the previous quarter’s 95%. In our previous reports, we determined that Department personnel occasionally delay completing the warrant submittal unnecessarily (although it is within the 48-hour timeframe), and thus arraignments are often delayed. Our reviews determined that occasionally a full workday (Monday through Friday) elapses prior to those documents being processed and forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office, or they are submitted at the last hour. DPD must strive to submit the documentation to the Prosecutor’s Office in a more timely fashion.
As we noted previously, the elimination of evening arraignments by the 36th District Court of the State of Michigan will continue to be problematic for DPD in its ability to arraign detainees within the 48-hour time requirement.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 61 of 193 Pg ID 8964

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 60

January 16, 2013

E. Hold Policies
CJ Requirement U52
The DPD shall revise its hold policies to define a hold as that term is defined in this Agreement and require that all holds be documented. This policy shall establish a timely and systematic process for persons in DPD custody who have holds issued by a City of Detroit court to have those holds cleared by presenting the arrestee to the court from which the warrant was issued or the setting and posting of bond where applicable. The fact that an arrestee has not been arraigned or charged in the current arrest shall not delay this process.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U53; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U53
The DPD shall document all holds, including the time each hold was identified and the time each hold was cleared. The DPD shall document on an auditable form each instance in which a hold is not cleared within 48 hours of the arrest. The documentation shall occur within 24 hours of each instance of a hold not being cleared.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In previous reporting periods, DPD was not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, due to holds/warrants not being cleared and the auditable form not being prepared. In the last reporting period, the Department’s compliance rate with this requirement was 86%.
To assess compliance with the requirements, we reviewed 106 Detainee Input Sheets, and found a total of 52 holds/warrants listed on the forms. In our previous reports, we noted satisfactory completion of the auditable forms for those holds exceeding 48 hours and the detainee still in custody. Form (DPD UF004-007, revised June 2009) was created and contains appropriate indications for officers to identify more than one violation of the Prompt Judicial Review Policies. DPD personnel must be aware that if an arraignment occurs more than 48 hours after an arrest and the detainee has an outstanding hold/warrant, there is a likelihood that the warrant may not be cleared within the requirement and both boxes should be checked. There can also be an issue if the warrant submittal for the outstanding arrest is denied by the prosecutor and there is a hold on the detainee. In these cases, DPD has an expectation that the hold(s) will be addressed at the arraignment on the current charge; and if the warrant is denied, the detainee may be presented to the judge at the next available arraignment opportunity.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 62 of 193 Pg ID 8965

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 61

January 16, 2013

Our review of the data requested in our sample during this reporting period indicated a reversal of DPD’s previous progress. Of the 52 holds during the reporting period, six of them were not in compliance. All six simply were not indicated on the Warrant Tracking Form, when in most cases, the arraignment occurring after 48 hours from time of arrest was marked or the warrant denied mark was indicated.
DPD personnel advised us that the commander of the precinct – or, in the absence of the commander, the lieutenant on duty – receives the Warrant Tracking Form only when violations occur and the form is completed and forwarded by the OIC or a supervisor. Reviewing command personnel do not receive the entire package, and assume all violations are properly indicated when they review and approve the forms. When the supervisors receive and review the form from the OIC, they must ensure that it is complete prior to forwarding it for command review. The failure of personnel to indicate detainees being held with outstanding holds has increased since the general investigative operations units were merged. DPD has devised a method of ensuring the holds are either cleared or the required auditable form has been generated. We will monitor closely if these issues are resolved during the next reporting period.
On May 25, 2012 DPD issued Administrative Message (Teletype 12-0400) advising all personnel of the proper procedure to ensure that auditable forms for arraignments and holds/warrants exceeding the 48-hour requirement are processed according to DPD policy.
As we have noted previously, the lack of DPD personnel properly indicating the date and time that holds/warrants are identified/cleared and generating the required auditable forms for violations continues to be problematic for the Department. If personnel would properly complete the required information contained on the Detainee Input Sheet, the existing problems would be resolved. DPD’s compliance rate for this requirement remains is at 89%, an increase from the 86% registered during the last reporting period. This is the second consecutive reporting period in which DPD has not been in compliance with this paragraph; therefore, it is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

F. RESTRICTION POLICIES
CJ Requirement U54
The DPD shall develop a policy regarding restricting detainee’s access to telephone calls and visitors that permits individuals in DPD custody access to attorneys and reasonable access to telephone calls and visitors.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U55; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 63 of 193 Pg ID 8966

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 62

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U55
The DPD shall require that such restrictions be documented and reviewed at the time the restriction is issued and reevaluated each day in which the restriction remains in effect. The DPD shall document on an auditable form any violation of the restriction policy by the end of the shift in which the violation occurred.
Comments:
DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 106 arrest case files and did not identify any restrictions. During our most recent site visit, we reviewed one restriction that was active and in compliance. DPD personnel advise us that restricting a detainee’s access to visitors, attorneys, and the use of telephone privileges rarely occurs. Personnel may impose a telephone restriction when a detainee makes threatening or harassing calls to individuals outside the facility. There are payphones in each holding facility for the detainees’ use. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

G. Material Witness Policies CJ Requirement U56 The DPD shall revise its material witness policies to define material witness as that term is defined in this Agreement and remove the term “police witness” from DPD policies and procedures. Comments: DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent on the implementation of U57; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 64 of 193 Pg ID 8967

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 63

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement U57
The DPD shall obtain a court order prior to taking a material witness into DPD custody. The DPD shall document on an auditable form the detention of each material witness and attach a copy of the court order authorizing the detention.
Comments:
DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, we reviewed all of DPD’s requests to the Court for taking a material witness into custody for the period of July 1, through September 30, 2012. The auditable form, approved by a supervisor, was attached to the Court order in the two cases presented to the Court. The Court order was issued by a Judge in the 36th District Court of the State of Michigan prior to the witnesses’ detention.
As a result of some issues discovered during our April 2012 site visit relating to where all material witness documentation should be held, DPD issued Teletype 12-322 (April 27, 2012) formalizing a process that ensures that the Office of Civil Rights will serve as the repository for these forms. In addition, DPD issued Roll Call Informational Bulletin (12-17) reinstructing personnel the required procedure for filing these forms. DPD’s compliance rate is 100%.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

H. Documentation of Custodial Detention CJ Requirement U58 The DPD shall revise its arrest and detention documentation to require, for all arrests, a record or file to contain accurate and auditable documentation of:
a. the individual’s personal information; b. the crime(s) charged; c. the time and date of arrest and release; d. the time and date the arraignment was submitted; e. the name and badge number of the officer who submitted the arraignment; f. the time and date of arraignment; was lodged and cleared, if applicable; g. the time each warrant was lodged and cleared, if applicable; and h. the individual’s custodial status, e.g., new arrest, material witness or extradition. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 65 of 193 Pg ID 8968

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 64

January 16, 2013

DPD has been in compliance with this paragraph in all of the previous reporting periods. To assess Phase 2 compliance during this reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 106 arrest case files where a Detainee Input Sheet was completed that contained personal information about the detainee, charges, holds/warrants, and other supporting data. We used the 62 cases where an arraignment occurred to determine compliance due to all eight elements of this paragraph being included. The contained documents included Detainee Input Sheets, Warrant Verification Logs, Arraignment Logs, and Livescan forms. In the majority of instances, the: (a) individual’s personal information; (b) crime[s] charged; (c) date and time of arrest and release; (d) time and date the arraignment was submitted; (f) time and date of arraignment, if applicable; (g) time and date each warrant was lodged and cleared; and (h) individual’s custodial status; were listed on one of the applicable forms.
In four cases, the officers failed to include all relevant detainee personal information (U58a) on the Detainee Input Sheet. All other required information was properly documented. We examined each case for compliance with the eight individual requirements, and found an overall compliance rate of 99%, the same as in the last reporting period. DPD has been in compliance with this paragraph in all previous reporting periods.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

I. Command Notification
CJ Requirement U59
The DPD shall require the commander of the precinct and, if applicable, of the specialized unit, to review in writing all reported violations of DPD arrest, investigatory stop and frisk, witness identification and questioning policies and all reports of arrests in which an arraignment warrant was not sought. The commander’s review shall be completed within 7 days of receiving the document reporting the event. The commander’s review shall include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In our previous reports, we did not find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement, noting the lack of auditable forms, the lack of documented reasonable suspicion for frisks, and an inadequate supervisory review of Officer’s Daily Activity Logs.
In our review of 106 arrests during this reporting period, we determined that all properly documented probable cause. In those situations where a warrant is not sought or a warrant is denied on an arrestee, supervisors should scrutinize the arrest packets to ensure that the elements required for a valid arrest are documented.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 66 of 193 Pg ID 8969

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 65

January 16, 2013

We reviewed 51 frisks, and determined that 45 met the requirement; however, the supervisors did not complete the required auditable forms for any of the violations. In recent reporting periods, DPD has generated auditable forms for violations of this paragraph relating to frisks. The failure of supervisors to review and recognize frisks in violation of policy and to complete the required auditable forms continues to be problematic for DPD with maintaining compliance with U45. In order to be lawful, a stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion and narrowly tailored in scope and duration to the reasons supporting the seizure. During a limited seizure, the officer may conduct a frisk if s/he has reasonable suspicion to believe that the suspect may have the means to do harm. While supervisors do review the officers’ Daily Activity Logs, they should also be challenging officers to articulate the reason for the stops/frisks. The officers, in some cases, are only noting the stops.
Our review of traffic stops determined that officers’ abilities to accurately describe the actions that led to the stop are compliant; however, there were no auditable forms generated for the five traffic stops in which a form was required to be completed. Commanders are not receiving the forms due to supervisors not completing them.
There were 75 investigatory stops (excluding frisks and traffic stops), of which 72 were based on a documented investigatory purpose.
There were 19 cases where documentation was completed indicating that an arraignment warrant was not sought and auditable forms were completed and contained appropriate command review. In one of the cases the auditable form was completed five weeks after the arrest and corrective action was taken. In all cases, a commanding officer approved the form and attached his/her signature including the date of review. We have observed DPD’s progress with commanders’ oversight as it relates to warrants not served.
We reviewed 235 witness/interrogation interviews from Central Investigative Command and the Sex Crimes Unit. The Department has made progress with commanders’ reviews of warrants not sought and witness identification and questioning policies. We reviewed 19 auditable forms (warrants not served, witness interviews and investigatory stops) under this paragraph that were sent to commanders for review or prepared by commanders. Under this paragraph, DPD commanders have seven days to review the requirements from time of receipt; compliance should not be an issue.
DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement for this reporting period is 98%, an increase over the 80% registered in the last reporting period.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 67 of 193 Pg ID 8970

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 66

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement U60
The DPD shall require the commander of the precinct, and, if applicable, of the specialized unit, to review in writing all violations of DPD prompt judicial review, holds, restrictions and material witness policies on a daily basis. The commander’s review shall include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 106 arrest case reports, of which 89 were submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office and 62 went to arraignment. There were 41 cases where the arraignment occurred more than 48 hours after the arrest.
In all but three cases, the request for the warrant was submitted in a timely fashion. In one instance an auditable form was completed and command review occurred. There was no command review in the other two cases, as the auditable form had not been prepared.
In the 62 cases that went to arraignment, 35 of these were arraigned more than 48 hours after arrest, and auditable forms were completed. In the only exception, a sergeant conducted the commander’s review. We noted previously that OCR sent Corrective Action Notices to commanders who failed to review the auditable forms within the allotted time constraints. DPD’s compliance rate for this portion of the requirement is 98%.
Of the 52 hold/warrants that we identified, there were 21 holds that were not cleared within the required 48 hours. In 15 instances, the Warrant Tracking Form was properly completed and forwarded to the commander for review; in six cases, the “hold” box was not marked indicating a hold over 48 hours. There were two material witnesses taken into custody during this reporting period, and all required auditable forms were completed.
Under this paragraph, there were a total of 53 auditable forms reviewed by the commander. In one instance the command review was signed off by a sergeant. The paragraph requires a commanding officer review. During a previous site visit, we met with the commanders and advised them of the issue with late reviews. In the event of a commander’s absence from the district or precinct, the on-duty commanding officer (lieutenant or above) has the authority to review and sign off on the auditable forms. They serve as precinct commanders during that timeframe.
DPD’s overall compliance rate for this paragraph is 98%, an increase over the 96% that we found in the last reporting period. There was one restriction placed on detainees during this reporting period.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 68 of 193 Pg ID 8971

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 67

January 16, 2013

Critical Issues:
• The delay of warrant request to the Prosecutor’s Office often delays the arraignment for more than 48 hours; and thus, if there is a hold attached to the warrant, both the arraignment and the hold require an auditable form creating additional work for DPD personnel and the opportunity for failure. We have stressed this issue with DPD in previous site visits and our quarterly reports.
• If warrant submittals to the prosecutor were made within 24 hours of arrest the number of holds and arraignments would be reduced significantly; thus reducing the number of auditable forms by a similar margin.
• Our review of investigative stops found that officers often fail to articulate “reasonable suspicion” in accordance with DPD policy requiring written documentation of all investigatory stops and frisks. The supervisory monitoring of stops and frisks has declined during the previous two reporting periods due to a few sergeants being lax during their reviews of subordinates’ work. During previous reporting periods, we received auditable forms for violations of the investigatory stop policies but this quarter did not receive any. Supervisors must carefully review officers’ Daily Activity Logs and complete auditable forms when they are required.
• District/precinct commanders must ensure that auditable forms are completed and forwarded promptly for their review, and advise their lieutenants that they have the authority to review and sign auditable forms under C60 in their absence.
• District/precinct commanders must not allow sergeants to review and approve auditable forms that the commander is required to review. During the previous reporting period, an investigator (not a supervisor) approved 16 witness interview forms; and in this quarter, a sergeant approved an auditable form for a violation of the prompt judicial review policy when command review is required.
• The most critical issues affecting DPD in complying with the Arrest and Detention paragraphs is the inability of sergeants to review investigatory stops and complete the auditable form when the violation occurs and the failure of the OIC to indicate on the Warrant Tracking Hold Form those situations when a detainee is held for more than 48 hours on an outstanding hold/warrant. It is not OCR’s responsibility to issue corrective action in the districts/precincts. All issues and violations of policy should be addressed in the individual commands by the Commander’s prior to being reviewed by OCR and then the Monitor.
Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Meet with DPD’s Civil Rights Integrity Bureau (CRIB) to discuss our investigatory stop concerns, and the timeliness of commanders’ reviews as it relates to auditable forms that require daily review. Completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of all reports and auditable

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 69 of 193 Pg ID 8972

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 68

January 16, 2013

forms continue to affect field units and the quality of administrative review. We will discuss issues remaining concerning personnel who are not authorized to review and approve forms.
• Review other investigative units to determine their compliance with interrogations, interviews, conveyances, and material witness policies. During our April site visit, DPD had drafted a plan to centralize its general investigative units and the plan was implemented during this reporting period and should have resolved the issue of timeliness with command reviews of auditable forms and the inability of some OIC’s to properly complete the Warrant Tracking Hold Form (UF004-007). While command reviews have been exceptional, the ability of personnel completing the form needs to improve.
• Observe personnel who are responsible for the detainee booking process; interview them regarding procedures for detailing when holds/warrants are identified and cleared; and inquire as to their role in ensuring how auditable forms are prepared in a timely fashion. Our review of documentation for this reporting period indicated a high number of instances where holds exceeded the 48-hour requirement and where the Warrant Tracking Forms were not completed. We advised CRIB of this issue during our July and October 2012 site visit.
• Meet with the commanders of each district and precinct to discuss issues relating to auditable forms and their role in ensuring compliance. During our visits in the field, we have had only one district/precinct commander to ask our Team members what we have found during our inspections.
• Inquire with DPD if any additional processes have been enacted to address the dilemma that occurs when a hold has been previously placed on an arrestee, and the warrant request to the Prosecutor’s Office on the current charge has been denied. The concern for DPD in these instances creates a delay in presenting the hold for arraignment within 48 hours only on the basis of the hold. In our reviews, this issue has been and remains a problematic, in that holding cell personnel tend to utilize the time of release on clearing a hold – rather than simply writing in the date and time in the space provided on the form. In a few cases, we are finding that when an arraignment occurs more than 48 hours after the arrest and the OIC is completing the auditable form for the late arraignment, the OIC is failing to mark the box on the same form for a hold not being cleared. In some cases, a sergeant is reviewing the auditable form and not ensuring that the OIC (who prepared the document) is marking the hold over 48-hour box. This issue has not been resolved.

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

42

Define and prohibit arrest without probable cause

In Compliance

43 Review all arrests for probable cause

In Compliance

44 Revise investigatory stop-and-frisk policy

In Compliance

45 Written account of stops and frisks

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 70 of 193 Pg ID 8973

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 69

January 16, 2013

46 Revise witness policies 47 Revise above in three months 48 Document content, etc. of interviews, etc. 49 Arrests receive prompt judicial review 50 Charges to Prosecutor within 48 hours 51 Document of late warrant requests 52 Revise hold policies 53 Documentation of all holds 54 Policy for restricting telephone access 55 Document and review such restrictions 56 Define material witness 57 Custody of material witnesses-court order 58 Arrests and detention record requirements 59 Required written review of violations 60 Required written review of violations

In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS
The stated mission of the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) is to assure the public’s trust and confidence in DPD by conducting thorough and impartial investigations into allegations of criminality and serious misconduct lodged against members of the Department, as well as other City of Detroit employees. IAD is charged with the prevention, discovery, and investigation of criminal allegations and allegations of serious misconduct against Department members and City employees who are assigned within the DPD; IAD is responsible for all external complaints alleging possible criminal misconduct.
Consistent with this obligation, IAD accepts information from any source; and requires that all officers and employees document all complaints filed in writing, verbally, in person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile, or by electronic mail.
During our most recent site visit, we examined the investigative procedures employed by IAD for consistency in the application of procedural fairness, timeliness, confidentiality, and the meticulous reporting of facts and results of an investigation. The IAD Standard Operating Procedures were revised in January 2011 to include Section 5-8, Case Tracking.
The Office of the Chief Investigator (OCI) is the investigative arm of the Board of Police Commissioners (BOPC). OCI is responsible for investigating non-criminal external complaints. The Board has plenary authority over citizen complaints. OCI operates independently of the Detroit Police Department and is led by a civilian Chief Investigator who is appointed by the BOPC. OCI is staffed with a combination of civilian and sworn investigators who assist in the

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 71 of 193 Pg ID 8974

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 70

January 16, 2013

investigation of citizen complaints. OCI’s mission is to provide meaningful and objective investigations of citizen complaints of police misconduct.
OCI investigates non-criminal allegations of misconduct against Detroit Police Department personnel for the following: Arrest; Demeanor; Entry; Harassment; Force; Procedure; Property; and Search and Seizure. OCI employees are required to accept complaints from any source and by any method of communication including in writing, verbally, in person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile, or by electronic mail. Members of the public may also file complaints at the BOPC office or at BOPC meetings.
During our most recent site visit, we met with the BOPC Staff, the Acting Chief Investigator, and supervising investigators assigned to OCI. We discussed the status of overdue investigations in general, and the implementation of the recently adopted backlog elimination plan. We also attended case review meetings with all investigative staff.

CJ Requirement U61
The DPD and City shall revise their external complaint policy to clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of OCI and the DPD regarding the receipt, investigation and review of external complaints. At a minimum, the plan shall specify each agency’s responsibility for receiving, recording, investigating and tracking complaints; each agency’s responsibility for conducting community outreach and education regarding complaints; how, when and in what fashion the agencies shall exchange information, including complaint referrals and information about sustained complaints.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The established policies and procedures set forth the jurisdictional responsibility of the DPD IAD and OCI.
IAD is charged with the prevention, discovery, and investigation of criminal allegations and allegations of serious misconduct against Department members and City employees who are assigned within the DPD. IAD is responsible for all external complaints alleging possible criminal misconduct.
OCI investigates non-criminal allegations of misconduct against DPD personnel in the following categories: arrest; demeanor; entry; harassment; force; property; search; and service. The established policies and procedures also provide guidance for receiving, recording, tracking, referring, and investigating complaints.
Both IAD and OCI track each open, pending, and closed case by the unique case identifier that is placed on all relevant documentation regarding the specific external complaint and provided to each citizen upon lodging a complaint. Each entity uses a computerized database to record data that is developed concerning external citizen complaints. OCI and IAD continue to enhance the databases; investigators and supervisors now have the ability to make case notes directly into the database. OCI is required to compile a summary of its investigations annually. These summaries are distributed throughout the DPD, to the Board of Police Commissioners, and to the

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 72 of 193 Pg ID 8975

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 71

January 16, 2013

public. In addition, the City displays informational posters in the public areas of all police facilities and public libraries. The City sponsors community meetings and runs public service announcements concerning how to file a citizen’s complaint against the police. Through OCI, the Board of Police Commissioners maintains a community outreach coordinator, who attends meetings and makes presentations at the request of community organizations or public forums. The Board of Police Commissioners website provides access to an OCI fact sheet on external police complaints. The BOPC website also allows the public to file complaints online.
The DPD and the City are in compliance with these requirements.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U62
The DPD and the City shall develop and implement an informational campaign regarding external complaints, including:
a. informing persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any DPD employee;
b. distributing complaint forms, fact sheets and informational posters at City Hall, OCI, all DPD precincts, libraries, on the internet and, upon request, to community groups and community centers;
c. broadcasting public service announcements that describe the complaint process; and
d. posting permanently a placard describing the complaint process, with relevant phone numbers, in the lobby of each DPD precinct
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During previous site visits, we inspected Police Headquarters, the Office of the Chief Investigator, police facilities, libraries, and Neighborhood City Halls for compliance with this paragraph. All locations displayed, in a prominent location, permanent placards that described the complaint process. All desk personnel in the police facilities were able to produce citizen complaint brochures immediately, and were aware that they should not discourage citizens from filing a complaint.
During our most recent site visit, we inspected the Office of the Chief Investigator; the Northeastern and Eastern Districts; and the Second and Twelfth Precincts. We found the appropriate citizen complaint posters, forms, and brochures in place. We contacted desk officers and field officers at each patrol site, and they were able to provide citizen complaint forms and brochures.
We also inspected two libraries: Bowen Branch and Campbell Branch. We found the appropriate posters on display, and adequate supplies of complaint forms and brochures. Employees were well versed on the process for securing replacements.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 73 of 193 Pg ID 8976

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 72

January 16, 2013

Both DPD and OCI conduct community outreach programs designed to inform citizens of the complaint process and the procedures for filing complaints. The Board of Police Commissioners website allows the public to file complaints against the police online. The City of Detroit broadcasts public service announcements that describe the complaint process. DPD provided us with the broadcast schedule for the week of our site visit. We also reviewed the October 2012 External Information Campaign Audit of All Districts, which was provided to us during our most recent site visit.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U63
The DPD shall require all officers to carry informational brochures and contact forms in their vehicles at all times while on-duty. The DPD shall develop a contact form within 60 days of the effective date of this Agreement. The contact form shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the contact form within 60 days of the review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall require all officers to inform an individual of his or her right to make a complaint, if an individual objects to an officer’s conduct. The DPD shall prohibit officers from discouraging any person from making a complaint or refusing to take a complaint.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During previous site visits, we reviewed the audits conducted by the DPD Office of Civil Rights regarding citizen complaint informational brochures and contact forms carried in police vehicles, and we randomly selected officers during our field visits to police facilities and asked them to provide the brochures and forms for review. Each officer who we contacted provided the documents upon our request, and was aware of the requirements of the DPD policy concerning citizen complaints.
During this reporting period, we randomly selected both desk officers and patrol officers in the Northeastern and Eastern Districts; and the Second and Twelfth Precincts, and asked them to produce complaint forms and brochures. They were able to do so in each case.
In April, 2012, DPD issued Teletype #12-0300, advising Department employees that the Citizen Complaint Report (CCR), DPD 512, was available in MAS, and that supervisors should no longer use hard copy versions of the report. The form in MAS is to be routed to the member’s inspector or commander, who will electronically approve the CCR and forward same to OCI. The teletype also requires that the supervisor taking the complaint document the complaint information in the “electronic desk blotter,” and that each command maintains a supply of paper forms in the event MAS becomes inoperable. Paper forms can only be used, however, in such circumstances.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 74 of 193 Pg ID 8977

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 73

January 16, 2013

In each location, we reviewed the electronic desk blotters and noted that complaint information was appropriately recorded. We also inspected the supply of paper forms and record books, to be used in the event that MAS is unavailable. Command officers who were interviewed indicated that now that the system has been in operation for a while, some of the difficulties previously reported have been addressed. There also appears to be a greater comfort level with using the system.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

A. Intake and Tracking
CJ Requirement U64
The DPD and the City shall revise their policies regarding the intake and tracking of external complaints to define complaint and misconduct as those terms are defined in this Agreement and require all officers and OCI employees to accept and document all complaints filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our past reviews of IAD and OCI external complaint investigations determined that the complaints were filed using all of the communication facilities identified in this paragraph.
Our review of 37 IAD and 100 OCI investigations for this reporting period again found that complaints were filed using all of the communication methods identified in this requirement. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U65
The DPD and the City shall permit the intake officer or employee to include a factual account and/or description of a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but not an opinion regarding the complainant’s mental competency or veracity.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In our previous reviews, we found no instances where personnel accepting complaints reported any opinions regarding the mental capacity or veracity of the complainant.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 75 of 193 Pg ID 8978

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 74

January 16, 2013

We reviewed 37 IAD and 100 OCI cases for this reporting period. We again found no instances where personnel accepting complaints reported any opinions regarding the mental capacity or veracity of the complainant.
DPD and the City are in compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U66
The DPD and the City shall assign all complaints a unique identifier, which shall be provided to the complainant, and a description of the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy or improper search).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During previous reporting periods, we reviewed closed IAD and OCI external complaint investigations, and found that each investigative file contained a City of Detroit Citizen Complaint Report (CCR), and a letter acknowledging the receipt of the complaint with the name of the assigned investigator and the office contact number.
For this reporting period, we reviewed 37 IAD and 100 OCI investigations. All investigations contained the required information. The letters also provided case-specific identifiers for the complainant to reference when contacting either IAD or OCI. DPD and the City are in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. External Complaint Investigations
CJ Requirement U67
The DPD and the City shall revise its policies regarding external complaint investigations to:
a. provide that all complaints shall be referred for investigation and resolution by OCI or, if the complaint alleges potentially criminal conduct by an officer, by IAD;
b. permit the informal resolution of complaints alleging only inadequate service or the complainant’s innocence of a charge and require the investigation and formal resolution of all other complaints;
c. refer all complaints to the appropriate agency within five business days of their receipt;

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 76 of 193 Pg ID 8979

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 75

January 16, 2013

d. require that the complainant shall be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation;
e. develop written criteria for IAD and OCI investigator applicants, including the applicant’s complaint and disciplinary history and investigative experience;
f. implement mandatory pre-service and in-service training for all IAD and OCI investigators, including intake, investigations, interviews and resolutions of external complaints;
g. require IAD and OCI to complete all investigations within 90 days of receiving the complaint and
h. require that: (1) upon completion of the investigation by a command other than OCI, the complainant shall be notified of its outcome and, if the complaint is sustained, whether disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action has been recommended; and (2) upon completion of an investigation by OCI the complainant shall be notified of its outcome and, if the complaint is sustained, its referral to the Chief of Police for appropriate disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.32
Comments:
Office of the Chief Investigator: For this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected OCI cases. Six cases were transferred to IAD, and one case was transferred to the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office. Five of the IAD cases involved allegations of theft, and one involved the filing of a false report. All were appropriate referrals. The referral to Wayne County involved an allegation of excessive force. The complainant was arrested by the multijurisdictional Auto Theft Task Force, and it was determined that the subject officer was a sheriff deputy. No DPD officers were involved in the arrest. While the transfer was appropriate, it was not referred until four months after the complaint was lodged. Five of the transfers to IAD were not timely, and took between 13 and 40 days to complete.
Nine cases were resolved informally. One of the nine cases did not meet the criteria for an Informal Complaint Resolution (ICR), as it did not involve complaints of inadequate service or innocence of the charge. The complainant alleged that officers inappropriately shot her dog and confiscated her personal firearms. She further alleged that the firearms were being held by DPD for punitive reasons, and should have been returned. OCI classified this as an “innocence of the charge” case, despite the fact that the complainant was not charged with any violation of law.
Six cases in our sample were administratively closed. We determined that three were inappropriately closed via this process. One involved force (handcuffs applied too tightly) and an allegation that officers left the complainant’s children unattended. The other two cases stemmed from the execution of search warrants. In the first, the complainant alleged that the list of items seized was inaccurate. The complainant’s dog was also shot during the incident. These allegations were inappropriately classified as “service complaints.” In the second case, the

32 Amended by Court Order dated September 15, 2008.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 77 of 193 Pg ID 8980

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 76

January 16, 2013

complainant alleged damage to property. The investigator inappropriately characterized this as “innocence of the charge.”
Seventy-one of the 100 cases we reviewed were completed within 90 days, a notable increase from the 37 timely cases during the last review period. Most of the overdue cases were in our July sample. OCI successfully eliminated its backlog of cases during the reporting period, and as of this writing OCI has posted several weekly reports with no cases overdue.
All of the 100 cases we reviewed were referred to OCI within five business days as required by DPD policy; most cases were transferred within one to three days. However, we noted the untimely transfer of cases from OCI to IAD, as described earlier.
In most cases, we noted efforts to keep the complainant informed of case progress. Often, this correspondence involved attempts to encourage uncooperative complainants to participate in their investigations. However, we identified 13 cases in which complainants did not receive update letters after 45 days as required by OCI policy. In all applicable cases, the complainants were notified of the disposition of their cases, and if any allegations were sustained, they were advised that the case was referred to the Chief of Police for appropriate corrective action.
During our previous site visits, we verified ongoing in-service training for OCI personnel. Much of this training occurs in conjunction with other DPD employees. While we do not discourage this practice, we continue to encourage OCI to explore training specific to OCI’s responsibilities, in order to address knowledge and skill gaps that impact the quality of its investigations. The Chief Investigator developed and delivered two excellent training classes: Effective Time and Case Management Techniques, and Conducting the Canvass. Additionally, all personnel received training regarding the Insight Video System, so that they can verify if video is available for a case without going through Tech Support. We also verified that newly hired investigators received appropriate pre-service training.
The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: IAD Standard Operating Procedures do not specifically permit or encourage informal resolution due the nature of their investigative jurisdiction of alleged criminality and/or serious misconduct lodged against Department personnel. Accordingly, IAD investigates and makes findings in each case.
IAD Standard Operating Procedures and OCI policy require that all complaints be referred to the appropriate agency within five business days of their receipt. Historically, we discovered significant delays in transferring appropriate cases from OCI to IAD. During the current reporting period, we reviewed 37 IAD cases, and determined that one case had been referred by OCI. That case was received at IAD 17 business days after it was filed at OCI. The allegation was Assault and Battery/Domestic Violence against a DPD Criminal Investigator.
The IAD Standard Operating Procedures contains criteria for investigator applicants and training. IAD is current in its training requirements. Training on “Statement Analysis” was recently provided to the entire unit plus some members of OCI and Homicide, courtesy of the FBI.
In cases of prolonged investigations, IAD must provide an updated case status to complainants, and upon closure, notify them of the closure, finding(s), and action(s) taken, where appropriate.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 78 of 193 Pg ID 8981

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 77

January 16, 2013

Our review determined that IAD is in compliance with the notifications to complainants upon both the opening and the closure of all investigations.
During our current review of 37 investigations, 12 exceeded the 90-day time limit. Of those, the reviewer determined that six were delayed at the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office awaiting decision to prosecute, and four cases were in State or Federal Court. In the remaining two, one case involved long-term medical fraud, and one case involved embezzlement occurring over a three-year period, which required extensive investigations and resulted in criminal prosecution. All delays were documented and approved by the supervisor. There were no cases that were inappropriately delayed during this period.
DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U68
The DPD and the City shall review and evaluate the external complaint review process to require:
a. the Chief Investigator or his/her designee to complete review of OCI investigations within 7 days of completion of the supervisor’s review;
b. the Board of Police Commissioners to complete review of OCI investigations within 45 days of completion of the Chief Investigator’s review;33 and
c. the Chief of Police or his or her designee to complete his or her review of external complaints within 7 days of completion of the BOPC’s review.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During this reporting period, both the Acting Chief Investigator and then the newly appointed Chief Investigator reviewed all investigations submitted to them within the prescribed seven-day period.
During this reporting period, the Board of Police Commissioners took longer than 45 days to review 161 cases. The Board took between 46 and 235 days to complete the reviews of these cases. Seventeen of these cases involved sustained allegations.
During our most recent site visit, we also reviewed correspondence between OCI and the Chief’s Office showing timely transfer of cases once the Board approves them.

33 Amended by Court Order dated July 18, 2003.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 79 of 193 Pg ID 8982

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 78

January 16, 2013

The City remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. However, if compliance is not achieved during the next reporting period, the City will fall out of compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U69
In addition to the investigatory report and evaluation requirements, each allegation in an administrative external complaint investigation shall be resolved by making one of the following dispositions:
a. “Unfounded,” where the investigation revealed no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred;
b. “Sustained,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur and the actions of the officer violated DPD policies, procedures or training;
c. “Not Sustained,” where there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and
d. “Exonerated,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate DPD policies, procedures or training.
Comments:
During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected OCI cases. For purposes of this paragraph, we evaluated the determination of finding based on the information in each case file. We found four cases in which allegations did not receive appropriate dispositions. In these cases, we learned of the additional allegations by listening to the complainants’ interviews, as they were not mentioned on the original CCR. The allegations were not identified or addressed in the case summaries. As noted in our previous reports, we are concerned with the frequency of this, as we listen only to a small subset of interviews. This is what drives our insistence that supervising investigators either observe interviews conducted by their investigators or listen to recordings afterwards.
Four cases were improperly either administratively or informally closed. Therefore, findings were not reached in these cases. We do not concur with the findings assigned to one or more allegations in 13 cases. At least four involved allegations of improper demeanor. In one, the allegation should have been sustained based on the statements of a partner officer, who supported the complainant’s assertions. In another, the officer basically admitted to the allegation but the finding was not sustained. In still another, the complainant’s allegations appeared to be verified by an independent witness, and this should have resulted in a sustained finding. And finally, demeanor allegations should have been sustained against an Emergency Services Operator, based solely on the recording of the phone calls between her and the complainant.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 80 of 193 Pg ID 8983

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 79

January 16, 2013

We disagreed with unfounded findings in at least five cases. Not sustained findings would have been more appropriate. In four of these cases, there were no independent witnesses or other evidence to support that the allegations did not occur. In the fifth, the interaction was caught on video, but the recording did not start until after the point at which complainant alleged that unnecessary force occurred. The video therefore did not refute the allegation as the investigator claimed.
OCI must not only make one of the findings specified above, but the findings must be consistent with the defined requirements. Accordingly, the City is not in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
In addition, we reviewed all 37 IAD cases – including internal and external complaints – that were completed during this reporting period. During earlier reviews, there were dispositions in each of the investigations. We did not always agree with the dispositions, especially those that were derived from faulty interviews and/or the failure to gather pertinent evidence. When we discussed this issue with IAD personnel, IAD advised that it was making efforts to correct the problems.
During this reporting period, all investigations contained the required dispositions. Included in the 37 investigations were 50 allegations of misconduct. The following is a breakdown of the dispositions of the 50 allegations: 27 sustained; 14 not sustained; nine unfounded, and none exonerated. Based on our review of the investigative documents, we are in agreement with the dispositions. IAD is in compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

Critical Issues:
We examined 37 closed IAD cases and 100 closed OCI cases for the period of July 1, through September 30, 2012. Our review disclosed that the following issues continue to require attention:
• IAD Case Tracking: During the first quarter of 2011, IAD adopted a computer program to aid in tracking its cases. While the system does not alert the users to deadlines, it does allow for communication between the investigator and supervisor. The supervisor recently incorporated a computerized calendar into the process, which notifies her when an assignment date has been reached. Also, cases that are submitted to the Prosecuting attorneys are tracked, and updates are requested on a regular basis. IAD appears to have eliminated the backlog of overdue cases, with the exception of those cases that are awaiting disposition or prosecution at the Prosecutor’s Office. The IAD manager recently met with members of the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office to discuss the viability of the cases still awaiting decisions. Additionally, the Information Technology Unit created a computer program at IAD to consolidate the Garrity interview schedules for all of the investigators.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 81 of 193 Pg ID 8984

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 80

January 16, 2013

• Quality v. Quantity of OCI Investigations: As noted in our past several reports, OCI has been steadily working to address an extremely large backlog of cases. The quality of their investigations suffered, both because of long periods of inactivity and because of the pressure to complete these investigations and get them off of the books. OCI has eliminated the backlog and as of this writing, OCI has no overdue cases. OCI’s Chief Investigator and its Supervising Investigators must now turn their attention to addressing the quality of investigations. During every site visit, we discuss numerous cases in detail from our most recently completed assessment. We note many deficiencies that can be addressed with a thorough review of the cases and independent verification of the content of interviews.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Review a sample of the cases closed by OCI and IAD for the months of October, November, and December 2012.
• Verify implementation of and adherence to the backlog elimination plan filed with the Court.

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 - Policy Phase 2 – Implementation

61 Revise external complaint policies

In Compliance In Compliance

62 Information campaign re complaints

In Compliance In Compliance

63 Officers carry information/contact forms

In Compliance In Compliance

64 Policy to define complaint intake/track

In Compliance In Compliance

65 Permit factual account, no opinion

In Compliance In Compliance

66 Unique identifier for complaints

In Compliance In Compliance

67 Revision of complaint investigations

In Compliance Not in Compliance

68 Time limits for review of investigations/complaints In Compliance In Compliance

69 Required finding categories specified

In Compliance Not in Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 82 of 193 Pg ID 8985

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 81

January 16, 2013

VII. GENERAL POLICIES
This section of the Consent Judgment addresses a variety of issues in general terms. It seeks to ensure that when the DPD develops policies, all the terms used are clearly defined, and that prior to making policy revisions, the DPD posts the proposals on the DPD website to inform the community of the proposed revisions. It requires DPD to advise all of its officers that taking police actions in violation of DPD policies shall subject them to a variety of possible actions, to include disciplinary, criminal prosecution, or civil liability. This section also requires officers to report acts of misconduct by other officers, whether on or off duty. Additionally, this section required DPD to revise its policy regarding police actions by off-duty officers; and to revise the policies on how DPD handles prisoners, to include summoning first aid as necessary, summoning assistance if required, and prohibiting the accompanying of prisoners to the holding cell area. This section also required DPD to develop a foot pursuit policy and to plan for adequate distribution of manpower. DPD has developed the appropriate policies and has achieved implementation.

CJ Requirement U70
In developing and revising the policies discussed in this Agreement, the DPD shall ensure that all terms are clearly defined.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD CRIB Planning Unit is responsible for reviewing and updating all current policies and for ensuring that revisions are consistent with the requirements of the Consent Judgment. With the effective dissemination of Directive 404.1, Definitions, it has ensured that all terms are clearly defined. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U71
The DPD shall continue to make available proposed policy revisions to the community, for their review, comment and education. Such policy revisions shall also be published on the DPD’s website to allow comments to be provided directly to the DPD.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The DPD 36th Quarter Status Report, issued September 30, 2012, reports that during the 13th quarter, the following revisions to Consent Judgment-related directives were disseminated to all members: 102.3, Code of Conduct, effective July 24, 2012; 201.3, Domestic Violence, effective July 11, 2012; 303.3, In-Car Video, effective August 4, 2012; 304.5, Training, effective July 10,

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 83 of 193 Pg ID 8986

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 82

January 16, 2013

2012; 305.4, Holding Cell Area, effective July 6, 2012; and 305.8, Detainee Food Service/Hygiene Items, effective July 19, 2012. Also disseminated to all members was Directive 201.11, Use of Force and Detainee Injury reporting and Investigation, a new directive that was presented to the BOPC and posted on the website. This directive was approved on August 30, 2012 and became effective on that same date. In addition to those directives, we were also advised that DPD 103.5, Secondary Employment, was presented to the BOPC and was posted on the website. It was approved July 12, 2012 and was effective on that date. Directive 305.2, Detainee Registration, a revision, was presented to the BOPC and posted on the website; it was approved on July 26, 2012 and was effective on that date. The two new directives and the revision to 305.2 were presented to the BOPC and posted on the website.34 The DPD did not present the remaining directive revisions to the BOPC or post them on the website as these revisions were not substantive in nature.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U72
The DPD shall advise all officers, including supervisors, that taking police action in violation of DPD policy shall subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for the first quarter of FY 12-13. As of September 30, 2012, 604 members (28%) received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with this requirement.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

34 DPD 201.11, Use of Force and Detainee Injury Reporting and Investigation; and DPD 103.5, Secondary Employment.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 84 of 193 Pg ID 8987

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 83

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement U73
The DPD and the City shall develop a plan for ensuring regular field deployment of an adequate number of supervisors of patrol units and specialized units that deploy in the field to implement the provisions of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the last three reporting periods, we found that 98%, 100%, and 98%, respectively, of the randomly selected platoons and specialized units were in compliance with the required 1:10 ratio of supervisors to officers in patrol and specialized units on the dates surveyed.
During this reporting period, we again surveyed Daily Details for three days selected at random (Monday, July 23; Tuesday, August 21; and Wednesday, September 12, 2012). We found that of the 145 platoons deployed on the three days, 141 (97%) were in compliance with the required 1:10 span of control ratio.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U74
The DPD shall enforce its policies requiring all DPD officers to report any misconduct committed by another DPD officer, whether committed on-duty or off-duty.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for the first quarter of FY 12-13. As of September 30, 2012, 604 members (28%) received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with this requirement. We reviewed no cases during this reporting wherein officer misconduct was or should have been reported. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 85 of 193 Pg ID 8988

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 84

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement U75
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to:
a. provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty DPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem;
b. prohibit off-duty officers from carrying or using firearms or taking police action in situations where an officer’s performance may be impaired or the officer’s ability to take objective action may be compromised; and
c. provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for the first quarter of FY 12-13. As of September 30, 2012, 604 members (28%) received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with this requirement.
On January 19, 2012, the letter to the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police (MACO), requesting that member agencies notify DPD IAD of any off-duty actions involving DPD members in their respective jurisdictions was sent. A copy of the letter was provided to the Monitoring Team.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U76
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding prisoners to:
a. require officers to summon emergency medical services to transport prisoners when the restraints employed indicate the need for medical monitoring;
b. require officers to utilize appropriate precautions when interacting with a prisoner who demonstrates he or she is recalcitrant or resistant, including summoning additional officers, summoning a supervisor and using appropriate restraints; and
c. prohibit arresting and transporting officers from accompanying prisoners into the holding cell area.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 86 of 193 Pg ID 8989

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 85

January 16, 2013

To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for the first quarter of FY 12-13. As of September 30, 2012, 604 members (28%) received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with this requirement.
We also reviewed all 88 Command Level Investigations completed during this reporting period. There were eight cases that occurred in holding facilities. In six of the cases, we found no evidence of arresting/transporting officers accompanying prisoners into the holding cell area (75%). Two of the cases, or 25%, were in violation of the prohibition of entering the cell area. DPD is cautioned that violations of this nature in the next quarter could result in the loss of the Phase 2 compliance status.
DPD remains in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U77
The DPD shall develop a foot pursuit policy to:
a. require officers to consider particular factors in determining whether a foot pursuit is appropriate, including the offense committed by the subject, whether the subject is armed, the location (e.g., lighting and officer familiarity), whether more than one officer is available to engage in the pursuit, the proximity of reinforcements, and the ability to apprehend the subject at a later date;
b. emphasize alternatives to foot pursuits, including area containment, surveillance, and obtaining reinforcements;
c. emphasize the danger of pursuing and engaging a subject with a firearm in hand; and
d. require officers to document all foot pursuits that involve a use of force on a separate, auditable form, such as the use of force report.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for the first quarter of FY 12-13. As of September 30, 2012, 604 members (28%) received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with this requirement.
We reviewed 17 foot pursuits during this reporting period. There were 10 cases in which officers considered alternatives to foot pursuits. Eight of the cases involved foot pursuits of individuals who were armed, though the subjects discarded their weapons during the pursuit. Sixteen of the foot pursuits were documented on the appropriate Use of Force 002 Form.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 87 of 193 Pg ID 8990

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 86

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
• DPD must make an effort to keep officers involved in the arrest or transport of detainees out of the holding cell areas, as this is prohibited by the Judgment and policy.

Next Steps: During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to monitor relevant policy changes, including efforts to address the public’s interest in policy.
• Continue to heed the training requirements inherent in policy development in this area. • Monitor the presence of arresting or transport officers in the holding cell areas.

¶

Requirements

Phase 1 – Phase

2

–

Policy

Implementation

70

Clear definitions in policies

In Compliance In Compliance

71

Proposed policy changes open to comm.

In Compliance In Compliance

72

Advise officers policy violations disciplined In Compliance In Compliance

73

Adequate officer/supervisor ratio

In Compliance In Compliance

74

Enforce misconduct reporting requirements In Compliance In Compliance

75

Revise policies regarding off-duty officers In Compliance In Compliance

76

Revise prisoner-related policies

In Compliance In Compliance

77

Develop foot pursuit policy

In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 88 of 193 Pg ID 8991

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 87

January 16, 2013

VIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
This portion of the Use of Force Consent Judgment addresses several key management areas including the development of a risk management system, audit requirements, including in-car cameras, personnel evaluations, and the reduction of a backload of disciplinary cases. Thirteen of the 28 requirements in this section address the development and use of a comprehensive risk management system.
During this reporting period, the use of video cameras by DPD was severely disrupted due to technical failures that prevented video from being uploaded successfully to the central server where it is stored. Consequently, the storage in the patrol cars quickly filled to capacity, and the mobile units could not store new videos.
The technical failures resulted from issues related to the Department’s gradual replacement of the Insight Video System (IVS) with the more advanced Data911 Video System (D911). The new system presents important improvements that are expected to result in better quality video and audio, as well as enhanced management tools.
By the time of our July 2012 site visit, the mechanical problem had been detected and repaired. Uploading had begun again and indications were that the system was working.

A. Risk Management Database
CJ Requirement U78
The DPD shall devise a comprehensive risk management plan, including:
a. a risk management database (discussed in paragraphs 79-90);
b. a performance evaluation system (discussed in paragraph 91);
c. an auditing protocol (discussed in paragraphs 92-99);
d. regular and periodic review of all DPD policies; and
e. regular meetings of DPD management to share information and evaluate patterns of conduct by DPD that potentially increase the DPD’s liability.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
This paragraph provides an overview of the requirements for the development and implementation of the risk management system, which is described in detail in paragraphs U7999; and the other requirements relating to management and supervision. Progress in particular areas reflected in those requirements is noted in the separate assessments below.
In our last report, DPD was found in compliance with this requirement for the first time. That was achieved with the Department’s use of data normed by the number of arrests made by each officer as part of the process of selection for risk management review. Achieving compliance with this requirement brought the Department into compliance on all risk management related requirements.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 89 of 193 Pg ID 8992

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 88

January 16, 2013

The Department has continued using normed data as part of the process of selection for review by supervisors. The use of that data remains important and supports a finding of continued compliance. The Department now must move forward with building the norming process into documentation and into the computerized selection and review process which will move the process away from its temporary, “done by hand” status as described below. Maintaining compliance will require the continued success with the collection and storage of data, its use, including normed data to identify outliers, competent reviews by supervisors, and appropriate use of monitoring and intervention consistent with the reduction in risk.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U79
The DPD shall enhance and expand its risk management system to include a new computerized relational database for maintaining, integrating and retrieving data necessary for supervision and management of the DPD. Priority shall be given to the DPD obtaining an established program and database. The DPD shall ensure that the risk management database it designs or acquires is adequate to evaluate the performance of DPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts; to manage risk and liability; and to promote civil rights and best police practices. The DPD shall regularly use this data for such review and monitoring.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. Phase 2 compliance with this requirement was recognized following extensive testing of MAS, from which we concluded that the system was capable of meeting the risk management requirements as specified in the Consent Judgment. The Department has continued to work on particular aspects of system development and implementation. To consider compliance we review monthly MAS status reports. For the reporting period, we also review the monthly command reviews documenting the use of MAS and we examine the results of PEERS reviews. As noted below, this material also included PEERS that were returned to supervisors as insufficient. For the current reporting period, we again examined the use of the system, including the input of data, the use of that data, and the identification and review of officers exceeding thresholds established in the system. Based on our review of the continued development and use of this system, we again recognize the achievement of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
We have some concern that the norming process and the use of normed data are not yet fully incorporated into the risk management system. Data norming is not yet reflected in policy and not yet programmed in into the computer system. The system now functions with the use of corrective action notices initiated manually based on analysis of normed data, instead of review notices sent automatically by computer. DPD is in the process of incorporating the needed changes into the computer system.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 90 of 193 Pg ID 8993

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 89

January 16, 2013

During our meetings with the Department for the quarterly review we also discussed the need to consider the repeated review cases in which intervention is not successful at changing behavior. The Department recognizes the need to identify these, be sure supervisors and administrators are aware of them and to develop alternative approaches to risk reduction in those cases.
The Department will develop an approach to addressing this issue. The recognition of the importance of this reflects the Departments approach to continued analysis and their commitment to continuous improvement of the risk management process.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U80 The new risk management database shall collect and record the following information:
a. all use of force reports and use of force investigations; b. all canine deployments;
c. all canine apprehensions; d. all canine bites;
e. all canisters of chemical spray issued to officers; f. all injured prisoner reports and injured prisoner investigations;
g. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct” or “interfering with a city employee;”
h. all firearm discharge reports and firearm discharge investigations;
i. all incidents in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target; j. all complaints and complaint investigations, entered at the time the complaint is filed and
updated to record the finding; k. all preliminary investigations and investigations of alleged criminal conduct;
l. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the City, or its officers, or agents, resulting from DPD operations or the actions of DPD personnel, entered at the time proceedings are initiated and updated to record disposition;
m. all vehicle and foot pursuits and traffic collisions; n. all reports regarding arrests without probable cause or where the individual was
discharged from custody without formal charges being sought;

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 91 of 193 Pg ID 8994

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 90

January 16, 2013

o. all reports regarding investigatory stops and/or frisks unsupported by reasonable suspicion;
p. all reports regarding interviews, interrogations or conveyances in violation of DPD policy;
q. the time between arrest and arraignment for all arrests;
r. all reports regarding a violation of DPD prompt judicial review policy;
s. all reports regarding a violation of DPD hold policy;
t. all restrictions on phone calls or visitors imposed by officers;
u. all instances in which the DPD is informed by a prosecuting authority that a declination to prosecute any crime was based, in whole or in part, upon concerns about the credibility of a DPD officer or that a motion to suppress evidence was granted on the grounds of a constitutional violation by a DPD officer;
v. all disciplinary action taken against officers;
w. all non-disciplinary corrective action required of officers, excluding administrative counseling records;
x. all awards and commendations received by officers;
y. the assignment, rank, and training history of officers; and
z. firearms qualification information of officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
We continue to find that the expected information is present for all the mandated data categories. The totals for data entered during the reporting period for all relevant subtasks are presented below. Our review of MAS reports also supports the fact that these data are consulted and used in the risk management process. We continue to recognize the importance of sound data entry and retention practices and we anticipate further review of specific data elements each reporting period. The data below show that there is a general consistency in the numbers across most categories for the time periods shown.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 92 of 193 Pg ID 8995

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 91

January 16, 2013

U80 Data Requirements – Quarterly Department Totals

S u bta s k

Te xt

7/1-9/30, 10/1-12/31, 1/1-3/31,

2011

2011

2012

4/1-6/30, 7/1-9/30,

2012

2012

a use of force reports

278

254

237

334

267

a use of force investigation

132

100

95

118

107

b canine deployments

15

15

6

7

3

c canine apprehension

6

4

0

1

2

d canine bites

0

0

0

0

1

f injured prisoner reports

13

18

9

17

16

g injured prisoner investigations

13

18

9

17

15

g force and arrests for resisting arrest

116

99

101

120

126

g force and arrests for assault on an officer

58

36

43

65

52

g force and arrests for disorderly conduct

42

27

14

31

21

g force and arrests for interfering with city employee

32

11

5

16

12

h firearm discharge reports

7

6

10

8

15

h firearm discharge investigations

7

4

7

8

15

i officer draws a firearm & acquires target

18

12

30

43

21

j Complaints

307

264

272

232

286

k investigations of criminal misconduct by officers

15

0

10

0

0

l. criminal proceedings against members

0

2

1

3

3

l. all civil lawsuits

8

34

25

18

48

m vehicle pursuits

42

81

45

40

21

m foot pursuits

14

14

9

35

16

m traffic collisions

34

35

43

36

28

n reports of arrests w/o probable cause

2

10

0

0

0

n individuals discharged from custody w/o charges

N/A

555

509

610

529

Frisks=146 Frisks=63 Frisks=21 Frisks=13 Frisks=2 o investigatory stops and frisks w/o reasonable suspicion
Stops=54 Stops=10 Stops=12 Stops=6 Stops=6

Interviews= Interviews=1 Interviews= Interviews=0, Interviews

33,

8,

11,

=1,

In t erro gat io n

p reports of interviews, interrogation, or conveyances Interrogatio Interrogation Interrogatio

=0,

In t erro gat i

in viol of policy

n=15

=10,

n=6,

Conveyances on=0,

Conveyanc Conveyances Conveyance

=0

Conveyanc

es=4

=0

s=0

es=0

r reports of violations of prompt judicial review

891

841

848

829

765

s reports of violation of DPD hold policy

134

97

111

189

350

t reports of restrictions on phone calls or visits

27

1

15

18

15

u report of declination to prosecute due to police

0

0

0

0

0

conduct or suppressed evidence

v disciplinary action taken against officers

37

42

70

15

41

w non-disciplinary corrective action

188

299

463

131

228

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 93 of 193 Pg ID 8996

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 92

January 16, 2013

Note: Under o (Stops and Frisks), only those for which no reasonable suspicion is reported are collected in MAS.
The quarterly review of these data provides a means by which the Department can assess DPD activity and also examine the quality of information entered into MAS. This analysis continues to indicate that the appropriate data are collected and entered into the risk management system.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U81
The new risk management database shall include, for each incident, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (including name, pension number, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (including race, ethnicity or national origin, sex, and age).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
As noted in our past four reports, DPD has resolved issues around reporting information regarding citizens connected with reported incidents. That data continues to be entered into MAS appropriately. The data on officers also continues to be reliably entered and maintained.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U82
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management database and addressing data storage. The Data Input Plan shall:
a. detail the specific fields of information to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise);
b. specify the unit responsible for inputting data, the deadlines for inputting the data in a timely, accurate, and complete manner;
c. specify the historical time periods for which information is to be input and the deadlines for inputting the data in an accurate and timely fashion; and
d. requires that the data be maintained in a secure and confidential manner.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 94 of 193 Pg ID 8997

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 93

January 16, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The Department’s revised Data Input Plan was approved by the Department of Justice in a letter dated June 9, 2011. Our observations and interviews with DPD continue to support the conclusion that the provisions of the Data Input Plan are reflected in the practices of the Department.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U83
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Report Protocol for the risk management database that details the types of routine reports the DPD shall generate and pattern identifications the DPD shall conduct. The Report Protocol shall:
a. require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria:
i. number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
ii. average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and
iii. identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
b. establish thresholds for the numbers and types of incidents requiring a review by an officer’s supervisor of whether the officer or group of officers is engaging in at-risk behavior (in addition to the regular reviews required by paragraph 84); and
c. require the database to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The Department’s revised Report Protocol was also approved by the Department of Justice in a letter dated June 9, 2011. Our observations and interviews with DPD continue to support the conclusion that the provisions of the Report Protocol are reflected in the practices of the Department. To consider this, we also examine command monthly reviews in MAS, and confirm both the availability and use of the MAS data at the command level. As in previous quarters, during our most recent site visit, members of the Monitoring Team attended the Command Compliance Review Meeting and observed the use of information from MAS.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 95 of 193 Pg ID 8998

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 94

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U84
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Review Protocol for using the risk management database that addresses data analysis, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and auditing. The Review Protocol shall require:
a. that when an officer or group of officers pass a threshold established in the Report Protocol the officer’s(s’) supervisor shall review all information in the risk management database regarding the officer(s), together with other relevant information;
b. the reviewing supervisor to document whether he or she took non-disciplinary corrective action or recommended disciplinary action, the basis for this decision, and what corrective action was taken, if any;
c. supervisors to review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, database reports, together with other relevant information, to evaluate individual officer and unit activity for at-risk behavior;
d. precinct and unit commanders to review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, database reports, together with other relevant information, to evaluate individual supervisor’s assessment and analysis of information in the risk management database and the corrective action taken by supervisors;
e. appropriate DPD supervisors to review and evaluate, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, police performance citywide, using all relevant information from the risk management database and other relevant information and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all DPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents;
f. commanders and supervisors conducting such periodic reviews to take non-disciplinary corrective action when appropriate for individual officers, supervisors or units and document any such action in writing;
g. that the information in the database be accessible to commanders, supervisors and the BPC;
h. that the information in the database is considered when evaluating a DPD employee for transfer or promotion;
i. commanders and supervisors to promptly review records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units;
j. commanders and supervisors to be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management database to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk;

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 96 of 193 Pg ID 8999

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 95

January 16, 2013

k. that a designated DPD unit be responsible for managing and administering the database, including conducting quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above; and
l. that aggregated information from the risk management database be shared on a regular and periodic basis with training and policy planning staff.

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. As noted in our last report, the Review Protocol was revised, submitted for review and approved by DOJ on June 9, 2011. Interviews with staff assigned to MAS continue to support the conclusion that the review process is being implemented consistent with policy. To further assess that, we examine all Personnel Evaluation and Enhancement Review Sessions (PEERS) completed and signed off in the reporting period for the quarter. The data comparing this reporting period to the previous reporting period are presented below.

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  PEERS	
  and	
  	
  Their	
  Outcomes

July-­‐Sept	
  2011 Oct-­‐Dec

Jan-­‐March	
  2012 April-­‐June	
  2012

Total	
  PEERS

93

77

63

68

No	
  Action	
  Needed

65	
  (70%)

67	
  (87%)

53	
  (84%)

55	
  (81%)

Monitoring

10	
  (11%)

7	
  (9%)

8	
  (13%)

8	
  (12%)

Other/Pending

18	
  (19%)

4	
  (5%)

2	
  (3%)

5	
  	
  (7%)

July	
  1-­‐SePt	
  30 58
41	
  (84%) 6	
  	
  (12%) 2	
  (4%)

PEERS	
  returned	
  for	
  

correction	
  or	
  

N/A

9	
  supervisors	
   12	
  supervisors	
   3	
  supervisors	
  5	
   3	
  supervisors	
  5	
  

33	
  reviews 13	
  reviews

reviews

reviews

completion

In 58 completed PEERS, supervisors and command staff found no need for action in 41 (84%) of cases. They assigned officers to be monitored in six (12%) of cases. They did not report taking informal action (training recommendations, additional review) in any cases. Two cases had not completed the process during the reporting period. Overall, the outcomes of the PEERS are similar to those of the last reporting period. Recommendations for monitoring were the result of approximately the same percentage of reviews across the three reporting periods.
The figures above continue to make it clear that MAS is being utilized. Our review of PEERS again indicates that many supervisors appear to be thorough in their reviews, and command personnel appear to scrutinize PEERS decisions appropriately. As part of the quality control process, the Risk Management Unit continuously examines the PEERS processes for delays, incomplete reviews and insufficient detail or inappropriate outcomes. When concerns arise, the unit issues corrective action notices (CANs) to supervisors. The risk management unit also

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 97 of 193 Pg ID 9000

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 96

January 16, 2013

critically reviews reports of monitoring that result from PEERS reviews. They identify inadequate interventions or documentation and seek corrections.
In previous reports, we expressed our concern that the volume of cases where no intervention is needed could indicate that the system is not sufficiently efficient at identifying officers engaged in high-risk behavior. Those concerns are being addressed as the Department moves forward with the selection of officers for review based on normed data and moves away from using a set number of indicators as the selection criteria. The Department has also developed a process of reviewing cases identified for review to assure that the process is focused on officers displaying patterns of risk relevant behavior. The two processes noted here should continue to allow the Department to focus its resources appropriately.
All of the above data indicate the system is heavily used and carefully administered in a manner consistent with risk reduction goals. We are again pleased to see the ongoing efforts to improve this process. The use of risk management data through the command accountability meeting process illustrates the value of this system to the daily management of DPD.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U85
The DPD shall seek to ensure that the risk management database is created as expeditiously as possible. As part of this effort, the DPD, in consultation with the DOJ, shall organize the risk management database into modules in developing the Data Input Plan, the Report Protocol, the Review Protocol and the Request for Proposals and in negotiating with contractors, such that difficulties with one aspect of the risk management database do not delay implementation of other modules.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the current reporting period, there have been no changes that would affect the compliance status with this requirement. The Department continues its processes of development and improvement of the risk management system in a manner consistent with expectations. It is in the process of incorporating norming procedures in its governing documents and the operation of the computerized database. It produces regular reports of the system status and any revisions or improvements that have been made. These are discussed during our quarterly site visits.
DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 98 of 193 Pg ID 9001

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 97

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement U86
Where information about a single incident is entered into the risk management database from more than one document (e.g., from a complaint form and a use of force report), the risk management database shall use a common control number or other equally effective means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. DPD has addressed the need for a common control number or other equally effective means of connecting information across reports of a single incident by developing an algorithm to link documents in the database. The system links documents using as many as nine variables. These include such elements as identifying information on officers and civilians involved in the incident, the date of the event, and the Crisnet number. DPD also incorporated a box to check to retrieve “related documents” directly on the appropriate MAS computer screens. This has proven a successful solution to this technical problem.
DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U87
The City shall maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management database during the officer’s employment with the DPD and for at least five years after separation. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in the risk management database.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The Phase 2 compliance finding for this requirement remains unchanged. The required data are accessible through MAS, and the five-year retention policy on personal information is in place.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 99 of 193 Pg ID 9002

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 98

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement U88
The new risk management database shall be developed and implemented according to the following schedule:
a. By January 24, 2008, the City shall have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management database consisting of: 1) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the City and DPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary database software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the information system completed, including historic data. The DOJ and the Monitor shall have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using new and historical data and test data created specifically for the purposes of checking the risk management database.
b. The risk management database shall be operational and fully implemented by July 24, 2008.
c. The parties and the independent monitor shall meet on a monthly basis to discuss what actions have been taken during the previous month toward development of the new risk management database.
d. The defendant shall present to the plaintiff and the independent monitor, on a monthly basis, evidence of satisfactory progress sufficient to justify a conclusion that completion of the new risk management database by August 11, 2008 remains feasible. If at any time the plaintiff concludes that successful completion of the project within the timeframes described in this paragraph is unlikely, the plaintiff shall so notify the Court and the defendant. Within sixty days after receipt of such notice, the defendant shall issue an RFP to develop or complete development of the new risk management database as was required by 88c. of this Consent Judgment before it was amended. In that event, the requirements of paragraphs 88.d., 88.e., 88.f., and 88.g. of this Consent Judgment before it was amended shall be enforced, with dates adjusted as follows: the Review Protocol (paragraph 88.d.) shall be issued within five months after issuance of the RFP; the defendant shall select the contractor (paragraph 88.e) within seven months after issuance of the RFP; the beta version (paragraph 88.f) shall be ready for testing within fifteen months after issuance of the RFP; and the risk management database shall be operational (paragraph 88.g) within twenty-six months after issuance of the RFP.35
e. By May 31, 2004, the DPD shall select the contractor to create the risk management database.
f. By June 30, 2005, the City shall have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management database consisting of: i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the City and DPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary database software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the information system completed, including historic data. The DOJ and the Monitor shall have the opportunity to participate in
35 Amended by Court Orders dated November 9, 2007, and July 22, 2008

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 100 of 193 Pg ID 9003

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 99

January 16, 2013

testing the beta version using new and historical data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management database.
g. The risk management database shall be operational and fully implemented by December 31, 2005.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. All of the timeframes and dates specified in the original Consent Judgment and later extended by the Court have expired. Currently, DPD files MAS update reports on a monthly basis. These reports document continued progress in the development and implementation of the risk management system. The schedule set by this requirement is recognized as obsolete; and its original intention has been met and is monitored through the monthly MAS reports produced by the Department.
Accordingly, DPD is, again, in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U89
Prior to implementation of the new risk management database, the DPD shall develop an interim system to identify patterns of conduct by DPD officers or groups of officers. The interim system shall require periodic reviews of relevant information, but no less than monthly, and evaluations of whether an officer or group of officers is engaging in at-risk behavior. This interim system shall collect and analyze the following information: citizen complaint reports and investigations; use of force investigations; shootings; vehicle chases; injured prisoner investigations; traffic collisions; canisters of chemical spray issued to officers; firearms qualifications; training; prompt judicial review; disciplinary action; arrest without probable cause; all reports regarding investigatory stops and/or frisks unsupported by reasonable suspicion; and all reports regarding interviews, interrogations or conveyances in violation of DPD policy in a format that facilitates entry into the final risk management database, to the fullest extent possible.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. In accordance with the Consent Judgment, DPD developed and used the Interim Management Awareness System (IMAS) that later developed into the current system (MAS). With progress on the current system, the need for IMAS was superseded. Therefore, DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 101 of 193 Pg ID 9004

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 100

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U90
Following the initial implementation of the risk management database, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the DPD may propose to subtract or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and subtract or modify standardized reports and queries. The DPD shall submit all such proposals for review and approval by the DOJ before implementation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The Department has revised the key documents required for the risk management system. It submitted the revised Data Input Plan, Review Protocol, and Report Protocol to the Department of Justice and the changes were approved as noted in a letter from DOJ dated June 9, 2011. With that, the Department demonstrated compliance. We will continue to monitor the risk management system to ensure that any other significant changes are handled in a manner consistent with this requirement. DPD is currently incorporating descriptions of its data norming process in the relevant policies. These are not yet ready for review but will be reviewed in our next report.
The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Performance Evaluation System CJ Requirement U91
DPD shall ensure that performance evaluations for all DPD employees below the rank of Deputy Chief occur at least annually and include, but are not limited to, consideration of the following:36
a. civil rights integrity;
b. adherence to law, including performing duties in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution and the Civil Rights laws of the United States; and
36 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 102 of 193 Pg ID 9005

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 101

January 16, 2013

c. supervisor’s performance in identifying and addressing at-risk behavior in subordinates, including their supervision and review of use of force, arrests, care of prisoners, prisoner processing, and performance bearing upon honesty and integrity.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for the past eight reporting periods. To verify continued compliance for the current reporting period, we again examined a random sample of 125 evaluations drawn from all a list of all personnel. Our review verified that more than 94% of reviews were current and properly completed with original narratives, references to “no change in status,” or references to material in MAS. Four evaluations were excluded since they were not completed due to the probationary status of the employees or extended leave. One evaluation was not accounted for in the final sample.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Oversight
CJ Requirement U92
The DPD shall develop a protocol for conducting annual audits to be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol shall establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all DPD units and commands. The annual audit period for conducting the audits required by paragraphs 93 to 97 for the first year shall end on August 31, 2004. The subsequent annual periods shall end on July 17, 2005, and every year thereafter.37
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Phase 2 compliance is dependent on compliance with the requirements of U93-97. The audit protocol was revised, and all audits are scheduled. The audits submitted for review were governed by the previous protocol revision. We review all required audits and found them thorough and complete with corrective action notices and plans where needed. Accordingly, the DPD continues in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.

37 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 103 of 193 Pg ID 9006

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 102

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U93
The DPD shall issue a report to the Chief of Police on the result of each audit and examine whether there is consistency throughout the DPD. The DPD shall also provide the reports to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. All audits contain the appropriate sign-offs by unit commanders. We examined signoff sheets covering the chain of command for September and we verified the review by the Chief through examination of the summary audit briefing signoffs dated October 23, 2012. New audits and resulting corrective action reports were completed according to the Audit Protocol schedule. Annual audits are once again scheduled for July completion and will be reviewed in our next report.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U94
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits, covering all DPD units and commands that investigate uses of force, prisoner injuries, and allegations of misconduct. The audits shall include reviewing a statistically valid sample of command, IAD, and Homicide Section investigations; evaluating whether the actions of the officer and the subject were captured correctly in the investigative report; and evaluating the preservation and analysis of the evidence and the appropriateness of the investigator’s conclusions.38
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Audits on use of force, prisoner injuries, and allegation of

38 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 104 of 193 Pg ID 9007

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 103

January 16, 2013

misconduct were completed in July and were followed by corrective action reports when necessary. As part of the audit protocol, new audits are scheduled for January 2013. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U95
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits covering all precincts and specialized units that review a statistically valid sample of findings of probable cause, stop and frisk reports and witness identification and questioning documentation. The audits shall include evaluating the scope, duration, content, and voluntariness, if appropriate, of the police interaction. The audits shall include a comparison of the number of arrests to requests for warrants and a comparison of the number of arrests for which warrants were sought to judicial findings of probable cause.39
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. Stop and frisk audits were completed on schedule, and corrective action reports were completed. New audits are scheduled for completion on an annual basis. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U96
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits covering all precincts and specialized units that examine custodial detention practices. The audits shall include reviewing the length of detention between arrest and arraignment and the time to adjudicate holds.40
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

39 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004. 40 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 105 of 193 Pg ID 9008

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 104

January 16, 2013

The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. Custodial detention audits of all relevant facilities were completed on schedule and were reviewed for the previous report. Corrective action reports were reviewed at that time.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U97
The Chief Investigator of OCI shall designate an individual or entity to conduct regularly scheduled annual audits that examine external complaints and complaint investigations. The audit shall include reviewing a statistically valid sample of complaints that were resolved informally, reviewing a sample of OCI investigations of complaints, and contacting the complainants to evaluate whether the actions and views of the complainant were captured correctly in the complaint report and/or investigation. The Chief Investigator shall review all audit reports regarding officers under OCI command and, if appropriate, shall take nondisciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.41
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The Department has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. In the most recent audit cycle, complaint and complaint investigation audits were completed on schedule; and corrective action reports and plans were completed based on the audits. The Department remains in compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U98 The DPD shall conduct and document periodic random reviews of scout car camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes. In addition, the DPD shall require periodic random surveys of scout car video recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
41 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 106 of 193 Pg ID 9009

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 105

January 16, 2013

On March 9, 2012, a roll call message was disseminated throughout the DPD that reminded officers and supervisors that supervisors were required to review one in-car video segment for each patrol car for each shift. This policy was in effect during our July 2012 site visit. During that review, we sampled three precincts on three different dates to determine how many cars with operational video units had actually been deployed and how many had random reviews had been conducted. We found that 162 equipped units were deployed in the three districts on the three days in our survey. A total of 138 video reviews were recorded. This was the first review in which less than 94% of the required random reviews were detected. Accordingly, we carried DPD in Phase 2 compliance for the period to be examined again in this review.
While the numbers in our past audits were in compliance; and, as a result, the DPD has been found in Phase 2 compliance, the reviews produced few substantive results for the DPD. We noted in our last report that reviews where a supervisor simply randomly selects and views an event that has been recorded are helpful in confirming that the video equipment is operational and that, to some extent, it is being used. A better review technique would be for supervisors to select an event that occurred during the shift that requires video to be recorded and confirm that it was, in fact, recorded. The March 9, 2012 roll call message referred to above specifies that the segment reviewed shall be one that reflects officer and citizen contact as indicated on the officer’s activity log. We viewed this as a positive step in the supervision of the mobile video program that could enhance its management. We suggested to DPD management that fewer, but higher quality reviews, should provide DPD management with a more accurate picture of the use of the MVS.
On August 17, 2012, in an administrative message read at all roll calls, DPD announced a change in its random review policy. The new policy addressed the following:
1. Discontinued daily reviews and use of the DPD713a form; 2. Required shift supervisors to conduct a more detailed review using the new DPD713b
form for 4 traffic stops each month; 3. Set a schedule for the reviews to be conducted; and 4. Advised supervisors how to handle situations when the reviewed event did not upload
properly.
The new review procedure was implemented on August 17, 2012, with the introduction of the new policy. A total of 89 reviews were attempted and recorded on the new form DPD713b. The serious technical failure encountered by DPD that affected the whole MVS system during the reporting period (see the discussion in the following section, Use of Video) made videos unavailable to be reviewed by supervisors. Only 12 (14%) of the 89 new reviews found both video and audio.
While the technical failure disrupted the review process, the few that were conducted successfully, led us to conclude that the new procedures can lead to a much improved process. In the few reviews where video and audio were available, the supervisors commented on the officers’ tactics, safety, deportment and use of video. Commanders in the chain of command also reviewed the DPD713bs and signed off on them. If the video system is stabilized, the new procedures for review should produce a clear picture of officers’ compliance with procedures relating to mobile video and of command accountability.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 107 of 193 Pg ID 9010

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 106

January 16, 2013

A second important step was taken that is expected to greatly improve the random review process. The source for traffic stop data has been the Traffic Court where, for the first time, information on paper tickets is electronically recorded. The process lacks timeliness and has often been inaccurate. DPD has been unable to use the traffic stop data to select the events to be reviewed by supervisors. DPD Dispatch now records traffic stop data in the CAD system. This should produce timely automated information that will accurately show the car, officers and times for traffic stops and other events that could be reviewed. DPD anticipates supervisors will be able to use the data generated by Dispatch to select events to be reviewed.
As a result of the technical failure, we have been unable to measure compliance with the new random review procedures during this reporting period. Accordingly, DPD will be held in compliance and we will review the requirement in January 2013, after the system has been recovered.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U99
The DPD shall ensure regular meetings with local prosecutors to identify issues in officer, shift or unit performance.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. To verify continued compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we reviewed the minutes of the August 8, 2112 quarterly meeting involving DPD and members of the Prosecutor’s Office. Consistent with previous meetings, a wide range of topics discussed is reported in the meeting minutes including those relating to arrestee identifiers, vehicle forfeiture, court attendance, warrant requests, open Internal Affairs cases, and other police operations. The next meeting is scheduled for November 14, 2012.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 108 of 193 Pg ID 9011

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 107

January 16, 2013

D. Use of Video Cameras
CJ Requirement U100
The DPD shall repair or replace all non-functioning video cameras.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
MVS equipment, particularly older units, is subject to breaking down and requiring repair. As a result, the total number of operational units at any one time varies. In July 2012, DPD estimated that it had about 303 MVS units operational. The complement of MVS equipment actually installed and operational remained the same, about 300 vehicles, since July 2011.
In the past, we have reviewed the IT Bureau’s response to requests for repair service to the MDVR-equipped cars. DPD failed to respond to our request for data showing repairs to MDVR equipment during the period June 1, through August 31, 2012. The technical issues the IT Bureau confronted during the past quarter and its efforts to deal with the uploading to servers, however, was the most consequential repair issue handled by DPD during the reporting period.
The installation of the new MDVR D911 units has been completed in 92 cars. In addition, DPD has acquired 1,250 new microphones for the new MDVRs. This will allow the Department to assign a microphone to each patrol officer. Once the equipment is assigned, officers will be required to arrive for duty with a charged microphone. They will then be able to attach the microphones to their uniforms rather than place them in chargers in their patrol cars. The possibility that an officer might "forget" to put the microphone on when s/he exits the car will be eliminated. Microphones will then operate automatically and switch on when an officer opens the door and exits the car. DPD has been found in compliance with this requirement. It will be continued in Phase 2 compliance until our January 2013 review.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U101 The DPD policy on video cameras shall be revised and augmented to require:
a. activation of scout car video cameras at all times the officer is on patrol; b. supervisors to review videotapes of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an
officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits and external complaints; and c. that the DPD retain and preserve videotapes for at least 90 days, or as long as necessary
for incidents to be fully investigated. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. During past site visits, we found:

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 109 of 193 Pg ID 9012

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 108

January 16, 2013

a. The DPD MVS cameras are set to operate 100% of the time on patrol. Full video is 2430 frames per second; MVS units are set to capture one frame of video per second at all non-emergency times. The equipment is set so that whenever the emergency lights are activated, the units switch to full-video mode and capture 28 frames per second. As noted above, the Department now erases the one frame a second video after it has been stored for 24 hours.
b. While supervisory review of videotapes involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits, and external complaints is required, DPD has made strides in providing these data for our review but has not yet been able to provide comprehensive data identifying all such incidents. The technical failure of the system overwhelmed the DPD during the past quarter.
c. DPD preserves and retains videos when it is able to upload them successfully in the central server, as required by U101c.
U101b requires that video be activated for each of the incidents specified and that supervisors conduct a review of the video where one is available. The impact of the technical failure described in the Use of Video Cameras severely retarded progress the following areas.
• Pursuits: During our July 2012, review we found that 75% of the cars involved in pursuits equipped with operational MDVRs produced videos of the pursuit but only 41% recorded audio. While audio is critical in most other areas where we measure compliance with the requirements that deal with MVS, pursuits are one area where audio may not be critical. DPD did not provide pursuit data for the past quarter.
• Uses of Force: We reviewed 55 instances involving use of force where video would be expected and found only 25 (45%) had video. We were not provided data regarding injuries to officers and defendants.
• Injuries: DPD was unable to produce a report that identified a comprehensive list of incidents involving injuries to officers or subjects in which MVS should have been recorded.
• External Complaints: DPD did not provide data for our review of Internal Affairs Division investigations. OCI data was provided. And showed that overall during the quarter reviewed DPD closed 216 cases and conducted 91 (42%) video reviews. The chart below reflects the monthly reviews.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 110 of 193 Pg ID 9013

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 109

January 16, 2013

OCI VIDEO REVIEWS
Month July
August September

Cases Closed
60 95 61 216

Video Reviews
21 48 22 91

% Reviewed
35% 51% 36% 42%

The Department is not in Phase 2 compliance with any section of U101. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U102
The DPD policy on video cameras shall require officers to record all motor vehicle stops, consents to search a vehicle, deployments of a drug-detection canine, or vehicle searches.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During past reporting periods, we selected a random sample of more than 100 traffic stops for each of the three months in the quarter under review. Since, in the past, we experienced difficulty obtaining data for the last month of the reporting period, we adopted a three-month period beginning four months before the review. DPD has never achieved Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. During our most recent site visit, we found the following:
• Traffic Stops: 76% of the traffic stops in our last review contained video, but only 58% contained audio.
• Vehicle Searches and Canine Deployments: During our July 2012 onsite review of the previous three-month period, we found that 50% of DPD searches where a canine was deployed were recorded in video. During the third quarter of 2012 (July, August, and September 2012), the Department conducted 15 canine searches of vehicles. Of these, 11 DPD cars were equipped with operational MDVRs. We found that six (55%) had video, and four (36%) had audio.
DPD failed to produce data for review of motor vehicle stops, consents to search a vehicle or vehicle searches. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 111 of 193 Pg ID 9014

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 110

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

E. Discipline
CJ Requirement U103
The City shall ensure that adequate resources are provided to eliminate the backlog of disciplinary cases and that all disciplinary matters are resolved as soon as reasonably possible.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 126 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. There is no backlog of cases and case flow is being managed sufficiently, as noted below. During the current reporting period, a total of 69 new disciplinary cases were opened. We also established that all previously noted resources remain in place to support compliance with this requirement at this time.
It is also worth noting that the Disciplinary Unit has introduced other procedures that will can expedite cases and prevent backlogs. These include voluntary mediation as an alternative to trial boards and, most recently, restorative practices for resolving low-level discipline issues. These provide positive approaches to addressing administrative requirements while also holding officers accountable for their behavior.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U104
The DPD shall schedule disciplinary hearings, trials, and appeals at appropriately frequent intervals, to prevent a disciplinary backlog from developing. As part of determining how often to schedule such hearings, the DPD shall establish guidelines dictating the maximum period of time that should elapse between each stage of the disciplinary process.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 126 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. All disciplinary proceedings met the established timelines and were consistent with this requirement. As of the

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 112 of 193 Pg ID 9015

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 111

January 16, 2013

end of September, there are no cases remaining open that predate 2011. For 2011, a total of 20 cases remained open, down just one from the last reporting period; and 136 cases were open from this year (2012) at the end of this reporting period. The status of all open cases is tracked by the disciplinary unit and reported quarterly. All open 2011 and 2012 cases reflect appropriate scheduling and steps toward closure.
As noted above, the disciplinary unit now has a process of assessing cases and, when viewed as appropriate, sponsoring the voluntary mediation of those cases. That process is continuing and the unit is now also joined by a restorative justice process intended to provide a way of addressing patterns of lower level problematic behavior. The number of cases in these categories is small but growing.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U105
The DPD shall create a disciplinary matrix that:
a. establishes a presumptive range of discipline for each type of rule violation;
b. increases the presumptive discipline based on both an officer’s prior violations of the same rule as well as violations of other rules;
c. requires that any departure from the presumptive range of discipline must be justified in writing;
d. provides that the DPD shall not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix calls for the imposition of discipline; and
e. Provides that the DPD shall consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action also is appropriate in a case where discipline has been imposed.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 126 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. The disciplinary matrix is provided for use at disciplinary trial boards. All decisions this reporting period fell within the matrix and were consistent with this requirement. DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 113 of 193 Pg ID 9016

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 112

January 16, 2013

¶ Requirements 78 Comprehensive Risk Management Plan 79 Improve risk management system 80 Database requirements (a-z) 81 Database to include officer information 82 Data Input Plan (a-d) 83 Report Protocol for database (a-c) 84 Review Protocol for database (a-l) 85 Use modules to ensure work progress 86 Common control number required 87 Data retention 88 Database schedule (expired) 89 Interim database (rescinded) 90 Change process needs DOJ approval 91 Annual officer review criteria specified 92 Protocol for conducting audits 93 Audit results to Chief and commanders 94 Annual audits-use of force 95 Annual audits-probable cause/stop-and-frisk 96 Annual audits-detention practices 97 Annual audits-external complaints 98 Random reviews of in-car camera videos 99 Regular meeting with local prosecutors 100 Replace/repair video cameras 101 Revision of video camera policy 102 Record all vehicle stops, searches, etc. 103 Elimination of disciplinary case backlog 104 Scheduling of disciplinary cases 105 Disciplinary matrix of responses/sanctions

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 114 of 193 Pg ID 9017

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 113

January 16, 2013

IX. TRAINING
During this site visit, we visited the Detroit Police Training Center and interviewed the Training Commander and key members of the training staff. During our July 2012 site visit, we reviewed a variety of memoranda and policy material for use during the 2012-2013 Training Year (July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013). There have been no substantive changes in the policies that pertain to Training; the training directive 304.5 was revised on July 10, 2012, to address minor numbering typographical errors. DPD continues to make progress in addressing the Consent Judgment training-related requirements. For over two years, the Department has achieved compliance with all training-related requirements and, as we have noted in our recent reports, DPD should now take steps to ensure that the changes it has made are institutionalized and accepted throughout the organization.

A. Oversight and Development
CJ Requirement U106
The DPD shall coordinate and review all use of force and arrest and detention training to ensure quality, consistency and compliance with applicable law and DPD policy. The DPD shall conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually, and produce a report of such reviews to the Monitor and the DOJ.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The required review was conducted in June 2012, and documented in a DPD report entitled, “Training Oversight and Development Report – Semi-Annual Review, July 2012.” This report – the seventh such report to be issued – contained the evaluation of use of force, arrest, and detention training; and covered all elements of this requirement. The report is prepared twice each year, and the next such report will be produced in December 2012.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U107 The DPD, consistent with Michigan law and the Michigan Law Enforcement Officers Training Council standards, shall:
a. ensure the quality of all use of force and arrest and detention training; b. develop use of force and arrest and detention training curricula; c. select and train DPD officer trainers;

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 115 of 193 Pg ID 9018

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 114

January 16, 2013

d. develop, implement, approve and oversee all training and curricula;
e. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
f. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that training governing use of force and arrest and detention are responsive to the knowledge, skills and abilities of the officers being trained.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we met with the new Training Director and staff and reviewed training records. DPD training complies with the Michigan Law Enforcement Council’s standards and Michigan law. With regard to subparagraphs a-f, during the past year, we found as follows:
a. During our July 2012 site visit, we reviewed the revised lesson plans that are being used in the 2012-2013 training cycle. In addition, during previous site visits, we reviewed the new use of force scenarios that are being deployed; and the report entitled, “Training Oversight and Development Report – Semi-Annual Review,” dated July 2012, which documents the DPD’s semi-annual review and evaluation of its training. The next such report will be completed in December 2012. Use of force and detention training are adequate.
b. As noted above, during our July 2012 site visit, we examined the lesson plans for the Use of Force and Arrest and Detention training that are being used in the current training year (July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013), and found them to be adequate for the training required.
c. DPD selected no new trainers during the second quarter of 2012.
d/e. As we have observed in past reviews, DPD policy, curricula, and lesson plans address these provisions.
Directive 304.5-3.4, revised July 10, 2012, places responsibility on the Commander of Training to conduct a training needs assessment. Directive 304.5-6.2, Needs Assessment, requires that such an assessment be conducted and documented every two years. As noted previously, in July and December 2011, the DPD conducted and documented training needs assessments. DPD has initiated new training and modified in-service training in order to address many of the deficiencies identified in the needs assessments that it has conducted.
The needs assessment conducted in the second quarter of 2012 did not evaluate the impact of the training that was introduced during the past year in order to correct deficiencies that were identified in previous needs assessments. As we observed in our last report, the needs assessment process should not only identify Departmental performance weaknesses, but it should assess the success or failure of training that has been implemented in the past to address significant performance weaknesses. DPD Training advised that the next needs assessment will be conducted in March 2013, a year earlier than required by 304.5-6.2. This is a positive step; a solid needs assessment can

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 116 of 193 Pg ID 9019

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 115

January 16, 2013

ensure that training remains responsive to the real problems the Department is encountering. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U108
The DPD shall create and maintain individual training records for all officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training completed for all training conducted on or after the effective date of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD captures data relating to its in-service training, and records it on a spreadsheet. Since the spreadsheet is used by the Department to determine if all of its officers have attended the required in-service training sessions, we have conducted audits of its accuracy during the current and past reporting periods. In the past, to verify the accuracy of the Department’s training records, we have selected a random sample of 100 officers and reviewed sign-in sheets for each course the officers were recorded as attending. Since the DPD has been in compliance with this requirement for two years, we have reduced the sample to 25 officers and their 100 class sign-in lists.
We randomly selected 25 officers who were listed on the spreadsheet as having received and completed in-service training during the period of July 1, through September 30, 2012. In order to complete their in-service training, these officers would have to attend and sign attendance sheets for four courses: Legal; Use of Force; PR-24; and Firearms Qualification. DPD was able to locate all 100 of the expected signatures. During our previous reviews, we found that the Department committed to recording training data in the MITN System, a part of the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) data system. Training has now entered all DPD training records for years 2003 through the present. During this reporting period, we selected the 100 training records for the 25 officers in our random sample relating to Use of Force, Legal, PR-24 and Firearms Qualification, and checked the MITN system to see if they had been recorded. All (100%) were found to have been entered into MITN.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 117 of 193 Pg ID 9020

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 116

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement U109
The DPD shall ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors and that instructors engage students in meaningful dialogue regarding particular scenarios, preferably taken from actual incidents involving DPD officers, with the goal of educating students regarding the legal and tactical issues raised by the scenarios.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD training directives and lesson plans properly direct and instruct on the relevant provisions of the Consent Judgment. During our previous reviews, we found that DPD developed new scenarios utilizing DPD Internal Affairs incidents, and accepted them for incorporation into the Legal block of training. We reviewed all the new scenarios and found them acceptable. We have reviewed all the lesson plans that were updated for the 2012-2013 Training Year and found them to be adequate.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U110
The DPD shall meet with the City Law Department on a quarterly basis concerning the conclusion of civil lawsuits alleging officer misconduct, information gleaned from this process shall be distributed to DPD risk management and training staff. Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The DPD met with the City Law Department pursuant to this requirement on September 28, 2012. Meetings are held quarterly. The DPD remains in compliance with U110. Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U111
The City and the DPD shall distribute and explain this Agreement to all DPD and all relevant City employees The City and the DPD shall provide initial training on this Agreement to all City and DPD employees whose job responsibilities are affected by this Agreement within 120 days of each provision’s implementation. Thereafter, the DPD shall provide training on the policies contained in this Agreement during in-service training.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 118 of 193 Pg ID 9021

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 117

January 16, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Recruits receive this training, which is conducted by CRIB, after they complete their state certification exams and before they graduate from the Academy. During our July 2012 review, we found that all recruits were trained in this Agreement during the second quarter of 2012. The Department had no new hires (either civilian or officers) to train during the third quarter of 2012. The four new civilian employees hired during the reporting period received the training from CRIB in two-hour sessions conducted on May 9, 2012.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Use of Force Training
CJ Requirement U112
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers, and supervisors with annual training on use of force. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. The DPD’s use of force continuum; proper use of force; decision making; and the DPD’s use of force reporting requirements;
b. The Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including recent legal developments;
c. Examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper use of force decision making, including the use of deadly force;
d. The circumstances in which officers may draw, display, or point a firearm, emphasizing:
i. Officers should not draw their firearm unless they reasonably believe there is a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or another person;
ii. The danger of engaging or pursuing a suspect with a firearm drawn; and
iii. That officers are generally not justified in drawing their firearm when pursuing a subject suspected of committing only a misdemeanor;
e. The proper use of all intermediate force weapons;
f. Threat assessment, alternative and de-escalation techniques that allow officers to effect arrests without using force and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units or even letting a subject temporarily evade arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation, even when the use of force would be legally justified;

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 119 of 193 Pg ID 9022

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 118

January 16, 2013

g. Interacting with people with mental illnesses, including instruction by mental health practitioners and an emphasis on de-escalation strategies;
h. Factors to consider in initiating or continuing a pursuit;
i. The proper duration of a burst of chemical spray, the distance from which it should be applied, and emphasize that officers shall aim chemical spray only at the target’s face and upper torso, and
j. Consideration of the safety of civilians in the vicinity before engaging in police action.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During our previous site visits, we assessed training policy directives, curricula, lesson plans, special orders, training needs assessment and teletypes, among other materials that were prepared to address the requirements of U112 during Training Year 2012-2013 (July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013). Our review showed that the course content requirements of U112 and all of its subparagraphs were met for all recruits and in-service trainees.
During this reporting period, we found that 604 (25%) of the 2,436 DPD officers available to train attended and completed the in-service blocks in which the requirements for U112 are fulfilled. Twenty-five percent of the training year was reached in September, and inasmuch as the DPD trained this percentage of its officers, it is making progress toward fulfilling this requirement.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Firearms Training
CJ Requirement U113
The DPD shall develop a protocol regarding firearms training that:
a. Ensures that all officers and supervisors complete the bi-annual firearms training and qualification;
b. Incorporates professional night training, stress training (i.e., training in using a firearm after undergoing physical exertion) and proper use of force decision making training in the bi-annual in-service training program, with the goal of adequately preparing officers for real life situations;
c. Ensures that firearm instructors critically observe students and provide corrective instruction regarding deficient firearm techniques and failure to utilize safe gun handling procedures at all times; and undergoing physical exertion) and proper use of force

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 120 of 193 Pg ID 9023

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 119

January 16, 2013

decision making training in the bi-annual in-service training program, with the goal of adequately preparing officers for real life situations;
d. Incorporates evaluation criteria to determine satisfactory completion of recruit and inservice firearms training, including:
e. Maintains finger off trigger unless justified and ready to fire;
f. Maintains proper hold of firearm and proper stance; and
g. Uses proper use of force decision making.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The requirements specified in U113 are addressed in the Department’s firearms training, which officers are required to attend and qualify in every six months. During the previous six-month firearms qualification period (January 1, through June 30, 2012), 98% of the officers available to train attended firearms and qualified.
During this review, at the halfway point in the six-month firearms training period, we found that 1,172 (48%) of the officers available to train had attended firearms training and qualified. No officers failed and were placed in “no gun” status.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

D. Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training
CJ Requirement U114
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on arrests and other police-citizen interaction. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. The DPD Arrest, Investigatory Stop and Frisk and Witness Identification and Questioning Policies;
b. The Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including:
c. Advising officers that the “possibility” that an individual committed a crime does not rise to the level of probable cause;
d. Advising officers that the duration and scope of the police-citizen interaction determines whether an arrest occurred, not the officer’s subjective, intent or belief that he or she affected an arrest; and

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 121 of 193 Pg ID 9024

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 120

January 16, 2013

e. Advising officers that every detention is a seizure, every seizure requires reasonable suspicion or probable cause and there is no legally authorized seizure apart from a “Terry stop” and an arrest; and
f. Examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper police-community interactions, including scenarios which distinguish an investigatory stop from an arrest by the scope and duration of the police interaction; between probable cause, reasonable suspicion and mere speculation; and voluntary consent from mere acquiescence to police authority.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force, Search, and Detention training were taught in the eight-hour Use of Force inservice training and, until the current year, in the four-hour Arrest Procedures in-service training. The Arrest Procedures session has been discontinued as a separate course, and is now being addressed in the Use of Force and Legal blocks of instruction. Annual training is provided by DPD in its in-service training program for officers and supervisors. During the last training year (July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012), the Department trained 98% of its available members in its Use of Force in-service training and 99% in the Legal in-service training.
We found that 604 (25%) of DPD’s 2,436 officers available to train attended both the Legal and Use of Force in-service training blocks during the first quarter of the new training year (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013). DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

E. Custodial Detention Training
CJ Requirement U115
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on custodial detention. Such training shall include DPD policies regarding arrest, arraignment, holds, restrictions, material witness and detention records.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD developed appropriate policies and lesson plans to comply with this provision, as well as a protocol to train all recruits, sworn members, confinement officers, investigators, and supervisors. All officers who attend the Use of Force and Legal in-service training receive the detention training specified by this requirement. Officers who serve in the detention cell areas are required to receive additional annual detention officer training, which is more specifically related to detention responsibilities. (See C73.)

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 122 of 193 Pg ID 9025

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 121

January 16, 2013

During the training year that ended on June 30, 2012, 98% of DPD members attended the Use of Force and 99% its Legal in-service training sessions and received this training. As noted in U114, 25% of DPD officers attended the Use of Force training and the Legal training during the first quarter of the new training year.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U116
The DPD shall advise officers that the DPD arraignment policy shall not be delayed because of the assignment of the investigation to a specialized unit, the arrest charge(s), the availability of an investigator, the gathering of additional evidence or obtaining a confession.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has incorporated these training requirements into its Use of Force and Legal lesson plans. During the 2011-2012 training year, the Department trained 98% of its officers in its Use of Force in-service training session and 99% in the Legal in-service.
In the first quarter of the new training year, DPD remains in compliance, having trained 25% of its officers available to train in these in-services. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U117
The DPD shall advise officers that whether an individual is a material witness and whether that material witness should be committed to custody is a judicial determination.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Material witness training has been incorporated into the Use of Force and Legal lesson plans. As noted above (see U115), the DPD trained 98% and 99%, respectively, of its officers in the Use of Force and Legal in-service training during the first quarter of the new training year.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 123 of 193 Pg ID 9026

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 122

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

F. Supervisory Training
CJ Requirement U118
The DPD shall provide supervisors with training in the appropriate evaluation of written reports, including what constitutes a fact based description, the identification of conclusory language not supported by specific facts and catch phrases, or language that so regularly appears in reports that its inclusion requires further explanation by the reporting officer.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD fulfills Consent Judgment requirements U118-122 through its annual Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training that is required for both supervisors and investigators. During the training year that ended on June 30, 2012, the Department trained 98% of its supervisors in its Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service.
During the first quarter of the new training year (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013), 113 (22%) of the Department’s 507 supervisors who were available to train attended the Leadership and Accountability in-service training.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U119
DPD supervisors shall receive leadership and command accountability training and learn techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training shall be provided to all DPD supervisors within 30 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities and shall be made part of annual in-service training.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD did not promote any personnel to the supervisor rank during the first quarter of the new training year. As noted in U118, during the first quarter of the new training year, 113 (22%) of the Department’s 507 supervisors attended the Supervisory and Leadership in-service training. During the Training Year that ended on June 30, 2012, the DPD trained 98% of its supervisors

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 124 of 193 Pg ID 9027

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 123

January 16, 2013

and investigators at its annual Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U120
The DPD shall provide training on risk assessment and risk management to all DPD supervisors, including the operation of the risk management database.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The Department’s Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training session addresses this requirement. During the previous reporting period, we found that DPD had provided this training to 98% of its supervisors during the training year that ended on June 30, 2012. During the first quarter of the new training year, the Department provided this training to 22% of its supervisors.
The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

G. Investigator Training
CJ Requirement U121
The DPD shall provide training on appropriate burdens of proof, interview techniques and the factors to consider when evaluating officer, complainant or witness credibility to all officers who conduct investigations to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform and legally appropriate.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The training required by U121 is delivered in the DPD Supervisory and Leadership Accountability in-service training, which is attended by both supervisors and investigators. During this the previous reporting period, we found that DPD had provided this training to 98% of its supervisors during the training year that ended on June 30, 2012. During the first quarter of the new training year, the Department provided this training to 22% of its supervisors.
The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 125 of 193 Pg ID 9028

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 124

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U122
The DPD shall provide all supervisors charged with accepting external complaints with appropriate training on handling external complaints that emphasizes interpersonal skills. The DPD shall provide training on the DPD external complaint process, including the role of OCI and IAD in the process, to all new recruits and as part of annual in-service training.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The training required by U122 is delivered in the DPD Supervisory and Leadership Accountability in-service training, which is attended by both supervisors and investigators. During the previous reporting period, we found that DPD had provided this training to 98% of its supervisors during the training year that ended on June 30, 2012. During the first quarter of the new training year, the Department provided this training to 22% of its supervisors.
The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

H. Field Training
CJ Requirement U123
The DPD shall develop, subject to DOJ approval, a protocol to enhance the FTO program within 120 days of the effective date of this Agreement. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting and removing the FTOs and for training and evaluating FTOs and trainees.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD conducted a training class for its Field Training Officers in April 2011, in which it trained three new FTOs and recertified another. The Department has not conducted a certification or recertification class since April 2011. DPD currently has 118 FTOs assigned throughout the Department.
As we noted during previous on-site review, 33 probationary officers graduated on April 13, 2012, and entered the FTO Program. These officers remain in the FTO Program for one year from the date of their graduation from the Police Academy, or 18 months from their date of hire,

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 126 of 193 Pg ID 9029

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 125

January 16, 2013

whichever is shorter. No other probationary officers have entered the FTO Program. Since the DPD has 118 FTOs, additional FTOs are not needed at this time. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 106 Coordination and review of training 107 DPD will meet state training standards 108 Maintain individual training records 109 Train from approved objectives and plans 110 Quarterly meetings with Law Department 111 Distribute and training on the agreement 112 Annual use of force training required 113 Develop firearms training protocol 114 Annual arrest, citizen interaction training 115 Annual training on custodial detention 116 Prohibition of arraignment delays 117 Material witness custody 118 Supervisory training-report evaluation 119 Supervisory training-leadership 120 Supervisory training-risk management 121 Investigator training-procedures 122 Supervisory training-external complaints 123 Enhance the FTO program

Phase 1 - Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 127 of 193 Pg ID 9030

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 126

January 16, 2013

SECTION THREE:
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT
This Consent Judgment sets forth procedural and operational requirements relating to the confinement facilities maintained and operated by the Detroit Police Department. The Judgment requires the revision and implementation of policies and practices that are safe, respectful, and constitutional in the areas of fire safety, emergency preparedness, medical and mental health, prisoner safety, environmental health and safety, persons with disabilities, food service, and personal hygiene. In addition, the Judgment sets forth requirements relating to the use of force in detention facilities, as well as procedures for the investigation of the use of force and complaints relating to other events occurring in these facilities. The Judgment also establishes requirements for management and supervision, the auditing of internal practices, and the training of personnel who are assigned detention responsibilities.
During our first site visit in November 2009, we reviewed required directives, supporting logs, forms, and documentation relating to the operation of the detention facilities. Accompanied by key members of the DPD Office of Civil Rights personnel, we conducted our first tour of the Detroit Police Department’s five facilities with holding cells and the Detroit Receiving Hospital.42 We have repeated our tours and inspections of some or all of these facilities during each of our subsequent site visits, and have interacted with command and key detention staff at each facility.
In addition, we have met with key CRIB command staff, Audit Team personnel, and the designated health care professional to conduct a thorough review of all requirements, DPD directives, forms, logs, and documentation relating to and required by this Judgment. Our review disclosed the need for the DPD to revise various health-related directives and to have them reviewed and approved by a health care professional. This was accomplished. In addition, we met with DPD Training staff regarding training issues, which were promptly addressed.
During our visits to and inspections of the various facilities with holding cells, we are always accompanied by CRIB staff, and assisted by the cell block supervisors and compliance officers. These inspections included our entering and examining every holding cell, interviewing detention staff, and reviewing forms and logs. When we find errors, omissions or violations during the inspections we advise facility and CRIB staff immediately of our observations.
We have worked with DPD holding facilities staff to streamline reporting mechanisms and to offer alternatives to ensure that requirements are met and are consistent with policy.
During our July 2012 site visit, CRIB (OCR) advised us that in the near future the duties of the cell block supervisor (CBS) and the desk supervisor would be merged into one position for efficiencies of operation. That proposal was not implemented, and the responsibilities of the

42 Facilities with holding cells are located in the Northeastern, Eastern, and Southwestern Districts; Sixth and Twelfth Precincts.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 128 of 193 Pg ID 9031

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 127

January 16, 2013

CBS were clearly defined in the revised Department Rank Structure Policy, giving that position sole authority over the operations of the holding cell areas.
Since the implementation of the virtual precinct concept earlier in 2012, citizens can report many more crimes by telephone rather than requiring that officers either respond to the scene or citizens travel to a District or Precinct. The virtual precinct reduced the number of police reports that the desk supervisor previously had to review thus freeing the position up for other responsibilities. We will monitor this change during our next report period.
Prior to forwarding documents requested for our quarterly reviews, CRIB personnel routinely review the documents before they are forwarded to us. During this review, CRIB typically identifies errors and/or omissions and forward corrective action notices to the various commands. Written responses are required. If appropriate supervisory review occurred and errors/omissions were initially identified and corrected at the District/Precinct level, that action would have a positive bearing on compliance.
The Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment is comprised of several different categories relating to the confinement facilities maintained and operated by DPD.

III. FIRE SAFETY POLICIES
CJ Requirement C14
The DPD shall ensure that all holding cells, and buildings that contain them, achieve and maintain compliance with the Life Safety Code within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. The City shall ensure that the Detroit Fire Marshal conducts regular and periodic inspections to evaluate whether the conditions in DPD holding cells, and buildings that contain them, are in compliance with the Life Safety Code.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The Fire Marshal Division of the Detroit Fire Department conducted its annual review and approved the Fire Safety Program (FSP) and the Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP) for all DPD buildings containing holding cells on June 7, 2012. The semiannual inspection was completed at all facilities during unannounced visits by the Audit Team during July 2012.
The next Fire Marshal’s inspection is due in May 2013.
Accordingly, DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 129 of 193 Pg ID 9032

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 128

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement C15
The DPD shall develop and implement a comprehensive fire detection, suppression and evacuation program for the holding cells, and buildings that contain them, in accordance with the requirements of the Life Safety Code and in consultation with the Detroit Fire Department.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the second reporting period.
During this reporting period, we reviewed DPD 716, Fire Extinguisher Monthly Inspection/Inventory, and DPD 703, Fire Drill Documentation Forms, for all of the districts/precincts with holding cells; and determined that all facilities are in compliance with these requirements. We also examined a sample of the fire extinguishers at each holding facility, and found them all to be fully charged.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C16
The fire safety program shall be developed in consultation with, and receive written approval by, the Detroit Fire Department. As part of developing the fire safety program, the Detroit Fire Department shall evaluate the need for and, if necessary, the DPD shall install: fire-rated separations, smoke detection systems, smoke control systems, sprinkler systems and/or emergency exits for the holding cells and buildings that contain them. The fire safety program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of the Agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Following the development of the Fire Safety Plan, the DPD made required structural changes to districts/precincts’ holding facilities, including the updating and/or installation of sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, and fire-rated doors. During our inspection of the district/precinct holding cells, we found the presence of all three.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 130 of 193 Pg ID 9033

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 129

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement C17
The DPD shall implement the fire safety program within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the plan.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has developed and implemented the required Fire Safety Plan.
During our most recent site visits to each district/precinct that maintains holding cells, we found documentation of the Fire Marshal’s inspections. The most recent inspections were conducted and documented on June 7, 2012. The next Fire Marshal’s inspection is due in May 2013. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C18
The DPD shall take immediate interim fire safety measures in all buildings that contain holding cells. At a minimum, these interim measures shall:
a. Ensure that the activation of any individual smoke alarm sounds an alarm throughout the building;
b. ensure that prisoners in holding cells have an adequate means of reporting emergency conditions to DPD staff immediately;
c. ensure that automated back-up power systems exist for all buildings containing holding cells that are capable of providing immediate power for emergency lighting, exit signs, fire alarm and smoke detection systems in the event of an electrical power failure through batteries or an emergency generator; and
d. reduce the likely spread of smoke and fire throughout the buildings by means of stairwells, garages, hazardous rooms and exposed pipes, such as ensuring that fire doors in stairwells are closed.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in full Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the first reporting period.
As previously noted, we visited each district/precinct that maintains holding cells, and determined that the DPD has made the required structural, electronic, and mechanical upgrades within the facilities. We also noted that Fire Systems of Michigan and the Fire Marshal conducted and documented inspections of suppression systems on June 7, 2012. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 131 of 193 Pg ID 9034

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 130

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C19
The DPD shall ensure that fire safety equipment is routinely tested, inspected and maintained, including the sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, manual fire extinguishers, emergency lighting and exit signs, and self-contained breathing apparatuses.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the second reporting period.
The Fire Safety Plan places responsibility for ensuring the required testing, inspections, and maintenance of the various systems, fire extinguishers, emergency lighting and signs, and equipment with the DPD Office of Facilities Management. During this reporting period, we found that the sprinkler system at one precinct was out of order from September 19, to October 20 due to two broken sprinkler heads. The inability to deliver water in the event of a fire for a period of one month is unacceptable and places the Department’s compliance rating in jeopardy. Should there be two consecutive quarterly periods of non-compliance, the Phase 2 section of this paragraph will be classified as not in compliance. At another precinct, the sprinkler system was out of order for three days. Additionally, during the CRIB Audit Team inspection in July 2012, sprinkler systems were found inoperable in three precincts. (See C66.)
Fire Systems of Michigan and the Fire Marshal conduct the required inspections, which were last conducted in June 2012.
Because sprinkler heads are often broken by detainees in the holding cells – requiring the shutdown of the water delivery system – the DPD added language to the CEPP/FSP, under the auspices of the Fire Marshal, requiring that the detention staff perform visual fire inspections as an alternative when the fire detection system is disabled or not functioning.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C20
The DPD shall enforce immediately its no-smoking policy in the holding cells or provide ashtrays and ensure that all holding cell areas are constructed and supplied with fire-rated materials.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 132 of 193 Pg ID 9035

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 131

January 16, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the first reporting period. During our most recent inspection, we did not find any persons smoking in unauthorized areas. Also, during our review of all of the monthly inspections on DPD 715 - Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells, we found no documentation that any smoking had been observed in the facilities.
DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C21 The DPD shall insure immediately that all flammable and combustible liquids in holding cell areas and the attached and nearby DPD buildings are stored properly. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Our inspection of the holding facilities found that each district/precinct was equipped with at least one yellow storage cabinet, located in the garage area, for flammable and combustible liquids. We checked the cabinets, and found flammable materials and gas storage containers. DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C22
The DPD shall remove immediately all highly-combustible kane fiber ceiling tiles from buildings that contain holding cells.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in continued compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph since 2005 when it closed some of the facilities where kane fiber ceiling tiles were in place, and it removed the tiles from the remaining facilities.
DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 133 of 193 Pg ID 9036

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 132

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

14 Holding Cell Life Safety Code compliance In Compliance

15 Fire detection, suppression, and evacuation In Compliance

16 Fire Department consultation/evaluation

In Compliance

17 Implementation of fire safety program

In Compliance

18 Immediate interim fire safety measures

In Compliance

19 Routine testing of fire safety equipment

In Compliance

20 Enforce no smoking in holding cells

In Compliance

21 Proper storage of flammable liquids

In Compliance

22 Remove combustible cane fiber tiles

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

IV. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES CJ Requirement C23 The DPD shall ensure a reasonable level of safety and security of all staff and prisoners in the event of a fire or other emergency. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. As noted previously, Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of C24-25; DPD is in compliance with C25. Accordingly, we find this paragraph in compliance. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C24
The DPD shall develop a comprehensive emergency preparedness program that is approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department. This program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the programs within three months of DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the plan. At a minimum, the emergency preparedness program shall:

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 134 of 193 Pg ID 9037

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 133

January 16, 2013

a. include an emergency response plan for each building that contains holding cells identifying staff responsibilities in the event of fire-related emergencies and other emergencies, including notification responsibilities, evacuation procedures and key control procedures (discussed below); and
b. require performance and documentation of fire drills for all buildings containing holding cells on all shifts every six months (documentation shall include the start and stop times of each drill, the staff members who participated in the drill, a summary of the drill, and an evaluation of the success of the drill).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CEPP identifies staff responsibilities in the event of a fire emergency to include notifications, evacuation, and key control procedures. (See C15.)
The DPD achieved full compliance in the second and subsequent reporting periods as it increased the frequency of fire drills to the 100% level required by policy. During this reporting period, we determined that the fire drills were again conducted according to policy at the 100% level.
Following our recommendations that the detention evacuation equipment be stored in the immediate vicinity of the holding cells so that it is readily accessible to officers, we found, during the last reporting period, that the shackles were fully accounted for and placed individually in crates, allowing for easy access. During our most recent inspection, we found that the shackles were easily accessible. We determined that the detention officers had sufficient handcuffs and/or shackles for use in the event of an evacuation, and that all of the detention officers that we interviewed were aware of DPD policy to retain the assigned holding cell keys on their persons.
The DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C25
The DPD shall develop and implement key control policies and procedures that will ensure that all staff is able to manually unlock all holding cell doors in the event of a fire or other emergency.
At a minimum, the key control policies and procedures shall:
a. provide for emergency identification of keys by touch;
b. and require routine inventory, testing and maintenance of keys and locks.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 135 of 193 Pg ID 9038

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 134

January 16, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our first site visit, we recommended that each officer working in a cell block be issued a complete set of keys. Following this recommendation, we were informed that two extra sets of keys were distributed to each district/precinct with holding cells, bringing the total at each to five – three in the cell block, one with the sergeant assigned to the public lobby, and one in the emergency key box in the lieutenants’ and sergeants’ office.
During our two previous inspections, we found that each district/precinct had, at the minimum, five sets of keys – three in the cell block, one with the sergeant assigned to the public lobby, and one in the emergency key box in the lieutenants’ and sergeants’ office. Teletype #11-0989, Holding Cell Facility Keys – Required Documentation, regarding inventory and assignment of keys by the cellblock supervisor, had been distributed. This policy directed the cellblock supervisor to conduct an inventory of the keys at the commencement and the conclusion of his/her tour of duty and document same in the MAS Desk Blotter.
During a previous site visit, we found that CRIB had distributed Department Teletype #1101395, which thoroughly explained the procedure for documenting the inventory and security of keys. When interviewed, the detention supervisors and officers appeared to have an understanding of their responsibility for key control. However, another set of keys was lost in December 2011. This required lock changes for all exterior doors at the precinct.
During our most recent site visit, we determined that the supervisors and officers that we interviewed appeared to understand the process for inventory and control of the keys. The MAS Desk Blotter indicated that key inventories were entered in a timely manner. Earlier this year while reviewing a random sample of key control inventories, we found that a set of keys had been taken home by one of the detention officers. This was discovered and properly documented, and the officer returned the keys to the district within the hour.
DPD is now in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

23 Ensure reasonable safety in emergency

In Compliance

24

Develop

comprehensive

preparedness program

emergency In Compliance

25 Implementation of key control policies

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 136 of 193 Pg ID 9039

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 135

January 16, 2013

V. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES
CJ Requirement C26
The DPD shall ensure the appropriate identification of, and response to, prisoner’s medical and/or mental health conditions.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During all previous reporting periods, we found DPD not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
During previous reporting periods, we reviewed all DPD’s Audit Team’s report of its findings of the Holding Cells and are in agreement with their findings as they have been similar to ours. The most recent audit of the holding cells was released on July 31, 2012 and the deficiencies noted, for the most part have been addressed. We have observed steady improvement during the past year to address the deficiencies described in our reports.
Our inspections and review of the quarterly detainee file folders demonstrated progress in most areas; however, previous documentation of detainee medical information and release of medication continued to be problematic. There were issues and deficiencies with the Detainee Intake Form, DPD 651, by not including the typed name of the arresting and transporting officers or transferring medical information acquired from the arresting or transporting officers. DPD revised the Detainee Intake Form (DIS) with implementation on September 20, 2012. The document was approved by the Department’s consulting physician on August 31, 2012. The new form is handwritten, streamlined and should resolve some of the issues with documentation from the previous form. New guidelines for the completion of the revised DIS were issued to assist processing officers conducting screening of detainees. As a result of the implementation of the revised Detainee Intake Form, it was disabled from Livescan.
Medical referrals and the thoroughness of medication logs have also sustained improvement during this and the four previous reporting periods, and the documentation of the exchange of health information between shifts has been in compliance for some time. In previous reviews, holding cell personnel did not adequately list the medical needs of the detainees on the Platoon Daily Detail Summary (PDDSL); and the shift preparing or receiving the log failed to place the date or the time on the form. DPD has rectified this problem, and those forms are now complete, with the exception of completing the new medications portion of the form that was recently added. While four of the facilities are completing this form correctly, the remaining facility is having difficulty but has improved recently in its documentation.
During the current reporting period we reviewed and inspected a random sample of 193 detainee file folders and observed personnel. We found that a few personnel are still not properly implementing these procedures in accordance with the DPD directives. We continue to note a few clerical errors and incomplete or missing documentation of medical referral (conveying officers dates/times) and medication logs.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 137 of 193 Pg ID 9040

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 136

January 16, 2013

In order to assess compliance with this paragraph, we reviewed those issues that had a direct impact on identification and response to a detainee’s medical or mental health conditions. We found 17 instances where the detainee processing time did not meet the requirement, no release of medication was indicated, no transfer of medical/mental health information transferred to the Detainee Information Form, failing to provide the discharge instructions or the conveying officer failing to indicate their name or the date/time of the conveyance back to the holding facility from DRH.
The three critical issues for DPD to address at this time for compliance purposes with the Medical and Mental Health Care Policies (C26-33) are: sanitary conditions of the holding facilities; the capture of the medical/mental health information initially obtained by the arresting officers being transferred to the Detainee Information Form; and ensuring that remaining medications at the time of detainee release are either given to them or transferred with them to another facility. At this point, DPD needs to fill out the required forms completely to be in compliance with this paragraph. Compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon compliance with C27-C33.
DPD is now in compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C27
The DPD shall develop a comprehensive medical and mental health screening program (CMMHSP) that shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals. This program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the program within three months of DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least every year and prior to any revisions to the programs. At a minimum, the comprehensive medical and mental health screening program shall include prisoner screening procedures and medical protocols.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD Health Authority completed the annual review and approved the CMMHSP policies and directives. The DPD provided us with documentation indicating that the CMMHSP was approved on February 17, 2012, and the mental health portion was approved on February 29, 2012. DPD revised the Detainee Information Form with implementation on September 20, 2012 with written approval on August 31, 2012 by the Department’s consulting physician.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 138 of 193 Pg ID 9041

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 137

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C28
The prisoner screening procedure, at a minimum, shall:
a. enable the DPD to identify individuals with medical or mental health conditions, including infectious diseases, chronic conditions, including disabilities, ambulatory impairments, mental health conditions, and drug/alcohol withdrawal;
b. identify persons who are at risk of committing suicide, persons who have been on heightened observation for suicide risk at any time during a past incarceration and persons who have any medical contraindications for the use of chemical sprays,
c. require that the DPD follow a standard intake procedure for each individual entering DPD custody;
d. require that intake screening be conducted within two hours of intake and through a verbal exchange between the DPD and prisoners; and
e. incorporate all health information pertaining to a prisoner acquired by the arresting or transporting officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our review of documentation and July 2012 site visit, we found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement for the first time. For this review we observed a few deficiencies, including clerical errors and incomplete or incorrect completion of required forms. With few exceptions personnel documented those instances where information was critical to the detainee’s health care.
Occasionally an arrestee is taken directly to DRH from the scene, and the two-hour screening mandate from time of arrest to processing does not meet the requirement. DPD processes detainees for Wayne State University Police, Detroit Public Schools Police, and the Michigan State Police. We have noted that many times DPD is late processing these detainees, due to the other agencies not presenting them to the holding facilities until the two hours from the time of arrest has passed. Any instance in which a detainee is screened more than two hours from the time of the arrest the processing officer should so indicate the reason on the DIF. In each case, staff had transported to DRH detainees needing medical attention within a reasonable time of the request.
There were 17 instances where the intake screening took more than two hours; however, in six of these cases, the arrestee was transported to DRH or another hospital directly from the scene. In two cases, the processing officer indicated a backup of detainees to be processed as the cause for the delay; in one case, the arrest was made by Michigan State Police; one detainee was combative, and in seven cases, the processing was late and the reason for this was not

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 139 of 193 Pg ID 9042

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 138

January 16, 2013

documented. Occasionally there are operational issues at the facilities where screening may be delayed due to safety of the detainee and employees. While on-site we reviewed a file folder (DIS) where we observed no entry for the time of screening.
Many of these issues would be resolved if personnel would complete all the information the forms require and the OIC approving the form investigate those in violation of the two-hour requirement at the conclusion of the detainee processing and address those issues immediately. Compliance for processing detainees within the two-hour requirement is 97%.
The Medical/Mental High Risk Logs (DPD 661) for this reporting period revealed that high-risk detainees were observed by staff and were compliant. We reviewed DPD 661 Forms for detainees who were maintained on suicide watches and all of them properly specified “constant supervision.” The forms met the requirements for constant supervision as required by DPD policy. In the Sixth Precinct a detainee was placed on suicide watch (constant observation) per DRH staff. A note on one platoon’s monitoring sheet indicated that due to a lack of staffing in the precinct they were unable to provide constant monitoring for this detainee. This is a serious violation of DPD policy and should not occur in the future.
In one other case, a detainee indicated that he had ideations of suicide within the past two weeks. The detainee was appropriately placed in an observation cell but not constantly monitored; however, personnel indicated ‘he was “near visual (sight) and sound of holding cell personnel.” DPD policy requires direct visual observation. As a result of this exception, personnel were reinstructed on the requirements of Directive 305.1-5.26. All facilities met or exceeded the requirement.
In some cases, medical professionals at DRH may recommend placing a detainee on constant watch or remove them from the watch. In these cases, DPD personnel need to indicate these changes in the comment section of the High Risk Log or on the form when they have returned to the holding facility. If there is any question whether a detainee should be monitored every 15 minutes or placed under constant observation; the detainee should be constantly monitored. This is the fourth consecutive reporting period in which we have found DPD in compliance with C28b.
During this reporting period, we continued to find some of the problems we observed in the past. These deficiencies included missing or incorrect dates/times on forms and logs and forms and logs not filled out completely. When a detainee’s medical or mental health status changes, detention staff should update the documents accordingly and indicate the date and time of the new information. Note: With the revised DIF, detainee’s medical information has been disabled from the Livescan system. Overall, we found that DPD had a 94% compliance rate with this paragraph due to the compliance of C28e (C28a, b, and c had previously been in compliance). There were 49 instances where the Detainee Input Sheet indicated that the arresting or transporting officer listed a mental or medical issue with the detainee. In 46 cases, the processing officers in the facilities transferred this information to the Detainee Information Form. The three cases where the processing officers failed to transfer the medical/mental information as required by policy all occurred in the Second Precinct. DPD’s compliance rate for the quarter is 94%.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 140 of 193 Pg ID 9043

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 139

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C29
The medical protocols, at a minimum, shall:
a. identify the specific actions the DPD shall take in response to the medical information acquired during prisoner screening or detention, including the need for emergency care, hospitalization, prescription medication and/or intensive monitoring; and
b. require prior supervisory review and written approval, absent exigent circumstances, of all decisions made in response to acquired medical information.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD was not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph in previous reporting periods.
During this reporting period, we reviewed a sample of 193 detainee file folders, and inspected each of the districts/precincts that maintain holding cells and the Detroit Receiving Hospital. We continue to find that staff did not follow policy in several key areas, including:
• There were 56 referrals of detainees in need of medical or mental health care to the Detroit Receiving Hospital and all were within policy with one common exception: the officer transporting the detainee back to the holding facility from DRH failing to list the date/time of return.
• There were seven cases in which intake screenings were not conducted within the twohour timeframe.
• Detainees not receiving medications prescribed by the Detroit Receiving Hospital in a timely manner. Forty-six detainees had medications disbursed; and in two instances, the dosages were not administered according to schedule. DPD administered several hundred dosages to detainees during this reporting period.
• There were 49 instances where detainee medical information was listed by the arresting officer on the Detainee Input Sheet and in three cases the processing officer did not transfer that information to the Detainee Information Form. There were 56 detainees who went to the Detroit Receiving Hospital; all but two discharge instructions were included in the detainee file folders.
• Written prior supervisory approval was issued for all decisions made in response to acquired medical information.
• The required Hospital Prisoner Form was included in 55 of the 56 detainees who went to DRH.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 141 of 193 Pg ID 9044

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 140

January 16, 2013

• There were 193 classifications of detainees into the holding facilities after screening and 187 were correctly classified.
Overall, we found that 97% were in compliance with this paragraph – a slight increase from the 96% we found during the last reporting period. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C30
The DPD shall develop and implement policy regarding infectious disease control (IDC) in consultation with medical health professionals. The policy shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical health professionals at least every year after implementation and prior to any revisions to the policy. At a minimum, the policy shall:
a. establish appropriate housing for prisoners believed to have infectious diseases; and
b. mandate measures the DPD shall take to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, including proper handling and disposal of bio-hazardous material.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our previous site visits, our inspections of the Detroit Receiving Hospital and the five DPD facilities that maintain holding cells disclosed satisfactory levels of sanitation in similar degrees at all of the sites with a trend toward improvement. During our most recent site visit, we found all facilities once again – and the previous issues with the documentation of cleaning logs – in compliance.
We found that the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) kits were in order and included an adequate supply of the required contents. Our inspection of the first aid kits found that the contents were satisfactory, as we have observed improvement by the detention staff in this area. We continue to recommend that detention staff open the first aid kits on a regular basis to verify that the contents have not expired.
An effective infectious disease control plan must account for the sanitation and maintenance of all plumbing and equipment; physical plant cleanliness; and documentation that a plan to maintain the physical plant is being implemented in the holding cell areas and holding cells. The DPD Infectious Disease Policy 403.0, Section 403.2-6.3, Statements 1-6, Department Equipment, vehicle or facility, affirms the importance of building maintenance and cleaning and decontamination of the facility.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 142 of 193 Pg ID 9045

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 141

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C31
The DPD shall develop and implement a protocol for updating and exchanging prisoner health information. At a minimum, this protocol shall;
a. require that prisoner’s health information is recorded at intake and thereafter immediately readily available to all relevant medical and transporting personnel in a manner consistent with the relevant federal and state confidentiality statutes;
b. require that prisoner health information is continually updated to incorporate any additional relevant information acquired during his or her detention;
c. require that relevant prisoner health information is documented and communicated between consecutive shifts, such as whether a prisoner is taking medication or has a medical condition; and
d. require that prisoner health information travel with prisoners who transferred to another facility.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During previous reporting periods, our reviews of DPD form 661, Detainee Medical/Mental Health Monitoring and form 659a, Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Form; indicated that required detainee health information – such as whether a detainee is taking medication or has a medical condition – was not always being documented and communicated between consecutive shifts. Issues remain with staff properly documenting medications on the new reporting form.
As noted above our reviews of these documents is important to ensure that the detainees’ health needs are met, and for the purposes of staff safety. This information must be documented, updated, and communicated between the initial shift receiving the detainee and the subsequent shifts until the detainee is released. It is critical for the oncoming shift to indicate the date and time they receive the Platoon Daily Detainee Summary and to acknowledge its accuracy to assure the continuity of health monitoring for detainees requiring it.
We reviewed DPD log 659a, Platoon Daily Detainee Summary, in the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells; and found fewer errors than in our previous reports. Of the errors we found, the most prevalent is the failure of DPD personnel to mark the prescribed meds column and the Medicine Cabinet checkbox on the form. It should be noted that form DPD 659a was amended during the ninth reporting period to indicate for each detainee whether medications are prescribed. It is apparent from our observations that staff is not, in some cases, completing this section of the form and supervisory personnel are not catching the omissions. Detainee medications are captured on the Medication Disbursement Log (DPD 664). DPD’s ability to capture information and list the medical/mental needs of the detainee on the form is exceptional

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 143 of 193 Pg ID 9046

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 142

January 16, 2013

in almost every case. DPD has been in compliance for C31a, b, and d. (See C36). The Second Precinct (formerly Southwestern District), Northeastern District, and the Sixth Precinct’s logs were again exceptional for the two previous reporting periods. The overall compliance rate (C31c) for all holding cell facilities is 96%, an increase from the 94% registered during the previous reporting period.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C32
The DPD shall develop a prescription medication policy in consultation with qualified medical and mental health professionals that ensures prisoners are provided prescription medication as directed. The policy shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals and shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the policy within three months of the DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the policy shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least annually and prior to any revisions to the program. At a minimum, the policy shall:
a. indicate when the DPD shall convey prisoners taking prescription medication to the DRH or other treating hospital for evaluation;
b. require the DPD distribute to prisoners only medications that have been prescribed at the DRH or other treating hospitals;
c. require that the DPD distribute medications as prescribed and not rely on inmates to identify their need for medication;
d. require that all prisoner medications be stored in a secure location near the holding cells and travel with prisoners that are transferred;
e. require the DPD to record relevant information regarding the administration of prescription medication on an auditable form;
f. require that injected medications are administered as prescribed and in a safe and hygienic manner; and
g. require that unused mediations prescribed at the DRH or other treating hospitals are provided to prisoners upon their release.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During all of the previous reporting periods, at the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, we found Medication Logs missing critical detainee and staff information. In prior reviews detainee dosages, dosing times, signatures, the names of the persons administering the

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 144 of 193 Pg ID 9047

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 143

January 16, 2013

medications, and prescription release information did not always appear on the logs. Those issues had previously been addressed with the exception of C32g, prescription release information. As a result, we found the DPD not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
During the current reporting period, in our review of 193 detainee file folders, we found few instances where the DPD failed to record essential detainee and staff information. We noted, for example, that the medication logs on detainees who had been released showed that two detainees were not given their unused medications; although just above where the detention officer signs the form is a box that should be checked indicating the release.
There were 46 cases where medications were disbursed to detainees. In two instances, it was unknown if the remaining medication was released to the detainee or transferred with them to another facility due to personnel not indicating the status on the form. The failure of personnel releasing medications to detainees upon release occurred at the Second Precinct and the Eastern District. We examined the Platoon Daily Detainee Summary logs, which are used to ensure that detainee health information is exchanged and communicated between shifts. During a previous reporting period, DPD included a section on the PDDSL to indicate if detainees on a monitoring status were taking medications. This serves as an immediate alert for the CBS at the beginning of the shift that informs him/her if any detainees are on medication.
During our most recent site visit, we checked all active detainee file folders in all facilities for those detainees who were on medication or on a monitoring status. Each of the medication disbursement logs were reviewed and matched with the medication contained in the medication storage cabinet. We found that the prescribed medication for each detainee was properly stored. We did not find any medication left in the cabinet from detainees who had already been released as we had found in previous inspections. Our inspection of medication cabinets and medications for detainees at the districts/precincts maintaining holding cells revealed that all was satisfactory in the location of the cabinets and storage of medications.
Based on the noted improvements in our Twelfth Quarterly Report, we found DPD in pending Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. DPD has addressed the previous failures with the requirements of C32g and has become compliant with this paragraph. The Department must continue to focus on the concerns related to the documentation of medication disbursements; C32a through 32f are in compliance. The compliance rate for C32g is 96%, compared to the 87% we found in the last reporting period.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C33 The DPD shall provide appropriate clothing, such as paper gowns or suicide smocks, to all prisoners placed under suicide precautions. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 145 of 193 Pg ID 9048

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 144

January 16, 2013

During previous reporting periods, we found that detention personnel were generally familiar with where the appropriate clothing items, paper gowns and/or suicide smocks, were stored. Our inspections revealed ample inventory of appropriate clothing.
During our most recent inspections in all five districts and precincts with holding cells, we found sufficient inventory of paper gowns and/or suicide smocks. The staff we interviewed was knowledgeable regarding the use of the clothing and where the appropriate clothing was stored.
We find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C34 The DPD shall remove or make inaccessible all suicide hazards in holding cells including exposed pipes, radiators and overhead bars. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. During all of our previous site visits, we conducted comprehensive inspections of each of the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, as well as the Detroit Receiving Hospital cells. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 26 Prisoners’ medical/mental health conditions 27 Medical/mental health screening program 28 Medical/mental health screening procedures 29 Medical protocols 30 Infectious disease policy required 31 Prisoner health information protocol required 32 Prescription medication policy required 33 Clothing-suicide prevention 34 Removal of suicide hazards

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 146 of 193 Pg ID 9049

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 145

January 16, 2013

VI. PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES CJ Requirement C35 The DPD shall ensure a reasonable level of safety of staff and prisoners through the use of appropriate security administration procedures. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of staff and inmate safety measures required by C36-38; accordingly, the DPD is in compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C36
The DPD shall develop and implement a prisoner security screening program for all buildings containing holding cells. At a minimum, the program shall:
a. establish protocols based upon objective, behavior-based criteria for identifying suspected crime partners, vulnerable, assaultive or special management prisoners who should be housed in observation cells or single-occupancy cells; and
b. require that security screening information is documented and communicated between consecutive shifts.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
DPD Form 659A (Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Log [PDDSL]), revised August 2011, is used to record information on detainees with medical conditions or special needs. During this reporting period, we reviewed Eastern District logs that contained 512 entries. The most common errors noted continue to be failures to mark the “Prescribed Meds” column and failures to identify Suspected Crime Partners (SCPs) in the comments section as required by the Department. The Eastern District’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 94%, a 7% increase from the last reporting period.
We reviewed Northeastern District logs containing 475 entries. As in the second quarter, errors involved failure to mark the prescribed meds column and the improper marking of alert boxes. The Northeastern District’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 97%, a 1% increase from the last reporting period.
We reviewed Sixth Precinct logs containing 811 entries. The Sixth Precinct’s compliance rate with this paragraph remains at 96%, the same as the last reporting period.
We reviewed Twelfth Precinct logs containing 376 entries. A common error is the failure to mark the “Prescribed Meds” column, especially for suspected crime partners. In the July

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 147 of 193 Pg ID 9050

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 146

January 16, 2013

documents, six of the 10 errors in the “Prescribed Meds” column were related to the failure to mark this column for SCPs. In September, seven of the 12 errors in the “Prescribed Meds” column were related to the same issue with SCPs. The elimination of these 13 errors would have raised the Precinct’s compliance rate by 4%. The Twelfth Precinct’s compliance rate with this paragraph remains at 92%, the same as the last reporting period.
We reviewed Second Precinct (formerly Southwestern District) logs containing 392 entries. The district’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 99% for this reporting period, a 1% increase from the last reporting period.
The average for all districts/precincts during this reporting period is 96% compliance for the 2,566 log entries, an increase of 2%. The failure of holding personnel to mark the “Prescribed Meds” column and Suspected Crime Partner errors continue to be the major documentation deficiencies in this portion of the Consent Judgment.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. However, additional effort is needed to correct excessive recording errors in the Twelfth Precinct, the only facility to fall below the required 94% compliance rate. Eastern District met the 94% compliance requirement for the first time in four reporting periods. They are commended for their improved status and for the evidence of supervisory monitoring for accuracy on its July report.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C37
The DPD shall develop and implement procedures for the performance, documentation and review of routine cell checks in all holding cells to ensure safe housing. At a minimum, the procedures should:
a. require that cell checks on the general population are performed at least twice per hour and that cell checks of prisoners in observation cells and DRH holding cells are performed every 15 minutes, unless constant supervision is required; and
b. require detention officers to document relevant information regarding the performance of cell checks in an auditable log.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The duties of cell block supervisors (CBS) and detention officers relating to well-being checks are established by DPD policy. Supervisors are required to walk through the holding cell areas four times per shift to check on the well-being of the detainees. Detention officers are required to make similar visual checks every 30 minutes (or every 15 minutes for high-risk detainees). Their observations are documented on the Detention Cell Check Log (DPD 659).
At the Detroit Receiving Hospital (DRH), 15-minute well-being checks are entered on the DPD 659 Form when holding cells are occupied. The review of the DPD 659 forms from DRH this

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 148 of 193 Pg ID 9051

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 147

January 16, 2013

reporting period indicated an apparent compliance rate of 99%. Only one time check was missed. However, reports were not provided from Platoon One for September 1 and from Platoon 3 for September 3. Reporting numbers are very low for DRH due to low population counts. During this reporting period, only 13 of 51 shifts reported having a detainee in the holding cells.
General population well-being checks are entered on the DPD 659 Form every 30 minutes at the districts/precincts. Detainees held in observation cells are monitored every 15 minutes on DPD Form 661 (Mental Health High Risk Monitoring MHHRM). During the current reporting period, our review of 255 Detention Cell Check Logs (DPD 659) for the general detainee population from the districts with holding cell facilities reflected a 100% compliance rate (rounded percentages). Only the Second Precinct, with a 98% compliance rate, failed to achieve a 100% score. During each tour of duty, detention officers are required to make cell checks every 30 minutes (16 checks daily), and supervisors every two hours (four checks daily).
For the periods of July 10-15, August 20-25, and September 1-5, 2012, we reviewed logs for 10 detainees who required a 15-minute MMHRM watch, reported on Form DPD 661. No MMHRM logs were submitted from the Second Precinct for this reporting period.
All districts met or exceeded the required >94% compliance standard for cell checks. Documentation errors were reduced in the Eastern District and the Twelfth Precinct during this reporting period.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C38
The DPD shall record in a written policy and implement a procedure that requires detention officers to provide continual direct or on site remote observation of all observation cells while they are occupied.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During this reporting period, potentially serious monitoring errors occurred in the Sixth Precinct with two detainees. In July, one detainee was on suicide watch per hospital evaluation from July 13, through 16, 2012. Two checks were missed by Platoon 2 on July 13, and two checks were missed by Platoon 3 on July 14. A note on the Second Platoon monitoring sheet for July 14 stated that “manpower issue would not allow an officer for constant monitoring.” On July 15, First Platoon, a notation requires “Monitor Only.” On the same date, Third Platoon, a notation requires “Constant Monitor.”
Beginning on September 3, another detainee was placed on constant observation at DRH at 19:15 hours. The next day, Platoon Three recorded only 30-minute observations from 16:30 hours to the end of the shift. There was no back page submitted for this date, so the duration of

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 149 of 193 Pg ID 9052

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 148

January 16, 2013

this monitoring is unknown. Detainees on suicide watch require constant monitoring. Manpower issues do not relieve the Department from its responsibility – or its liability – should a detainee harm him/herself.
With the exception of these issues in the Sixth Precinct, all districts met or exceeded the required >94% compliance standard. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 35 Security procedures to ensure safety 36 Prisoner security screening program 37 Procedures for cell checks required 38 On-site remote observation of cells

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES
CJ Requirement C39
The DPD shall ensure that all holding cells are cleaned immediately and thereafter are maintained in a clean and sanitary manner.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During this reporting period, we evaluated all districts/precincts for general cleanliness and sanitation. The cleanliness levels in most areas were satisfactory. The Second and Sixth Precincts had been freshly painted prior to our visit. Eastern District continues to have issues with dirty floors around the toilets in the cells due to the inadequate lighting in the toilet areas. Many of the concrete benches in the Sixth and Twelfth Precincts and the Eastern and Northeastern Districts have corroded or have been damaged over time and are no longer capable of adequate cleaning and disinfection.
Documentation of holding cell cleaning was improved during this reporting period, particularly in the latter two months of the quarter as the facilities became more accustomed to the new reporting system using desk blotter entries. It was also commendable to see supervisory oversight of these entries, with follow-up actions as deemed necessary. Credit was given for missed documentation when supervisory oversight and follow-up was reported. Departmentwide, the holding cell cleaning compliance documentation improved from 73% in July to 99% in September.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 150 of 193 Pg ID 9053

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 149

January 16, 2013

The improved documentation for this reporting period – and the overall cleanliness level of the facilities observed during our most recent site visit – brings the Department into compliance for this reporting period.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C40
The DPD shall design and implement a cleaning policy for all holding cells. The policy shall require routine cleaning and supervisory inspection of the holding cells and nearby areas.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
DPD Directive 305.4 (effective July 6, 2012) is the relevant document for this section; this document is reviewed on an annual basis. Additional documents have been issued to command staff for guidance purposes to ensure consistency in cleaning methods and procedures. The Holding Cell Compliance Committee (HCCC) has issued detailed cell block cleaning instructions that cover procedures, schedules, and documentation.
The Department continues to have to use whatever chemicals the City provides it to accomplish cleaning and disinfection tasks. The lack of standardization of chemicals used in the facilities prevents officers from being trained in the appropriate application and chemical contact times necessary for adequate disinfection. In one instance, we observed an officer’s notation that no floor cleaner was available. He indicated that he used bleach to mop the floor. This reveals a lack of training for staff because bleach has no cleaning properties whatsoever and its disinfection capabilities are negated by exposure to soiling. Therefore, the officer’s efforts not only failed to clean the floor, it provided little to no disinfection as well, depending on the level of soiling on the floor. The Department should pursue a standardized procurement and distribution system for chemicals used in the various holding facilities. It is impossible to properly train staff in the proper mixing and application of chemicals when different chemicals are randomly supplied to the sites.
This requirement addresses the design and implementation of a cleaning policy for all holding cells. It also requires the routine cleaning and supervisory oversight of cleaning of the cells and nearby areas. The policy is in place and is adequate. The application of this policy has improved since our last site visit, but improvements in the chemical aspects of the cleaning operations are still needed.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 151 of 193 Pg ID 9054

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 150

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement C41
The DPD shall design and implement a maintenance policy for all holding cells that requires timely performance of routine maintenance and the documentation of all maintenance requests and responses in an auditable log.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The Platoon 1 Cell Block Supervisor is responsible for conducting a weekly maintenance inspection and for documenting discrepancies in the Facilities Maintenance Log (DPD 702). The Platoon 1 Cell Block Supervisor is required to submit repair orders via e-mail to the Facilities Maintenance Department.
Based on the Holding Cell Facility Logs (DPD 702), OCR prepares a monthly spreadsheet listing all current outstanding repairs and their status. Items on this spreadsheet are reviewed monthly by the HCCC. During this reporting period, HCCC meeting agendas were reviewed and confirmed that current facility repairs were being discussed.
During our evaluation of this reporting period’s Facility Maintenance Logs, we reviewed all logs from each of the five districts/precincts that maintain holding facilities and matched those repair requests to the master tracking log maintained by OCR. This section of the Consent Judgment requires “timely performance of routine maintenance.” Compliance with this requirement remains challenging due to the age of the facilities and furnishings and the lack of availability of replacement parts. We continue to find satisfactory response times in addressing repair issues.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C42
The DPD shall provide adequate heating and ventilation for all buildings containing holding cells.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
No HVAC issues were identified during our most recent site visit. As we toured the holding cells each day, we checked the temperatures in the cell areas, and found the temperatures in each of the holding facilities to be within the limits established by the Department (between 66°F and 85°F). Measured temperatures in the cell blocks were in the 74̊F – 81̊F range. Ventilation ducts continue to be heavily clogged with dust and debris that impede the flow of air into the holding cells.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 152 of 193 Pg ID 9055

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 151

January 16, 2013

DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C43
The DPD shall repair all broken or malfunctioning lighting, toilets, sinks and windows in holding cells and observation cells.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our most recent inspection, we found only isolated instances of malfunctioning lights, toilets, and sinks. Repairs are being made promptly when parts are available. The facilities and the equipment are old and outdated. It can be difficult to locate replacement parts for some of the toilet and sink units. When these malfunctions occur in the holding cells, the cells are taken out of service and signage is posted on the front of the cell to prevent usage until repairs are completed. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C44
The DPD shall ensure that lighting in all cell block areas is maintained at an appropriate level for all tasks related to the housing of DPD detainees, including but not necessarily limited to, security, safety, cleaning and disinfection of housing areas.43
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
As in past visits, during our most recent site visit, lighting levels were determined to be marginally sufficient in the cell areas. In the Eastern District, the toilet areas are particularly dark; these areas were not adequately cleaned at the time of this inspection. This lighting deficiency is also present in some of the cells in the Sixth Precinct. Command staff are looking into ways to improve lighting conditions in the toilet areas where light levels are particularly dim. Consideration is being given to removing part of the wall separating the bench and toilet areas. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph at this time.

43 Amended by Court Order dated April 23, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 153 of 193 Pg ID 9056

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 152

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C45
The DPD shall provide all prisoners with reasonable access to toilets and potable water 24 hours-a-day.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
No issues were identified during our most recent site visit. All prisoners had access to toilets and potable water at all times. Cells with plumbing deficiencies were not being used and signage was posted accordingly. Based on the published directive and our observations of conditions of the physical plant in the district/precinct holding cells, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C46 The DPD shall ensure that all Hepa-Aire purifiers comply with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Agency standards. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. All Hepa-Aire purifiers have been permanently removed from the district/precinct holding cell areas. DPD is in full compliance with the requirements of this Consent Judgment paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 39 Clean and maintain holding cells 40 Holding cell cleaning policy required 41 Holding cell maintenance policy required 42 Provide adequate heating and ventilation

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 154 of 193 Pg ID 9057

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 153

January 16, 2013

43 Repair broken/malfunctioning cell elements 44 Insure sufficient cell lighting 45 Provide reasonable access to toilets and water 46 Hepa-Aire purifiers comply with standards

In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VIII. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
CJ Requirement C47
The DPD shall ensure that persons with disabilities are provided with reasonable accommodations.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
No issues were identified during our most recent site visit. The Northeast District (NED) is the designated ADA-compliant holding facility; all detainees with disabilities requiring special accommodations are housed in this facility. A wheelchair is available at NED for detainee use as needed. During our most recent site visit, we found that detention staff in the districts/precincts continue to demonstrate competency in the use of Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD). In addition, the TDD equipment was working properly in all sites. DPD detention staff are now required, per policy, to conduct tests on a monthly basis to ensure the equipment is working properly. In each holding facility, detention staff were able to demonstrate the use of the equipment.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C48
The DPD shall develop and implement a policy concerning the detention of individuals with disabilities in consultation with qualified medical and mental health professionals. The policy shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least every year and prior to any revisions to the program.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The provisions of this requirement are covered in DPD 305.1, Detainee Intake, and DPD 305.5, Detainee Health Care. An annual review of these policies was conducted on February 17, 2012, and approved by qualified medical and mental health professionals.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 155 of 193 Pg ID 9058

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 154

January 16, 2013

DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 47 Reasonable accommodation for disabled 48 Detention of persons with disabilities

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

IX. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES CJ Requirement C49 The DPD shall ensure food is stored and served in a sanitary manner and in compliance with state and local health codes. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of C50; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. See C50. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C50
The DPD shall develop and implement a food service policy that shall be approved in writing by a qualified sanitarian. At a minimum, the food service policy shall:
a. require that the meal plan is initially approved in writing by a qualified dietician and, hereafter, is reviewed and approved in writing by a qualified dietician at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the program;
b. require that all food is stored and handled in a sanitary manner;
c. ensure that all prisoners are provided with an alternative meal if they are unable to eat the standard meal for religious or dietary reasons; and
d. ensure that food service is provided to all prisoners who are held over six hours.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 156 of 193 Pg ID 9059

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 155

January 16, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. DPD’s Detainee Food Service and Hygiene Items Policy 305.8, was reviewed and approved by the Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Promotion, dated March 22, 2012.
In June, the Department instituted a new reporting system for documenting the feeding of detainees. Meal service is now documented electronically on the Department’s Desk Blotter, by the Cell Block Supervisor in each holding cell facility.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed Daily Detainee Meal & Hygiene Logs, DPD form 663, for the periods of July 10-15, August 20-25, and September 1-5, 2012. As with the new holding cell cleaning documentation, the new food service documentation was greatly improved during this reporting period. Credit was given for missed documentation when supervisory oversight and corrective actions were reported. A review of the districts’ use of the new forms revealed compliance rates ranging from 100% in the Twelfth Precinct to 75% in the Eastern District, with an overall compliance rate of 92% for the reporting period. Departmentwide, the holding cell feeding documentation improved from 84% in July to 98% in September.
The only issue of note occurred in the Eastern District where meat sandwiches had been left out on the cell door food slots at 9:30 hours. When questioned, an officer confirmed that the breakfast meal had been served at 6:00 hours. Leaving potentially hazardous food products out at room temperature violates safe food practices and increases the risk of pathogen growth and resulting foodborne illness. This practice also violates the Department’s Food Service Policy 305.8-5.3, paragraph 5, which states, “Within one-half (1/2) of an hour after each meal service the detention personnel shall make sure that all containers are collected and disposed of in the proper trash receptacle. Detainees shall not be allowed to retain any containers beyond this time.”
The Detention Refrigeration Log, DPD form 655, was revised to capture daily refrigerator temperatures and weekly cleaning and sanitization information on a monthly, instead of weekly, basis. The revised form was implemented on June 7, 2012, Department-wide. The new form is simple to use and reduces staff input time. During this reporting period, we found that in every instance, the refrigerators had been cleaned weekly and refrigerator temperatures were satisfactory. Expiration dates on the food were up to standard. All districts were 100% compliant with the new refrigeration logs.
The improved documentation for this reporting period – and the overall compliance level with detainee feeding practices observed during our most recent site visit – bring the Department into compliance for this reporting period.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 49 Ensure sanitary food storage and service

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 157 of 193 Pg ID 9060

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 156

January 16, 2013

50 Food service policies and practices

In Compliance

In Compliance

X. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES
CJ Requirement C51
The DPD shall ensure that personal hygiene items should include; soap, toothbrushes, toothpaste, toilet paper, a comb, deodorant, and feminine hygiene products. The DPD shall implement this provision within one month of effective date of this Agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
In the current reporting period, we inspected each area where the hygiene kits are stored to determine if the kits were readily available, and found that in all five facilities there were an adequate number of hygiene kits to distribute to detainees when needed. Feminine hygiene products were also available in all sites. Our interviews with the PDOs demonstrate an understanding of the importance of providing personal hygiene items to the detainees on a daily basis.
The DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement is 100%. Accordingly, we find the Department in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 51 Make available personal hygiene items

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance

CJ Requirement C52
The DPD shall require that any use of force on prisoners in holding cells complies with the DPD’s use of force policies and procedures.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the last reporting period, we reviewed 14 incidents occurring at detention facilities. Two of the cases were attempted suicides, and one was a detainee injury in which no force was utilized. Thirteen of the 14 cases should have had video reviews, but only eight had details of the reviews (62%) utilizing facility and handheld camera recordings.
During this reporting period, we also examined eight SIRs regarding incidents occurring at detention facilities. Three of the cases were attempted suicides, two of which required the officers to use force to extract the detainee. Seven of the eight cases should have included video

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 158 of 193 Pg ID 9061

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 157

January 16, 2013

reviews; four (57%) had sufficient reviews utilizing facility and handheld camera recordings.44 Three had no reviews or poor reviews. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement C53
The DPD shall revise and augment its policies regarding prisoners to require that:
a. officers utilize appropriate precautions when interacting with a prisoner who has previously demonstrated he or she is recalcitrant or resistant, including: summoning additional officers; summoning a supervisor; and using appropriate restraints;
b. absent exigent circumstances, officers notify a supervisor before using force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell; and
c. the supervisor assesses the need to use force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell, direct any such use of force and ensure the incident is videotaped.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
All districts/precincts that maintain holding cells are equipped with some level of videotaping/digital recording equipment that is linked to a camera system that monitors hallways and common areas as well as most, but not all, cells. In addition to the mounted video equipment, the detention districts/precincts have been issued handheld cameras that can be used for planned extractions. Our visits to the various holding facilities found that supervisors were aware of the handheld cameras and had received some training in their use. All supervisors contacted during our most recent site visit were aware of the cameras’ location, and were aware of the need to check the recorders to ensure that the batteries were functional. In the previous reporting period, we found that there were 14 SIR investigations of incidents occurring in detention facilities cases; only two of these cases were cell extractions.
During this reporting period, we reviewed eight cases occurring in DPD detention facilities. Five of the cases contained information regarding detainees who had previously demonstrated recalcitrant or resistant behavior.45 In two (40%) of those cases involving these detainees, appropriate precautions were taken, to include the summoning of a supervisor and the utilization of additional officers.

44 One case was in a cellblock that had no cameras. 45 There was one case in July and four cases in August. There were no holding facility cases reviewed in June.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 159 of 193 Pg ID 9062

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 158

January 16, 2013

Of the eight cases reviewed, three were cell extractions, one in July and two in August. In all three cases a supervisor was notified and was present. The supervisors assessed the need to use force on the detainees confined to a cell – to include directing the use of force and ensuring the incident was videotaped – in just one (33%) of the cases, the attempted suicide in July where force had to be used to move him from the cell. There was also an attempted suicide in August in which force had to be used to move the detainee from the cell, and there was no preplanning for that extraction; in the other August case, there was a supervisor and additional officers present, but there is no indication that any preplanning was done nor that the handheld camera was utilized.
In reviewing the remaining five cases involving uses of force on detainees, we find that they are primarily uses of force involving detainees refusing to cooperate during processing or detainees being placed in their cells from the processing area. These are incidents that mostly occur spontaneously; and consequently, do not allow for preplanning. There are instances, however, in which the detainee’s behavior during the processing is such that supervisors should be notified; and plans should be made to have sufficient officers present to move the detainee into a cell with the minimum force possible.
Video was available and reviewed in four of the eight cases, including one in which the handheld camera was utilized.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement C54
The DPD shall not handcuff prisoners to benches for longer periods of time than are necessary.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found the DPD in deferred Phase 2 compliance status during the first reporting period, and in Phase 2 compliance during subsequent reporting periods.
During our visits to detention facilities during the most recent site visit, we did not observe any prisoners handcuffed to benches or fixed objects. Our review of DPD 715 forms (Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells), question 22 (“Were any detainees observed handcuffed to an object?”) and Office of Civil Rights monthly inspections, did not reveal any instances during the reporting period in which detainees were handcuffed to fixed objects.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 160 of 193 Pg ID 9063

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 159

January 16, 2013

¶ Requirements 52 Use of force policies 53 Revise policy re use of force with prisoners 54 Handcuffing of prisoners to benches

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance

XII. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW
CJ Requirement C55
The DPD shall require that all uses of force, injuries to prisoners and in-custody deaths occurring in the DPD holding cells are investigated in compliance with the DPD’s general incident investigation policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found the DPD out of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during all of the previous reporting periods.
During the last reporting period, we reviewed 14 incidents involving uses of force in holding cells and two attempted suicides. All 14 cases had SIR investigations completed. Four missed the 10-day requirement, and five missed the 30-day requirement. Eight (57%) of the 14 cases included video reviews.
During this reporting period, we requested eight cases. Three were attempted suicides and one was a detainee injury. Eight of the cases made the 10-day requirement, and two of the eight missed the 30-day requirement. Four (50%) of the eight cases included acceptable video reviews. As with the SIR investigations involving uses of force outside of the detention facilities, we continue to encourage staff to conduct more critical reviews of the investigations. There was only one case in which the handheld camera was utilized. There were no in-custody deaths in the cell block areas.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement C56 The DPD shall require that all uses of force occurring in the DPD holding cells are reported and investigated in compliance with the DPD’s use of force investigation policies. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 161 of 193 Pg ID 9064

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 160

January 16, 2013

During the last reporting period, we commented on the video reviews, noting that 13 of the 14 cases had opportunities for video recording and reviews. Eight of the 14 cases contained acceptable reviews of the recordings. During this reporting period, we found that seven of the eight cases had opportunities for video recordings and reviews.46 Four (57%) contained acceptable reviews; three contained no reviews or poor reviews. The handheld camera was used in only one of the incidents. Our review of the SIR investigations found that they suffered from the same deficiencies identified in the field SIR investigations.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement C57
The DPD shall require that all injuries to prisoners occurring in DPD holding cells are reported and investigated in compliance with the DPD’s prisoner injury investigation policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the last reporting period, we reviewed two attempted suicides and a detainee injury.
During this reporting period, we reviewed three attempted suicides and one injury detainee injury. Two of the attempted suicides required minimal force to remove the detainees from the cell. The attempted suicides and the detainee injury were investigated in conformity with the requirements in C57. The detainees involved in the three attempted suicides were promptly transported to DRH for treatment.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
• The issues that impact the quality of use of force investigations as described in the Use of Force section of the Consent Judgment are applicable to the use of force investigations of incidents occurring in the cell block area. The remedies we have recommended in those areas remain constant for the Conditions of Confinement requirements. Timely and thorough investigations, coupled with critical command level reviews, are the keys to
46 One incident occurred in an area with no cameras.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 162 of 193 Pg ID 9065

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 161

January 16, 2013

achieving compliance. We have noted improvements in video review and the use of the handheld portable cameras.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to review all force, injury, and complaint incidents originating from detention facilities.
• Monitor the supervisory review of video captured in the detention areas, and, where appropriate, monitor the use of handheld cameras in each detention facility.
• Conduct field visits to various detention facilities to verify the Department’s adherence to policy requirements.

¶ Requirements 55 Use of force investigations 56 Use of force investigations 57 Injury to prisoner investigations

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance

XIII. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS
CJ Requirement C58
The DPD shall ensure that it accepts and processes all external complaints regarding incidents occurring in holding cells consistent with the DPD’s external complaint policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during all of the previous reporting periods.
During this reporting period, the Department closed two complaints originating from detention facilities, both in September. All complaints were accepted and processed in accordance with DPD policy. Both contained demeanor and procedure allegations, and one also involved alleged excessive force. OCI retained investigation of the cases. While there were issues associated with the investigation of these complaints (see C59), DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 163 of 193 Pg ID 9066

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 162

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement C59
The DPD shall ensure that all external complaints it receives regarding incidents occurring in holding cells are investigated and reviewed consistent with the DPD’s policies concerning external complaint investigations and review.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during the first reporting period, but not in compliance during successive reporting periods.
OCI closed two complaints originating from detention facilities during the reporting period. Both were completed within 90 days. In one case, a detainee complained that his insulin and needles were discarded. The investigator exonerated DPD’s disposing of the needles, but never addressed the insulin issue. In the other, some of the findings should have been sustained based on the statements of an independent witness – another detainee. Additionally, a subject officer was not interviewed in this case, and we deemed it closed prematurely.
In summary, the detention cases exhibited many of the issues delineated in CJ requirements U2733, impacting DPD’s compliance with this requirement. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

Critical Issues:
• The issues that impact the quality of use of force investigations and OCI investigations, as outlined in CJ requirements U27–33 and U61–69 are also evident in the cases reviewed for requirements C58–59. As these issues are addressed Department-wide, we hope to see a positive impact on the subset of cases originating from detention facilities.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to review all force, injury, and complaint incidents originating from detention facilities.
• Check, in applicable cases, for the appropriate use of handheld cameras, now that they are deployed in all detention facilities.
• Conduct field visits to various detention facilities to verify members’ knowledge of and the Department’s adherence to policy requirements.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 164 of 193 Pg ID 9067

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 163

January 16, 2013

¶ Requirements 58 Receipt of external complaints 59 Investigation of external complaints

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance Not in Compliance

XIV. GENERAL POLICIES CJ Requirement C60 In developing, revising, and augmenting the policies discussed in this Agreement, the DPD shall ensure that all terms are clearly defined. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. We found the DPD in Phase 2 compliance in all of the previous reporting periods. That status continues in this reporting period. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C61 The DPD shall continue to make available proposed policy revisions to the community, for review, comment and education. Such policy revisions shall also be published on the DPD’s website to allow comments to be provided directly to the DPD. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. See U71. The DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 60 Clearly define all terms in policies 61 Policy changes available to community

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 165 of 193 Pg ID 9068

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 164

January 16, 2013

XV. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
CJ Requirement C62
The DPD shall routinely evaluate the operation of the holding cells to minimize harm to staff and prisoners.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During this reporting period, CRIB staff inspected all of the facilities with holding cells and the DRH each month and documented their findings on Form 715 Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells. Upon review of the completed forms we found that all forms contained critical findings – e.g., broken toilets and sprinkler heads, and inoperable video cameras. Requests for repairs had been made and were documented on the maintenance log. All 715 forms were complete with all of the required signatures.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C63
The DPD shall operate the holding cells in compliance with DPD’s comprehensive risk management plan including implementation of:
a) the risk management database;
b) the performance evaluation system;
c) the auditing protocol;
d) regular and periodic review of all DPD policies; and
e) regular meetings of the DPD management to share information and evaluate patterns of conduct by DPD that potentially increase the DPD’s liability.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Phase 2 compliance with this requirement is unchanged since the last report. The components of this requirement incorporate compliance requirements detailed in the Use of Force Consent Agreement and are applicable across the Department’s patrol and holding cell personnel. These include U91 with regard to personnel evaluations, U92-U99 which address audit requirements, policy review and monthly risk related reviews and U78-90 which establish requirements for the risk management database. Our findings of compliance with those requirements inform the finding with C63.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 166 of 193 Pg ID 9069

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 165

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C64
The DPD policy on video cameras shall be revised and augmented to require:
a. the installation and continuous operations of video cameras in all prisoner processing areas of the DPD holding cells within one year of the effective date of this Agreement;47
b. supervisors to review videotapes of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force and external complaints;
c. that the DPD retain and preserve videotapes for at least 90 days, or as long as necessary for incidents to be fully investigated; and
d. that the DPD conduct and document periodic random reviews of prisoners processing area camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes and conduct periodic random surveys of prisoners processing area video recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our previous inspections of holding cells, we observed the operation of video cameras in all processing areas and throughout the holding facilities. We noted that CRIB and/or detention staff conducts monthly random reviews of videos in processing areas as well as specific reviews when a use of force incident occurs.
During our January 2011 site visit, the Parties determined that video cameras were not required outside of the processing areas. During our previous site visits, the video cameras in all of the districts/precincts that maintain holding cells were operational in the processing areas.
During our most recent site visit, the Eastern District was unable to pull up archived processing area video and at the Northeastern District personnel advised that the ability to pull up archived video was sporadic. We reviewed 44 Detainee Processing Area Video Forms (DPD-713, revised 05/12) from all five facilities and found 27 where the facility was able to review archived video. In the remaining 17, the comments on the form ranged from video not working, system would not allow access, no video available to no archived video in the Insight Net system. The majority of the incidents occurred at the Eastern District and the Second Precinct
We reviewed DPD documentation that indicated the issues with archived video was first documented in June 2012. We received a memorandum where service tickets from DPD were

47 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 167 of 193 Pg ID 9070

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 166

January 16, 2013

placed with the City’s ITS Department to order equipment to fix the existing problems and four weeks later a response had not been received.
On November 6, 2012 we received a response that indicated DPD and the City’s ITS Department had come to an agreement that the Department could make direct purchases of technical equipment regarding the operation of video in the processing areas of the holding facilities. After our October 2012 site visit, additional meetings were held between DPD and the City’s ITS to ensure that all video operational requests from DPD would be given high priority. During the next quarters review we will check the five facilities for compliance.
DPD has purchased handheld video cameras to achieve compliance with C53, subparagraph c, which states: “The DPD shall revise and augment its policies regarding prisoners to require that: c. the supervisor assesses the need to use force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell, direct any such use of force and ensure the incident is videotaped.” Personnel in the five facilities were able to activate the handheld cameras. This equipment should be routinely checked to ensure its operability.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 13 cases, within or at the holding facilities that involved a use of force or a prisoner injury. In two cases, there were preplanned extractions where the handheld video camera should have been utilized but was not. In another case a supervisor in the holding facility attempted to review processing area video on three different occasions for one use of force incident and the video was unavailable.
Commanding officers are taking a more active role in use of force and prisoner injury investigations in the holding facilities by making inquiries about the use of video as an evidentiary and management tool.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph due to previous compliance. If the processing area archived video cannot be repaired and accessed during our January 2013 site visit, DPD will be placed in non-compliance status with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C65
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled semiannual audits, covering all DPD units and commands that investigate uses of force, injuries to prisoners and allegations of misconduct in holding cells, including;
a. reviewing a statistically valid sample of command, IAD, and Homicide Section investigations;
b. evaluating whether the actions of the officer and the subject were captured correctly in the investigative report;
c. evaluating the preservation and analysis of the evidence;

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 168 of 193 Pg ID 9071

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 167

January 16, 2013

d. examining whether there is consistency in use of force and injured prisoner investigations throughout the DPD;
e. evaluating the appropriateness of the investigator’s conclusions; and f. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.48
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its Combined Use of Force and Allegations of Misconduct in Holding Cells Investigations Audit for the audit period ending July 31, 2012. We reviewed the audit for that reporting period; and found that the Audit Team conducted a comprehensive audit regarding uses of force, injuries to prisoners, and allegations of misconduct in holding cells. The respective command staff were notified of the deficiencies and responded to the Command Action Notices with non-disciplinary corrective action and/or training as appropriate. The next semi-annual audit will have been completed by January 31, 2013
Accordingly, we continue to find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C66
The DPD shall create a Holding Cell Compliance Committee that is responsible for assuring compliance with requirements of this Agreement. The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate compliance with fire detection, suppression and evacuation program, including:
a. testing a sample of smoke detectors and sprinklers;
b. testing the back-up power systems;
c. reviewing a sample of fire equipment testing and maintenance records; and
d. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
48 Amended to reflect the below stipulated language contained in the Court order of April 15, 2009:
The audits required by paragraphs 65 to 71 in this Agreement shall be submitted on a semiannual basis with the first and second semiannual periods ending on January 31 and August 31, 2004. Subsequent semiannual periods shall end on January 31, 2005, and every six months thereafter. Each of these audits may be conducted on an annual rather than a semiannual basis when the Monitor concludes that the most recently submitted audit for the same topic is compliant, and the remaining requirements of this paragraph have been met for the prior audit of that topic. The DPD shall issue all audit reports to the Chief of Police and also provide copies to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take nondisciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 169 of 193 Pg ID 9072

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 168

January 16, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that meets monthly and collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB audit team conducted the semi-annual Fire Safety Practices and Policies Audit that was completed for July 31, 2012. The audit was comprehensive and indicated that deficiencies were discovered relating to fire safety. The Audit Team found broken sprinkler heads at three of the precincts with holding cells, no hydrostat testing and expired tags on several fire extinguishers. The next audit is scheduled to be completed on January 31, 2013.
During this reporting period, we inspected the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, and examined the policies and practices related to Departmental fire safety. Our current findings are documented in C14-22.
Accordingly, we continue to find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C67
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled audits in all buildings containing holdings cells to evaluate emergency preparedness, including;
a. reviewing a sample of key and fire equipment maintenance and inventory records; interviewing selected detention officers about their participation in fire drills and on their responsibilities under emergency preparedness program and testing their ability to identify keys necessary to unlock all holding cell doors; and
b. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit team completed the Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program audit for the period ending July 31, 2012. We confirmed that the DPD met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The Audit Team conducted tabletop exercises to determine the knowledge and skills of the personnel working in the Detention areas. The percentage of total correct answers was 95%, the same as the last audit period. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for January 31,2013.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 170 of 193 Pg ID 9073

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 169

January 16, 2013

The DPD developed and published a Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP) addressing safety and security, as required. The CEPP includes an emergency response plan for each district/precinct (see C24) and a key control system requirement (see C25).
During our most recent inspection of all districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, we examined the policies and practices related to the Emergency Preparedness Program. Our findings are discussed above in C23-25.
The DPD has conducted and documented fire drills, as required. Accordingly, we continue to find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with these requirements of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C68
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate the medical/mental health programs and policies, including:
a. reviewing a sampling of hospitals referral forms in comparison to prisoner intake forms to evaluate the accuracy of the intake screening and whether appropriate action was taken;
b. observing intake screening interviews to assess thoroughness;
c. reviewing a sampling of the prescription medication log to ensure that medications were administered as prescribed and that their distribution was accurately recorded; and
d. issuing a written report regarding the finding of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The most recent approval letter for the Comprehensive Medical/Mental Health Screening Program (CMMHSP) was signed by a medical and mental health Professional from the City’s Health Department on February 29, 2012.
The most recent semi-annual audit was completed for July 31, 2012. The audit is comprehensive and addresses the deficiencies by issuing Command Action Notices to the appropriate command staff. Included in the audit are the responses from the commanders, indicating training or issuance of non-disciplinary or disciplinary notices. The Audit Team found deficiencies in C26, C28, C28d, C29, C29a, C31, C31c, C32, C32e, and C32g. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for January 31, 2013.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 171 of 193 Pg ID 9074

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 170

January 16, 2013

During this reporting period, we visited the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, and examined the policies and operational practices related to the Medical and Mental Health Program. Our findings are discussed above in C26-34.
We conclude that the DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C69
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate detainee safety programs and policies, including;
a. reviewing a sampling of security screening records, including written supervisory approvals, to ensure that prisoners are being properly screened and housed;
b. reviewing a sampling of the cell checks logs to ensure that checks are being accurately and regularly performed and that cell checks logs are receiving supervisory review and written approval; and
c. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its audit results for the Detainee Safety Program on July 31, 2012. We reviewed the current audit independently, and found that many of the deficiencies founded are similar to our findings during our inspections. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for January 31, 2013.
Additionally, we independently reviewed the operational implementation of policies and practices related to the Detainee Safety Program during our visits to all five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells and the DRH. Our findings are discussed in C35-38.
We conclude that the DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of the requirements of this paragraph. Accordingly, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 172 of 193 Pg ID 9075

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 171

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement C70
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate the environmental health and safety programs, including:
a. inspecting holding cells and surrounding areas to ensure that they are clean and clear of debris and that the lighting, sinks, and toilets are operable;
b. reviewing a sampling of cleanings and maintenance logs to ensure they are properly maintained and reflected the scheduled performance of the requisite cleaning and maintenance tasks;
c. reviewing the systems in place for assuring that all prisoners have reasonable access to potable water and toilets 24 hours a day;
d. observing whether holding cells are free of any potential suicide hazards; and
e. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team completed its first combined semi-annual audit of the Environmental Health and Safety Program, Detainee Food Services and Personal Hygiene Policies and issued their findings on January 31, 2012. The audits were combined for efficiency reasons. They cover C70-71 and focus on Paragraphs C34, C39-45, and C49-51. Additionally, CRIB staff conducts monthly audits of the elements of this paragraph and documents the results on DPD Form 715 Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells. We reviewed the current Audit Team Report from July 31, 2012 and found it to be comprehensive. The Audit Team listed three areas of concern. They were: a.) Timely Performance of Routine Maintenance; b.) Documentation in Holding Cell Cleaning Logs; and c.) Documentation in Meal Logs. We continue to conduct inspections separately on operational implementation of policies and practices of the five districts/precincts with holding cells and the DRH. Our findings for the paragraph are discussed above in C39-46. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for January 31, 2013.
DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 173 of 193 Pg ID 9076

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 172

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement C71
The Holding cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled semiannual audits of all building containing holding cells to evaluate the food service program, including:
a. reviewing a statistically valid sample of food service documentation to evaluate whether prisoners who are held over six hours receive regular and adequate meals;
b. assuring that food is handled in a sanitary manner; and
c. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its command-specific audit on the DPD food service program and hygiene practices on January 31, 2012. This was the first combined audit that also included Personal Hygiene Policies and Environmental Health and Safety Policies. We found the audit to be comprehensive and meeting the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this and the previous paragraph, C70. We reviewed the results of the audit that was conducted for July 31, 2012, and as stated in the previous paragraph, found it to also be comprehensive.
We continue to visit the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells. We examined the implementation of the policies and practices related to the food service program and hygiene practices. Our findings are discussed in C49-50.
The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for January 31, 2013.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C72
The audits required by paragraphs 65 to 71 in this Agreement shall be submitted on a semiannual basis with the first and second semiannual periods ending on January 31 and August 31, 2004. Subsequent semiannual periods shall end on January 31, 2005, and every six months thereafter. Each of these audits may be conducted on an annual rather than a semiannual basis when the Monitor concludes that the most recently submitted audit for the same topic is compliant and the remaining requirements of this paragraph have been met for the prior audit of that topic. The DPD shall issue all audit reports to the Chief of Police and also provide copies to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 174 of 193 Pg ID 9077

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 173

January 16, 2013

specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.49
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CRIB is mandated under this Consent Judgment paragraph to provide written reports for the Chief of Police and specified commanders. In previous reporting periods, we found that the various reports and field responses were unacceptable, in that these reports were specific to the district/precinct and did not receive sufficient attention. The CRIB conducted a review of the audit process, and subsequently changed the audit process to focus on individual commands. These command-specific audits were anticipated to result in clearer command accountability and increased awareness to issues that are identified through the audit process.
For the last reporting period, we received and reviewed the command-specific audits for the period ending July 31, 2012. The audits included are Medical and Mental Health Program and Policies; Combined Environmental Health and Safety; Detainee Food Service and Personal Hygiene Practices; Fire Safety Practices and Policies; Allegations of Misconduct in Holding Cells and Uses of Force in Holding Cells Combined; and Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program. We also reviewed the Corrective Action Notices from the commands that were submitted prior to August 15, 2012. The next set of audits is due to be completed by January 31, 2013. We will report on these audits in our next quarterly report. Although we find the audits to be comprehensive and accurate, we cannot recommend that they be conducted on an annual basis due to the excessive number of repeat deficiencies that continue to be discovered.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 62 Evaluation of holding cell operation 63 Operate cells in compliance with risk plan 64 Augment policy regarding video cameras 65 Quarterly audits required 66 Fire safety audits required 67 Emergency preparedness audits required 68 Medical/mental health program audit

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

49 Amended by Court Order dates April 15, 2009

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 175 of 193 Pg ID 9078

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 174

January 16, 2013

69 Detainee safety audits required 70 Environmental health/safety audits 71 Food service program audits required 72 Audit results to Chief and Commanders

In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

CJ Requirement C73
The DPD shall provide comprehensive pre-service and in-service training to all detention officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During past site visits, we have conducted surveys to evaluate the comprehensiveness of training provided to detention officers, and determine the Department’s compliance with its policies requiring that officers who are assigned detention duties have been afforded detention training. DPD steadily improved in this area. In our January 2011 review, we found for the first time that DPD was in compliance with this requirement. The Department continued throughout 2011 and 2012 in compliance; over 95% of the officers who were assigned to detention duties in 2011 had been trained in detention as required.
During this reporting period, we again randomly sampled three days (Monday, July 23; Tuesday, August 21; and Wednesday, September 12, 2012) and found that 210 (96%) of the 219 officers and supervisors who worked in detention duties on those three days had completed the Detention Officer Course within the past 12 months.
We noted in our three previous reviews, supervisory authority over the cellblock area in the Central District is not clearly defined on the Daily Details. Again we found in nine Central District Daily Details that we reviewed, that no supervisor was clearly listed as assigned to supervise the officers handling detention duties. The Central District does not have a cellblock, but designates officers to handle detention duties at Detroit Receiving Hospital. We again found that in the nine Daily Details none of the supervisors of the officers handling detention duties in the Central District had received detention training within the past year.
The DPD remains in compliance with C73 but, while the failure to denote the detention supervisor on the Daily Detail is not technically a violation of this requirement, we note again that it is an undesirable trend that needs to be corrected. Further, supervisors for the officers assigned to detention duties should also have undergone detention officer training.
The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 176 of 193 Pg ID 9079

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 175

January 16, 2013

CJ Requirement C74
The DPD shall create and maintain individual training records for all detention officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training, completed for all training completed on or after the effective date of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
In July 2011, we found that DPD had completed the entry of all training records since 2003 into the Michigan MITN automated records system. During this reporting period, we verified the accuracy of the DPD Training records (see U108) and their entry into the MITN system. DPD was able to produce an accurate and current list of officers and supervisors who received inservice training. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C75
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors of detention officer and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in emergency preparedness. Such training shall include drills and substantive training in the following topics:
a. Emergency response plans and notification responsibilities;
b. Fire drills and use of fire extinguishers and other fire suppression equipment;
c. Key control drills and key control policies and procedures; and
d. Responding to emergency situations, including scenarios detention officers likely will experience.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Although DPD detention training adequately addresses the requirements of C75, we found in previous reporting periods that the Department continued to assign officers and supervisors who had not been trained in detention duties. In our January 2011 review, we found for the first time that DPD was in compliance with the requirement that only officers trained in detention be assigned to such duties. Since 2011, our reviews determined that over 95% of the officers who were assigned to detention duties had been trained in detention, as required.
During this site visit, we found that 96% of the officers working in detention duties had received the required training.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 177 of 193 Pg ID 9080

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 176

January 16, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C76
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in the medical/mental health screening programs and policies. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. prisoner intake procedures and medical and mental health protocols, including protocols for transferring or housing prisoners with infectious diseases, disabilities and/or requiring increased monitoring;
b. recording, updating and transferring prisoner health information and medications
c. the prescription medication policy, including instructions on the storage, recording and administration of medications; and
d. examples of scenarios faced by detention officers illustrating proper intake screening and action in response to information regarding medical and mental health conditions.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
This requirement addresses training to be afforded to all detention officers, supervisors, and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee. Since our random review of training files during this reporting period showed that 96% of the officers serving in detention duties received this training, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C77
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in detainee safety programs and policies. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. the security screening program, including protocols for identifying and promptly and properly housing suspected crime partners, vulnerable, assaultive or special management prisoners;
b. protocols for performing, documenting and obtaining supervisory review of holding cell checks;

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 178 of 193 Pg ID 9081

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 177

January 16, 2013

c. protocols concerning prisoners in observation cells, including protocols for direct and continual supervision, for spotting potential suicide hazards and providing appropriate clothing; and
d. examples of scenarios faced by detention officers illustrating appropriate security screening, segregation and monitoring techniques.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
This requirement addresses training to be afforded to all detention officers, supervisors, and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee. Since our random review of training files during this reporting period showed that 96% of the officers serving in detention duties received this training, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C78
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in environmental health and safety and hygiene. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. cell block cleaning and maintenance protocols; and
b. sanitary food preparation and delivery protocols.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
This requirement addresses training to be afforded to all detention officers, supervisors, and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee. Since our random review of training files during this reporting period showed that 96% of the officers serving in detention duties received this training, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 73 Pre-service and in-service training 74 Maintain records training 75 Emergency preparedness training

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 179 of 193 Pg ID 9082

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 178

January 16, 2013

76 Medical/mental health training 77 Detainee safety programs training 78 Environmental, safety, and hygiene training

In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 180 of 193 Pg ID 9083

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 179

January 16, 2013

APPENDIX A: Use of Force – Directives/Policies

USE OF FORCE POLICY

14

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

15

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; and Training Directive 04-3,

Use of Force Continuum, effective May 9, 2005.

16

See paragraph #15 above.

17

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

18

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, approved by DOJ April 14, 2005, effective March 19, 2012; and

DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30,

2012.

19

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

20

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective September 27, 2012, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective August 4, 2011 which replaced DPD Directive 304.1, effective November 2010;

and Directive 304.5, Training, effective July 10, 2012, which replaced Directive 304.5, Training,

effective May 13, 2011.

21

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective September 27, 2012, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective August 4, 2011, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1, effective November 2010,

and in Directive 304.5, Training, effective July 10, 2012, which replaced Directive 304.5, Training,

effective May 13, 2011.

22

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective September 27, 2012, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective May 2, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and August 4, 2011).

23

See paragraph #22 above. Also, Directive 304.5, Training, effective July 10, 2012, which replaced

Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011.

24

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 304.4, PR 24

Collapsible Baton, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010); DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; and Training Directive

04-3, Use of Force Continuum, effective May 9, 2005.

25

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 304.3, Chemical Spray

Device, effective July 2, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010); and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

26

See paragraph #25 above.

INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW

27

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct

Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; DPD Directive 102.6 Citizens Complaints, effective July 1,

2008 (revised November 2010) (revised April 13, 2011); Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol,

effective February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009); Office of the Chief Investigator, Standard

Operating Procedure, July 1, 2010; and Internal Affairs Standard Operating Procedure, January 2011.

28

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 181 of 193 Pg ID 9084

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 180

January 16, 2013

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; and

29

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 102.4,

Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; DPD Directive 203.3, Notifications,

effective February 22, 2012; Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006

(revised October 24, 2009); Internal Affairs Standard Operating Procedure, (January 2011); and

Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedure (July 1, 2010).

30

See paragraph #29 above.

31

Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, dated February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009).

32

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 102.4,

Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; Training Directive 04-4, Garrity

Protocol, effective February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009); Internal Affairs Standard Operating

Procedure (January 2011); and Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedure (July 1,

2010).

33

See paragraph #32 above.

34

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective May 2, 2005 and revised August 4, 2011 (revised September 27, 2012); and

Training Directive 11-01, Reporting/Documenting The “Acquiring of a Target” effective August 4,

2011, Training Directive 11-01a, Reporting/Documenting The “Acquiring of a Target” Audio/Video

Review of the Incident, effective April 11, 2012

35

See paragraph #34 above and DPD Directive 203.3, Notifications, effective February 22, 2012.

36

See paragraph #34 above.

37

See paragraph #34 above. Also DPD Joint Incident Shooting Team Standard Operating Procedures

and DPD Training Directive 04-07, Use of Force/Detainee Injuries or Allegations of Injuries

Reporting and Investigating, effective November 21, 2005.

38

See paragraph #37 above.

39

DPD Special Order 09-13, Command Level Force Review Team (CLFRT) dated March 2, 2009,

replaced with DPD Special Order 11-02, effective January 1, 2011; and DPD Directive 101.9, Special

Purposes Committees, effective February 22, 2012 (revised September 27, 2012).

40

See paragraph #39 above.

41

See paragraph #39 above.

ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES

42

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 2010.

43

See paragraph #42 above.

44

See paragraph #42 above (202.1); 202.2, Search and Seizure, effective May 2, 2005; revised

November 2010; 203.9, Custodial Questioning, effective November 20, 2010; and 404.1, Definitions,

effective November 20, 2010.

45

See paragraph #42 above.

46

DPD Directive 203.9, Custodial Questioning, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 20, 2010

(revised November 17, 2011).

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 182 of 193 Pg ID 9085

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 181

January 16, 2013

47

See paragraph #46 above.

48

See paragraph #46 above.

49

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 20, 2010.

50

See paragraph #49 above.

51

See paragraph #49 above.

52

DPD Directive 305.2, Detainee Registration, and effective September 12, 2005 (revised July 26,

2012).

53

See paragraph #52 above.

54

See paragraph #52 above.

55

See paragraph #52 above.

56

DPD Directives 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 20, 2010) and 305.2,

Detainee Registration, effective September 12, 2005 (revised July 26, 2012). Also Training Directive

#04-01, Confinement of Material Witness, effective March 1, 2005.

57

See paragraph #56 above.

58

See paragraph #56 above.

59

See paragraph #56 above.

60

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 20, 2010); and DPD

Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 3, 2010).

EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS

61

DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 2010); IAD

Standard Operating Procedures, Sections 1 and 3 (January 2011); and OCI Standard Operating

Procedure, effective July 24, 2003 (revised April 29, 2004, and July 1, 2010) (revised July 6, 2012).

62

Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedures, effective July 24, 2003 (revised April

29, 2004, and July 1, 2010).

63

DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 2010) (revised

April 13, 2011).

64

See paragraph #61 above. Also see DPD Directive 102.6.

65

See paragraph #63 above.

66

See paragraph #61 above.

67

See paragraph #61 above.

68

See paragraph #65 above.

69

See paragraph #61 above. Also DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations,

effective July 1, 2008; and Training Directive 04-4 Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006

(revised October 24, 2009).

GENERAL POLICIES

70

DPD Directives 101.1, Directive System, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) (revised

May 2, 2012) and 404.1, Definitions, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010).

71

DPD Directive 101.1, Directive System, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) (revised

May 2, 2012). The DPD also utilizes a Protocol for Proposed Policy Revisions; an SOP outlining

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 183 of 193 Pg ID 9086

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 182

January 16, 2013

procedures for posting proposed policies to the website; and a flow chart (Visio-DPD Policy Flow Chart) that tracks the movements of proposed policy revisions through the Department and public review.

72

DPD Directive 102.3, Code of Conduct, effective November 1, 2009 (revised November 1, 2010)

(revised July 24, 2012).

73

On November 6, 2007, the DPD agreed to a 1:10 ratio of supervisors to officers in patrol and

specialized units.50 Also Directive 101.10, Organization and Management, effective March 30, 2011.

74

DPD Directive 102.3, Code of Conduct, effective November 1, 2009 (revised November 1, 2010)

revised July 24, 2012).

75

See paragraph #74 above. Also DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective May 2. 2005 (revised

November 1, 2010 and August 4, 2011) (revised September 27, 2012).

76

Directives 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised effective March 1 2010)

(revised July 6, 2012) and 305.7, Transportation of Detainees, effective February 29, 2012.

77

DPD Directive 202.7, Foot Pursuits, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) (revised May

26,2011).

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

78

DPD Directive 401.13, Management Awareness System, effective November 6, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010).

79

See paragraph #78 above.

80

See paragraph #78 above.

81

See paragraph #78 above. Also see the DPD Data Input Plan, approved by the Department of Justice,

June 9, 2011.

82

See paragraph #81 above.

83

See paragraph #78 above.

84

See paragraph #78 above.

85

See paragraph #78 above.

86

See paragraph #81 above.

87

See paragraph #78 above.

88

See paragraph #78 above.

89

See paragraph #78 above.

90

See paragraph #81 above.

91

DPD Directive 401.2, Performance Evaluation Ratings, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1,

2010).

92

DPD Audit Protocol, effective September 30, 2011. Annual revision required.

93

See paragraph #92 above.

50Section I, Paragraph of the UOF CJ defines a supervisor as a sworn DPD employee at the rank of sergeant or above and non-sworn employees with oversight responsibility for DPD employees.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 184 of 193 Pg ID 9087

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 183

January 16, 2013

94

See paragraph #92 above.

95

See paragraph #92 above.

96

See paragraph #92 above.

97

See paragraph #92 above.

98

DPD Directive 303.3, In-Car Video, effective March 8, 2012 (revised September 4, 2012).

99

DPD Directive 304.5 Training, effective May 13, 2011 (revised July 10, 2012).

100

DPD Directive 303.3, In-Car Video, effective March 8, 2012 revised September 4, 2012).

101

See paragraph #100 above. Also, Teletype #11-1468, Roll Call Informational Bulletin, Use of

Department Issued In-Car Video Equipment and Body Microphones.

102

See paragraph #100 above.

103

DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective July 1, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010) (revised May 2, 2012) and the related DPD Discipline Matrix (DPD22a).

104

See paragraph #103 above.

105

See paragraph #103 above.

TRAINING

106

DPD Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011 (revised July 10, 2012).

107

See paragraph #106 above.

108

See paragraph #106 above.

109

See paragraph #106 above.

110

See paragraph #106 above.

111

See paragraph #106 above.

112

See paragraph #106 above.

113

See paragraph #106 above. Also Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective August 4, 2011 (revised

September 27, 2012).

114

See paragraph #106 above.

115

See paragraph #106 above.

116

See paragraph #106 above.

117

See paragraph #106 above.

118

See paragraph #106 above.

119

See paragraph #106 above.

120

See paragraph #106 above.

121

See paragraph #106 above.

122

See paragraph #106 above.

123

See paragraph #106 above.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 185 of 193 Pg ID 9088

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 184

January 16, 2013

APPENDIX B: Conditions of Confinement – Directives/Policies

FIRE SAFETY POLICIES

14

DPD Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan (CEPP), which includes a Fire Safety Plan (FSP)

requiring compliance with the Life Safety Code and inspections. The FSP was approved by DOJ on

May 23, 2006. The Fire Marshal reviews the FSP annually; the last review was conducted on June 7,

2012. Also, DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective April 21, 2011.

15

See paragraph #14 above.

16

See paragraph #14 above.

17

See paragraph #14 above.

18

See paragraph #14 above.

19

See paragraph #14 above.

20

See paragraph #14 above.

21

See paragraph #14 above.

22

See paragraph #14 above.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES

23

DPD Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan (CEPP), effective May 2011 and DPD Directive

305.4, effective April 21, 2011 (revised July 6, 2012).

24

See paragraph #23 above.

25

See paragraph #23 above.

MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES

26

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake Assessment; effective May 2, 2012; 305.5, Detainee Health

Care and; effective February 22, 2012; 403.2, Infectious Disease Control Plan, effective February 29,

2012, reviewed and updated by a qualified health care professional on February 17, 2012 and

February 29, 2012 as required. DPD Directive 305.5 cited above along with forms and logs,

comprises the Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening program (CMMHSP).

27

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

28

See paragraphs #26.

29

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.1).

30

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 403.2).

31

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

32

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

33

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.1)

34

See paragraph #26 above.

PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES

35

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake, effective May 2, 2012; Directive 305.2, Detainee

Registration (revised July 26, 2012); Directive 305.3, Detainee Personal Property, effective May 20,

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 186 of 193 Pg ID 9089

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 185

January 16, 2013

2010 (revised November 3, 2011); DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective February 1, 2008, and revised September 30, 2011 (revised July 6, 2012); Directive 305.5, Detainee Health Care, effective February 22, 2012; Directive 305.7, Transportation of Detainees; effective February 29, 2012 and Directive 305.8, Detainee Food Service and Hygiene, effective May 2, 2012 (revised July 19, 2012).

36

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.1)

37

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.4).

38

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.1 and 305.4).

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES

39

DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective February 1, 2008 (revised September 30, 2011)

(revised July 6, 2012). Annual review and revision required.

40

See paragraph #39 above.

41

See paragraph #39 above.

42

See paragraph #39 above.

43

See paragraph #39 above.

44

See paragraph #39 above.

45

See paragraph #39 above.

46

See paragraph #39 above.

POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

47

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake and Assessment, effective May 2, 2012 February 29, 2012;

and 305.5, Detainee Health Care, effective February 22, 2012, approved and updated by a qualified

medical and mental health professional on February 17, 2012 and February 29, 2012. Also the

Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening Program (CMMHSP).

48

See paragraph #47 above (DPD Directive 305.1).

FOOD SERVICE POLICIES

49

DPD Directive 305.8, Detainee Food Service, effective May 2, 2012 (revised July 19, 2012). Also,

the Detainee Meal and Hygiene Items Log, DPD 663, effective July 5, 2010.

50

See paragraph #49 above.

PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES

51

See paragraph #49 above.

USE OF FORCE AND RESTRAINTS POLICIES

52

DPD Directives 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 1, 2010) (revised

July 6, 2012) and 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

53

See paragraph #52 above.

54

See paragraph #52 above.

INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW

55

DPD Directives 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and 305.4, Holding Cell Areas,

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 187 of 193 Pg ID 9090

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 186

January 16, 2013

effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 1, 2010) (revised July 6, 2012) and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

56

See paragraph 55 above. Also DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012 and

DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August

30, 2012.

57

See paragraph #55 above.

EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS

58

See paragraph #55 above. Also see DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008

(revised November 2010) (revised April 13, 2011).

59

See paragraph #58 above.

GENERAL POLICIES

60

DPD Directive 404.1, Definitions, effective November 2010.

61

DPD Directive 101.1, Written Directive System, effective November 2010 (revised May 2, 2012).

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

62

DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised April 21, 2011) (revised

July 6, 2012).

63

DPD Directive 401.13, Management Awareness System, effective November 6, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010); DPD Directive 401.2, Performance Evaluation Ratings, effective July 1, 2008

(revised November 1, 2010); and DPD Audit Protocol, effective September 30, 2011.

64

See paragraph #62 above.

65

DPD Audit Protocol meeting generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS), effective

August 31, 2008 (revised October 31, 2010 and September 11, 2011).

66

See paragraph #65 above.

67

See paragraph #65 above.

68

See paragraph #65 above.

69

See paragraph #65 above.

70

See paragraph #65 above.

71

See paragraph #65 above.

72

See paragraph #65 above.

TRAINING

73

Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011(revised July 10, 2012).

74

See paragraph #73 above.

75

See paragraph #73 above.

76

See paragraph #73 above.

77

See paragraph #73 above.

78

See paragraph #73 above.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 188 of 193 Pg ID 9091

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 187

January 16, 2013

APPENDIX C: Acronyms
The following is a listing of acronyms frequently used in our quarterly reports.

ACRONYM AT BOPC CAM CBS CCR CDDT CEPP CFD CI City CJ CLBR CLFRT CLO CLI CME CMMHSP CO COC CJ CRIB DCCL DDHWP DDMHIL DFD DFF DFO/PDO DDHWP

DEFINITION Audit Team Board of Police Commissioners Command Accountability Meeting Cell Block Supervisor Citizen Complaint Report Curriculum Design and Development Team Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program Critical Firearm Discharge Chief Investigator City of Detroit Consent Judgment Command Level Board of Review Command Level Force Review Team Compliance Liaison Officer Command Level Investigation Confidential Medical Envelope Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening Program Commanding Officer Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment Civil Rights Integrity Bureau Detention Cell Check Log Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Program Daily Detainee Meal and Hygiene Items Log Detroit Fire Department Detainee File Folders Detention Facility Officer Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Promotion

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 189 of 193 Pg ID 9092

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 188

January 16, 2013

DIF DOJ DPD DRH EPP ERP FI FIS FSP FSPP FY GAS HCCC IA IAD IMAS ITS JIST MAS MCOLES MITN OCI OCR OIC PDDSL PDO PEERS PFC PI PSA RFP RMB

Detainee Intake Form Department of Justice Detroit Police Department Detroit Receiving Hospital Emergency Preparedness Program Emergency Response Plan Force Investigations (interchangeable with FIS) Force Investigation Section Fire Safety Program Fire Safety Practices and Policies Fiscal Year Government Auditing Standards Holding Cell Compliance Committee Internal Affairs Internal Affairs Division Interim Management Awareness System Information Technology Services Joint Incident Shooting Team Management Awareness System Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards MCCOLES Information and Tracking System Office of the Chief Investigator Office of Civil Rights Officer in Charge Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Log Police Detention Officer Performance Evaluation and Enhancement Review Session Policy Focus Committee Performance Indicator Public Service Announcement Request for Proposals Risk Management Bureau

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 190 of 193 Pg ID 9093

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 189

January 16, 2013

SIR SME SMT SOP TA UOF CJ UOF USAO WCPO WCJ

Supervisor’s Investigation Report Subject Matter Expert Senior Management Team Standard Operating Procedure(s) Technical Assistance Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention Consent Judgment Use(s) of Force United States Attorney’s Office Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office Wayne County Jail

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 191 of 193 Pg ID 9094

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 190

January 16, 2013

APPENDIX D: Monitoring Team
Robert S. Warshaw, Monitor Chief (Ret.) Charles D. Reynolds, Deputy Monitor
Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) J. Rick Brown Evaluates compliance with U16-17 and U19, General Use of Force Policy; U22, Use of Firearms Policy; U24, Intermediate Force Device Policy; U25-26, Chemical Spray Policy; U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34-36, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; and U37-41, Review of Critical Firearm Discharges and In-Custody Deaths.
Division Chief (Ret.) Rachel M. Burgess Evaluates compliance with U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; U61-63, External Complaints; U64-66, Intake and Tracking; and U67-69, External Complaint Investigations; C14-22, Fire Safety Policies; C23-25, Emergency Preparedness Policies; C60-61, General Policies; and C65-72, Management and Supervision.
Commander (Ret.) John M. Girvin Evaluates compliance with U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U61-63, External Complaints; U64-66, Intake and Tracking; U67-69, External Complaint Investigations; and C5859, External Complaints.
Chief (Ret.) Eduardo Gonzalez Evaluates compliance with U14-19, General Use of Force Policy; U22, Use of Firearms Policy; U24, Intermediate Force Device Policy; U25-26, Chemical Spray Policy; U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34-36, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; and U70-72 and U74-77, General Policies.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 192 of 193 Pg ID 9095

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 191

January 16, 2013

John M. Klofas, Ph.D.
Evaluates compliance with U78-90, Risk Management Database; U91, Performance Evaluation System; U92-97, Oversight; and U103-105, Discipline.

Leonard F. Rice, M.E.S., R.S.
Evaluates compliance with C39-46, Environmental Health and Safety Policies; C47-48, Policies Concerning Persons with Disabilities; C49-50, Food Service Policies; and C51, Personal Hygiene Policies.

Chief (Ret.) Billy R. Riggs
Evaluates compliance with U42-43, Arrest Policies; U44-45, Investigatory Stop Policies; U4648, Witness Identification and Questioning Policies; U49-51, Prompt Judicial Review Policies; U52-53, Hold Policies; U54-55, Restriction Policies; U56-57, Material Witness Policies; U58, Documentation of Custodial Detention; U59-60, Command Notification; C26-34, Medical and Mental Health Care Policies; and C64, Management and Supervision Policies.

Asst. Director (Ret.) Joseph R. Wolfinger
Evaluates compliance with U20-21 and U23, Use of Firearms Policy; U98-99, Oversight; U100102, Use of Video Cameras; U106-111, Oversight and Development; U112, Use of Force Training; U113, Firearms Training; U114, Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training; U115117, Custodial Detention Training; U118-120, Supervisory Training; U121-122, Investigator Training; and U123, Field Training.

Robin Busch-Wheaton Editor

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 634-1 Filed 01/16/13 Pg 193 of 193 Pg ID 9096

THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 192

January 16, 2013

APPENDIX E: Detroit Police Department Management Dashboard Data
The table below presents data on measures relevant to the requirements set forth in the Consent Judgments. The data were compiled by the Detroit Police Department, and are displayed for presentation by the Monitoring Team. These data are presented here with the consent of the Police Department and serve simply as a means to provide information relevant to issues raised in the Consent Judgments.

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 1 of 193 Pg ID 9104
FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT
Independent Monitor
Robert S. Warshaw Office of the Independent Monitor Police Performance Solutions, LLC
April 7, 2013

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 2 of 193 Pg ID 9105
Table of Contents
SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................. 10
SECTION TWO: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT ......................................................................................... 14 III. USE OF FORCE POLICY........................................................................................................................... 14
A. General Use of Force Policy..................................................................................................................... 15 CJ Requirement U14 ................................................................................................................................... 15 CJ Requirement U15 ................................................................................................................................... 16 CJ Requirement U16 ................................................................................................................................... 17 CJ Requirement U17 ................................................................................................................................... 18 CJ Requirement U18 ................................................................................................................................... 18 CJ Requirement U19 ................................................................................................................................... 19 CJ Requirement U20 ................................................................................................................................... 19 CJ Requirement U21 ................................................................................................................................... 20
B. Use of Firearms Policy ............................................................................................................................. 20 CJ Requirement U22 ................................................................................................................................... 20 CJ Requirement U23 ................................................................................................................................... 21
C. Intermediate Force Device Policy ............................................................................................................. 22 CJ Requirement U24 ................................................................................................................................... 22
D. Chemical Spray Policy ............................................................................................................................. 22 CJ Requirement U25 ................................................................................................................................... 22 CJ Requirement U26 ................................................................................................................................... 23
IV. DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW........................................................................ 25 A. General Investigations of Police Action .................................................................................................... 25 CJ Requirement U27 ................................................................................................................................... 25 CJ Requirement U28 ................................................................................................................................... 27 CJ Requirement U29 ................................................................................................................................... 29 CJ Requirement U30 ................................................................................................................................... 32 CJ Requirement U31 ................................................................................................................................... 34 CJ Requirement U32 ................................................................................................................................... 35 CJ Requirement U33 ................................................................................................................................... 39

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 3 of 193 Pg ID 9106

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 2

April 6, 2013

B. Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations .......................................................................................... 42 CJ Requirement U34 ................................................................................................................................... 42 CJ Requirement U35 ................................................................................................................................... 42 CJ Requirement U36 ................................................................................................................................... 44 CJ Requirement U37 ................................................................................................................................... 45 CJ Requirement U38 ................................................................................................................................... 46 CJ Requirement U39 ................................................................................................................................... 47 CJ Requirement U40 ................................................................................................................................... 48 CJ Requirement U41 ................................................................................................................................... 49

V. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES .................................................................... 52 A. Arrest Policies............................................................................................................................................ 52 CJ Requirement U42 ................................................................................................................................... 52 CJ Requirement U43 ................................................................................................................................... 52 B. Investigatory Stop Policies.......................................................................................................................... 54 CJ Requirement U44 ................................................................................................................................... 54 CJ Requirement U45 ................................................................................................................................... 54 C. Witness Identification and Questioning Policies .......................................................................................... 57 CJ Requirement U46 ................................................................................................................................... 57 CJ Requirement U47 ................................................................................................................................... 57 CJ Requirement U48 ................................................................................................................................... 58 D. Prompt Judicial Review Policies ................................................................................................................. 59 CJ Requirement U49 ................................................................................................................................... 59 CJ Requirement U50 ................................................................................................................................... 59 CJ Requirement U51 ................................................................................................................................... 60 E. Hold Policies .............................................................................................................................................. 61 CJ Requirement U52 ................................................................................................................................... 61 CJ Requirement U53 ................................................................................................................................... 61 F. Restriction Policies ...................................................................................................................................... 63 CJ Requirement U54 ................................................................................................................................... 63 CJ Requirement U55 ................................................................................................................................... 63 G. Material Witness Policies ........................................................................................................................... 64 CJ Requirement U56 ................................................................................................................................... 64 CJ Requirement U57 ................................................................................................................................... 64 H. Documentation of Custodial Detention ....................................................................................................... 65 CJ Requirement U58 ................................................................................................................................... 65

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 4 of 193 Pg ID 9107

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 3

April 6, 2013

I. Command Notification................................................................................................................................. 66 CJ Requirement U59 ................................................................................................................................... 66 CJ Requirement U60 ................................................................................................................................... 67

VI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS...................................................................................................................... 70 CJ Requirement U61 ................................................................................................................................... 71 CJ Requirement U62 ................................................................................................................................... 72 CJ Requirement U63 ................................................................................................................................... 73
A. Intake and Tracking.................................................................................................................................... 74 CJ Requirement U64 ................................................................................................................................... 74 CJ Requirement U65 ................................................................................................................................... 74 CJ Requirement U66 ................................................................................................................................... 75
B. External Complaint Investigations .............................................................................................................. 76 CJ Requirement U67 ................................................................................................................................... 76 CJ Requirement U68 ................................................................................................................................... 78 CJ Requirement U69 ................................................................................................................................... 79

VII. GENERAL POLICIES .............................................................................................................................. 81 CJ Requirement U70 ................................................................................................................................... 81 CJ Requirement U71 ................................................................................................................................... 82 CJ Requirement U72 ................................................................................................................................... 82 CJ Requirement U73 ................................................................................................................................... 83 CJ Requirement U74 ................................................................................................................................... 83 CJ Requirement U75 ................................................................................................................................... 84 CJ Requirement U76 ................................................................................................................................... 85 CJ Requirement U77 ................................................................................................................................... 85

VIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION.................................................................................................. 87 A. Risk Management Database .................................................................................................................... 87 CJ Requirement U78 ................................................................................................................................... 87 CJ Requirement U79 ................................................................................................................................... 88 CJ Requirement U80 ................................................................................................................................... 89 CJ Requirement U81 ................................................................................................................................... 92 CJ Requirement U82 ................................................................................................................................... 92 CJ Requirement U83 ................................................................................................................................... 93 CJ Requirement U84 ................................................................................................................................... 94

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 5 of 193 Pg ID 9108

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 4

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement U85 ................................................................................................................................... 95 CJ Requirement U86 ................................................................................................................................... 96 CJ Requirement U87 ................................................................................................................................... 96 CJ Requirement U88 ................................................................................................................................... 97 CJ Requirement U89 ................................................................................................................................... 98 CJ Requirement U90 ................................................................................................................................... 99 B. Performance Evaluation System.................................................................................................................. 99 CJ Requirement U91 ................................................................................................................................... 99 C. Oversight ................................................................................................................................................. 100 CJ Requirement U92 ................................................................................................................................. 100 CJ Requirement U93 ................................................................................................................................. 101 CJ Requirement U94 ................................................................................................................................. 102 CJ Requirement U95 ................................................................................................................................. 103 CJ Requirement U96 ................................................................................................................................. 103 CJ Requirement U97 ................................................................................................................................. 103 CJ Requirement U98 ................................................................................................................................. 104 CJ Requirement U99 ................................................................................................................................. 105 D. Use of Video Cameras.............................................................................................................................. 106 CJ Requirement U100 ............................................................................................................................... 106 CJ Requirement U101 ............................................................................................................................... 107 CJ Requirement U102 ............................................................................................................................... 108 0E. Discipline ............................................................................................................................................... 109 CJ Requirement U103 ............................................................................................................................... 109 CJ Requirement U104 ............................................................................................................................... 110 CJ Requirement U105 ............................................................................................................................... 110

IX. TRAINING.............................................................................................................................................. 112 A. OVERSIGHT AND DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 112
CJ Requirement U106.................................................................................................................................... 112 CJ Requirement U107 ............................................................................................................................... 113 CJ Requirement U108 ............................................................................................................................... 114 CJ Requirement U109 ............................................................................................................................... 115 CJ Requirement U110 ............................................................................................................................... 115 CJ Requirement U111 ............................................................................................................................... 116
B. USE OF FORCE TRAINING......................................................................................................................... 116 CJ Requirement U112 ............................................................................................................................... 116

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 6 of 193 Pg ID 9109

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 5

April 6, 2013

C. FIREARMS TRAINING................................................................................................................................ 117 CJ Requirement U113 ............................................................................................................................... 117
D. ARREST AND POLICE-CITIZEN INTERACTION TRAINING................................................................... 118 CJ Requirement U114 ............................................................................................................................... 118
E. CUSTODIAL DETENTION TRAINING ....................................................................................................... 119 CJ Requirement U115 ............................................................................................................................... 119 CJ Requirement U116 ............................................................................................................................... 120 CJ Requirement U117 ............................................................................................................................... 120
F. SUPERVISORY TRAINING ......................................................................................................................... 121 CJ Requirement U118 ............................................................................................................................... 121 CJ Requirement U119 ............................................................................................................................... 121 CJ Requirement U120 ............................................................................................................................... 122
G. INVESTIGATOR TRAINING...................................................................................................................... 122 CJ Requirement U121 ............................................................................................................................... 122 CJ Requirement U122 ............................................................................................................................... 123
H. FIELD TRAINING....................................................................................................................................... 123 CJ Requirement U123 ............................................................................................................................... 123

SECTION THREE: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT ................................................................................................................................. 125 III. FIRE SAFETY POLICIES ................................................................................................................... 126
CJ Requirement C14 ................................................................................................................................. 126 CJ Requirement C15 ................................................................................................................................. 127 CJ Requirement C16 ................................................................................................................................. 127 CJ Requirement C17 ................................................................................................................................. 128 CJ Requirement C18 ................................................................................................................................. 128 CJ Requirement C19 ................................................................................................................................. 129 CJ Requirement C20 ................................................................................................................................. 129 CJ Requirement C21 ................................................................................................................................. 130 CJ Requirement C22 ................................................................................................................................. 130

IV. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES ......................................................................................... 131 CJ Requirement C23 ................................................................................................................................. 131 CJ Requirement C24 ................................................................................................................................. 131 CJ Requirement C25 ................................................................................................................................. 132

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 7 of 193 Pg ID 9110

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 6

April 6, 2013

V. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES........................................................................ 134 CJ Requirement C26 ................................................................................................................................. 134 CJ Requirement C27 ................................................................................................................................. 135 CJ Requirement C28 ................................................................................................................................. 136 CJ Requirement C29 ................................................................................................................................. 138 CJ Requirement C30 ................................................................................................................................. 139 CJ Requirement C31 ................................................................................................................................. 140 CJ Requirement C32 ................................................................................................................................. 141 CJ Requirement C33 ................................................................................................................................. 143 CJ Requirement C34 ................................................................................................................................. 143 CJ Requirement C35 ................................................................................................................................. 144 CJ Requirement C36 ................................................................................................................................. 144 CJ Requirement C37 ................................................................................................................................. 145 CJ Requirement C38 ................................................................................................................................. 146

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES ................................................................... 147 CJ Requirement C39 ................................................................................................................................. 147 CJ Requirement C40 ................................................................................................................................. 148 CJ Requirement C41 ................................................................................................................................. 149 CJ Requirement C42 ................................................................................................................................. 150 CJ Requirement C43 ................................................................................................................................. 150 CJ Requirement C44 ................................................................................................................................. 151 CJ Requirement C45 ................................................................................................................................. 151 CJ Requirement C46 ................................................................................................................................. 152

VIII. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ........................................................... 152 CJ Requirement C47 ................................................................................................................................. 152 CJ Requirement C48 ................................................................................................................................. 153

IX. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES ................................................................................................................... 153 CJ Requirement C49 ................................................................................................................................. 153 CJ Requirement C50 ................................................................................................................................. 154

X. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES .......................................................................................................... 155 CJ Requirement C51 ................................................................................................................................. 155 CJ Requirement C52 ................................................................................................................................. 156

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 8 of 193 Pg ID 9111

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 7

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement C53 ................................................................................................................................. 156 CJ Requirement C54 ................................................................................................................................. 158

XII. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW ................................................. 158 CJ Requirement C55 ................................................................................................................................. 158 CJ Requirement C56 ................................................................................................................................. 159 CJ Requirement C57 ................................................................................................................................. 159
XIII. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS.................................................................................................................. 161 CJ Requirement C58 ................................................................................................................................. 161 CJ Requirement C59 ................................................................................................................................. 161
XIV. GENERAL POLICIES............................................................................................................................ 162 CJ Requirement C60 ................................................................................................................................. 162 CJ Requirement C61 ................................................................................................................................. 163
XV. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION .................................................................................................. 163 CJ Requirement C62 ................................................................................................................................. 163 CJ Requirement C63 ................................................................................................................................. 164 CJ Requirement C64 ................................................................................................................................. 164 CJ Requirement C65 ................................................................................................................................. 166 CJ Requirement C66 ................................................................................................................................. 167 CJ Requirement C67 ................................................................................................................................. 168 CJ Requirement C68 ................................................................................................................................. 169 CJ Requirement C69 ................................................................................................................................. 169 CJ Requirement C70 ................................................................................................................................. 170 CJ Requirement C71 ................................................................................................................................. 171 CJ Requirement C72 .................................................................................................................................. 172 CJ Requirement C73 .................................................................................................................................. 173 CJ Requirement C74 .................................................................................................................................. 174 CJ Requirement C75 .................................................................................................................................. 175 CJ Requirement C76 .................................................................................................................................. 175 CJ Requirement C77 .................................................................................................................................. 176 CJ Requirement C78 .................................................................................................................................. 177

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 9 of 193 Pg ID 9112

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 8

April 6, 2013

APPENDIX A: USE OF FORCE - DIRECTIVES/POLICIES ...................................................................... 178

APPENDIX B: CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT - DIRECTIVES/POLICIES...................................... 184

APPENDIX C: ACRONYMS.......................................................................................................................... 187

APPENDIX D: MONITORING TEAM ......................................................................................................... 190

APPENDIX E: Detroit Police Department Management Dashboard Data………………………………….. 192

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 10 of 193 Pg ID 9113

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 9

April 6, 2013

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION
On October 5, 2009, the Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr., United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division (the Court), appointed me to serve as the Independent Monitor of the Use of Force and Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgments in the case United States of America v. City of Detroit, Michigan (the City) and the Detroit Police Department (DPD) No. 03-77758, decided in June 2003. With this appointment and assisted by a team of highly respected professionals, I assumed responsibility for monitoring compliance with the requirements of these Judgments – the implementation of a compilation of generally accepted professional police and confinement policies, procedures, and related practices.
Our Team conducted our first quarterly site visit in November 2009, and has conducted subsequent site visits each subsequent calendar quarter. We have observed considerable change within the City and the Detroit Police Department during our engagement.
Similar to previous reports, the issuance of this report follows an onsite visit to assess and guide the Department’s ongoing efforts. This report includes our assessment of the Department’s compliance with each of the requirements contained in Judgments. Our findings are based on the results of discussions and meetings with City and DPD staff, observations of operational activities, inspections of facilities, and our review of documents and data covering the period of October 1, through December 31, 2012.
The body of this report is comprised of our assessments of compliance with the individual requirements of the Consent Judgments. We include introductory narratives for each major section of the Use of Force Judgment and one overall narrative for the Conditions of Confinement Judgment. Following these narratives are their respective requirements and our comments regarding the compliance status for each. After these are summary notations of Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance. A statement of “Critical Issues” follows the reviews of the requirements in each major section of the Judgment. A brief statement of “Next Steps” follows, in which we describe a plan of work for the next visit including a discussion of the data we plan to review. Finally, a table summarizes the compliance finding for that particular section of the Judgment.
Our Team determines compliance through an examination of policies and implementation of practices that support each requirement in the Consent Judgments. Phase 1 compliance is dependent upon the development and adoption of a policy or set of procedures that supports each Consent Judgment requirement. Phase 2 compliance is dependent on the effective implementation of the practices necessary to meet the requirements, consistent with the applicable policy. Full compliance is dependent on both Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance. Accordingly, we note our finding of “in compliance” or “not in compliance” for each requirement.
Additionally, in the limited circumstances where substantial work and time is required to achieve implementation of a policy or procedure and the related practices, and where ongoing progress is clearly evident, we recognize that progress with the designation “pending compliance.” Where there are circumstances in which we are unable to fully determine the compliance status of a requirement due to a lack of data or other reasons, we identify that status with the designation “deferred.”

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 11 of 193 Pg ID 9114

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 10

April 6, 2013

Verification of compliance with the many parts of the Consent Judgments requires the analysis of multiple instances of activity, reviewing cases, or observations of the practical application of policies and procedures. In those circumstances, our first option is to conduct an analysis-based on a review of all cases or data. Where that is not appropriate or possible, we rely on statistically valid samples of the population. To reach conclusions based on analyses of cases, a minimal standard must be met. To achieve compliance based on these analyses, we have determined that more than 94% of relevant indicators must conform to the provisions articulated in the Judgments.
The independent monitoring of two Consent Judgments is a complex process involving complex issues. The delivery of police services to a community – and the simultaneous retention of the public trust – are perhaps the most fundamental and sacred roles of government. In the course of our responsibilities, we shall endeavor at all times to fulfill our mandate in a manner consistent with these principles.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the fourteenth quarterly report of the Independent Monitor in the case of United States of America v. City of Detroit No. 03-72258. The report covers the period of October 1, through December 31, 2012; and is based on our site visit of January 28, through February 1, 2013; and our subsequent analyses of relevant data from this period. Consistent with the practice we established in our first review, we continue to assess all requirements of both active Judgments for compliance. This includes 110 requirements in the Use of Force Judgment, and an additional 65 requirements in the Conditions of Confinement Judgment. In this executive summary, I will review the levels of compliance found for the reporting period.
With regard to Phase 1 (policy) compliance, for the seventh consecutive reporting period, we found the City and the Police Department in compliance with all requirements of both Judgments. Following the practice we established in previous reports, all references to supporting policies, directives, and other relevant documents are listed in Appendices A (Use of Force) and B (Conditions of Confinement).
As noted above, the Department is again in Phase 1 compliance with all 110 (100%) of the Use of Force requirements. For the current reporting period, we also found the Department in Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance (full compliance) with 95 (86%) of the 110 Use of Force requirements. This is one percentage point above the level found in our last report. This was the result of the following changes: U25 – which addresses the use of chemical spray – moved from not in compliance to in compliance; U28 – which requires that investigations be conducted by a supervisor who did not authorize, witness, or participate in the incident –moved from not in compliance to in compliance; and U40 – which addresses critical firearm discharge reviews – moved from in compliance to not in compliance. During this reporting period, one Use of Force requirement (U18, regarding the use of force policy) is again deferred.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 12 of 193 Pg ID 9115

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 11

April 6, 2013

As noted above, the Department is again in Phase 1 compliance with all 65 (100%) of the Conditions of Confinement requirements. This level has been maintained since the fourth reporting period. We found the Department in Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance (full compliance) with 62 (95%) of the 65 requirements – an increase of two from the previous reporting period. The current figures are presented in the table below.

Paragraph Numbers Number of Requirements Pending Compliance Not in Compliance Deferred In Compliance

Fourteenth Quarterly Report Summary

Use of Force

Conditions of Confinement

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2

14-123

14-78

110

110

65

65

0

0

0

0

0

14

0

3

0

1

0

0

110

95

65

62

Percent in Compliance

100%

86%

100%

95%

Total Phase 1 Phase 2

175 0 0 0 175
100%

175 0 17 1
157
90%

In summary, this is the sixth consecutive report in which we have found DPD in Phase 1 compliance with all (100%) of the 175 monitored requirements. We found the Department to be in full compliance (that is, both Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance) with 157 (90%) of the 175 monitored requirements of the applicable paragraphs of both Consent Judgments. One additional compliance determination is deferred.
The chart below illustrates the levels of compliance achieved on both Judgments and across all 14 reporting periods.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 13 of 193 Pg ID 9116

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 12

April 6, 2013

The table below provides the summary data illustrating the status of compliance over the course of all of our quarterly reporting periods.

Quarterly Report
Report 1 Report 2 Report 3 Report 4 Report 5 Report 6 Report 7 Report 8 Report 9 Report 10 Report 11 Report 12 Report 13 Report 14

Use of Force

Phase 1

Phase 2

81%

24%

94%

41%

96%

49%

98%

62%

97%

61%

99%

68%

99%

75%

100%

79%

100%

82%

100%

84%

100%

85%

100%

86%

100%

85%

100%

86%

Percent in Compliance

Conditions of Confinement

Phase 1

Phase 2

83%

37%

92%

51%

95%

54%

100%

51%

100%

60%

100%

58%

100%

68%

100%

75%

100%

77%

100%

83%

100%

85%

100%

88%

100%

92%

100%

95%

Total

Phase 1

Phase 2

82%

29%

93%

44%

96%

51%

99%

58%

98%

61%

99%

65%

99%

72%

100%

78%

100%

80%

100%

83%

100%

85%

100%

87%

100%

88%

100%

90%

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 14 of 193 Pg ID 9117

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 13

April 6, 2013

The summary tables show progress over the course of our 14 reports. In this report, we saw very slight improvement with the COC requirements. However, stubborn compliance problems remain, punctuated by issues in the Department’s investigations, a critical police function. This is where attention must be focused in order to move forward. The decline of compliance with one requirement should reinforce the importance of achieving stability and sustainability. At this point, even as 10% of the requirements remain out of compliance, the question of sustainability looms large. Over the life of these decrees, it is important to recognize that only 20% of the time was marked by substantial progress. Prior to the arrival of this Monitoring Team, the Department’s successes were limited, at best. While there is some reason for pride, there exuberance should be tempered when the progress is viewed against the background of the long slog that preceded it. That said, the Department’s reaching a 90% compliance level is a milestone.
The potential fragility of reform cannot be ignored. The danger is only exacerbated by the City’s financial pressures and the new approaches the City is undertaking to manage them. It is critically important now that the new reforms – including some that merit national recognition – are institutionalized, not just through the policies and practices of existing personnel, but in the very DNA of the Department.

Chief (Ret.) Robert S. Warshaw, Monitor
The Monitoring Team: Chief (Ret.) Charles D. Reynolds, Deputy Monitor
Lt. Colonel (Ret.) J. Rick Brown Division Chief (Ret.) Rachel M. Burgess
Commander (Ret.) John M. Girvin Chief (Ret.) Eduardo Gonzalez John M. Klofas, Ph.D. Leonard F. Rice, M.E.S., R.S. Chief (Ret.) Billy R. Riggs
Asst. Director (Ret.) Joseph R. Wolfinger Robin Busch-Wheaton, Editor

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 15 of 193 Pg ID 9118

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 14

April 6, 2013

SECTION TWO:
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT

III. USE OF FORCE POLICY
This section of the Consent Judgment, containing paragraphs U14 through U26, requires that DPD review and revise its general use of force, firearms, and chemical spray policies; select an intermediate impact device and develop guidelines on its use; and provide appropriate training relating to the use of force. To determine compliance with this section’s various requirements, we verify that DPD has both developed the required policy and effectively implemented the policy, including providing any necessary and appropriate training.
DPD has conducted the requisite reviews and revisions of policies, which have been approved by the Department of Justice. The revised policies include a force continuum that identifies lethal and less lethal force options; relates the force options to the types of conduct by the individuals justifying the various force options; and describes de-escalation, disengagement, and other appropriate tactics and responses. The revised firearms policies address qualification requirements, approved firearms and ammunition, and a prohibition on the firing at or from moving vehicles. DPD also selected an intermediate impact device, developed guidelines on its use, and provided the required training. The chemical spray policy requires, when appropriate, a verbal warning prior to the deployment of chemical spray; sets forth requirements for decontamination, medical assistance, and requires supervisory approval if the chemical spray is to be used against a crowd. It prohibits officers from using chemical spray on a handcuffed individual in a police vehicle or keeping a sprayed individual facedown.
To assess implementation of these policies for this and previous reporting periods, we visited police districts, precincts, and other commands; met and discussed operational activities with command, supervisory, and training staff; observed training classes; reviewed arrest, use of force, and related police reports; and reviewed investigations of force, detainee injuries, and allegations of force.
To assess compliance with the requirements relating to the issuance and carrying of authorized weapons and ammunition, we examined the investigations of critical firearm discharges by FI. During this reporting period, we reviewed documentation that included 11 critical firearm discharges.
The DPD selected the PR-24 collapsible baton as its impact device, and has provided training on its use to 1,022 members (44%) through the first quarter of the fiscal year. In the use of force reports we reviewed during this reporting period, there were no PR-24-related incidents where a subject was struck in the head. We reviewed instances of chemical spray deployments during this reporting period, and found that there were five cases in which chemical spray was utilized. A warning was articulated or danger documented prior to its use in all five of those cases.
During this reporting period, DPD continued its practice of issuing Roll Call Information Bulletins that are designed to improve member compliance with DPD policy reflecting the

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 16 of 193 Pg ID 9119

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 15

April 6, 2013

Consent Judgment requirements. Below are some examples of some of the pertinent bulletins relating to both Judgments; these were issued between September 28, and December 21, 2012.

Date

Teletype No.

Subject

9/28/12 10/4/12 10/12/12 10/19/12 11/2/12 11/9/12 11/21/12 11/29/12 12/7/12 12/14/12 12/21/12

12-0842 12-0861 12-0885 12-0910 12-0971 12-0998 12-1043 12-1062 12-1099 12-1124 12-1147

Firearms/Personal Protective Vests Uses of Force/Detainee Injuries during Secondary Employment Holding Cell Area Key Control Inventory and Sanitation Prohibited Harassment or Discrimination Activity Modified Header for the Supervisory Investigation Report (UoF-002a) Procedures for Documenting Consent to Frisk or Search Roll-Call Daily Inspections Use of Chemical Spray Device Crime Scene Preservation Holding Cell Cleaning and Sanitation Shoulder Weapons

A. General Use of Force Policy
CJ Requirement U14 The DPD shall revise its use of force policies to define force as that term is defined in this Agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with this requirement, we reviewed completed use of force investigations, met with DPD staff, and observed relevant operational activities. We also determined that DPD generated 324 uses of force numbers during the last reporting period, and 258 during this reporting period. This is a 20% reduction in the numbers issued.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 17 of 193 Pg ID 9120

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 16

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement U15
The use of force policy shall incorporate a use of force continuum that:
a. identifies when and in what manner the use of lethal and less than lethal force are permitted;
b. relates the force options available to officers to the types of conduct by individuals that would justify the use of such force; and
c. states that de-escalation, disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units are often the appropriate response to a situation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our previous reviews of use of force reports found that they lacked sufficient documentation or specificity with regards to de-escalation and details of actual disengagement to make a definitive determination regarding Phase 2 compliance.1 In the last reporting period, we found that 72% of the Command Level Investigations we reviewed contained sufficient explanations of officers’ efforts to de-escalate or implement some of the disengagement responses suggested in U15c.
Command Level Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 86 Command Level Investigations, which described the conduct of individuals against whom force was used and the corresponding response from the involved officers.2 In evaluating de-escalation techniques utilized by the officers, we eliminated 27 incidents in which there were no opportunity to attempt de-escalation.3We evaluated 61 cases; in 52 of them, we found evidence of some efforts at deescalation (85%), a 13% improvement over the last reporting period. We continue to encourage DPD to emphasize the importance of de-escalation techniques as a means of avoiding violent confrontations between citizens and police, and to emphasize the importance of adequately documenting the steps taken by the officers to minimize the use of force. De-escalation efforts for the purposes of this requirement are those attempted prior to the force being used. Increased video/audio recordings of encounters with the citizens would prove beneficial in documenting compliance with this requirement.
The insertion of a de-escalation heading in the SIR investigative guide appears to be having the desired effect in that the investigators are ensuring that the de-escalation efforts are being properly documented.

1 Twelfth Report of the Independent Monitor, issued September 15, 2012.
2 We randomly selected 102 cases for review. Of these, 16 had no SIR investigations, leaving 86 cases for review. Of the 16 cases eliminated, nine were assumed by Force Investigations; five were canine deployments with no contact; and two were acquired targets, which do not require SIR investigations.
3 Twenty-seven were eliminated: 12 in September; five in October; and five in November. Cases that were eliminated included, but were not limited to, the subject fleeing as soon as he sees officers; subjects engaged in assaults as officers arrived; subject striking officers without warning; detainee injury; canine apprehensions with no contact, and attempted suicides.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 18 of 193 Pg ID 9121

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 17

April 6, 2013

Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 19 use of force investigations. We found no cases where officers inappropriately escalated force by using a chokehold, using head strikes, discharging their firearm at a subject, and discharging their firearm at a moving vehicle. See U17.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U16
The use of force policy shall reinforce that individuals should be provided an opportunity to submit to arrest before force is used and provide that force may be used only when verbal commands and other techniques that do not require the use of force would be ineffective or present a danger to the officer or others.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 200 uses of force reports, of which 192 were applicable to this paragraph. We found that 184 (96%) of the 192 included verbal commands and an opportunity to submit to arrest prior to the use of force; or provided a reason why the verbal command was not given.4
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 19 force investigations and found that officers appropriately used verbal commands and provided an opportunity for subjects to submit to arrest prior to the use of force in four cases.
The requirements of this CJ paragraph were not applicable in the remaining cases, which involved vehicle pursuits ending in crashes, with fatalities and/or injuries to involved subjects; firearm discharges; or exigent circumstances in which opportunities to give verbal commands were not present. This represents a 100% compliance rate. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Force Investigations portion of this paragraph.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

4 The base was reduced from 200 to 192 due to three detainee injuries, four instances of insufficient time; and one with the commands issued by a lead officer.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 19 of 193 Pg ID 9122

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 18

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U17
The use of force policy shall prohibit the use of chokeholds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we reviewed 200 uses of force reports and 86 Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs).5 There was one case in which a subject claimed that he was choked. A Force Investigation (FI) Corrective Action Notice (CAN) was issued to the command, and DPD made a determination that a chokehold had not been utilized.
Force Investigations: Our review of 19 force investigations for this reporting period identified one incident wherein a DPD officer used a chokehold to restrain a subject; we found this incident to comport with DPD policy. The involved officer used a chokehold to restrain a subject who assaulted a child; an imminent danger to the child’s life was present.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U18
The DPD shall develop a revised use of force policy within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The policy shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the revised use of force policy within three months of the review and approval of the DOJ.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the effective field implementation of the requirements contained in paragraphs U14-17 and U19. We found DPD

5 The terms Command Level Investigations and Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs) are used interchangeably throughout the quarterly report.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 20 of 193 Pg ID 9123

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 19

April 6, 2013

in Phase 2 compliance with U14, U16, U17, and U19, but not in compliance with U15; therefore, DPD remains in deferred Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Deferred

CJ Requirement U19 The use of force policy shall provide that a strike to the head with an instrument constitutes a use of deadly force.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: Our review of 200 uses of force reports found no instances of any strikes to the head. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for use of force reports in this paragraph. Force Investigations: Our review of 19 investigations completed by Force Investigations revealed no instances that were relevant to this paragraph. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U20
The DPD shall revise its use of firearms policies to provide that officers must successfully qualify with their department-issued firearm and any other firearm they are authorized to use or carry on-duty on a bi-annual basis, as described in paragraph 113.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD policy requires officers to attend and qualify at firearms training sessions in the six-month periods ending on December 31 and on June 30 of each year. During the six-month qualification period that ended on June 30, 2012, 98% of the DPD officers who were available to train attended firearms and qualified.
During this reporting period, we found that 2,344 (98%) of the current 2,385 officers available to train attended firearms training and qualified. Inasmuch as 98% of DPD officers attended firearms training and qualified during both periods in 2012, the Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 21 of 193 Pg ID 9124

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 20

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U21

Officers who fail to re-qualify shall be relieved of police powers and relinquish immediately all department-issued firearms. Those officers who fail to re-qualify after remedial training within a reasonable time shall be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment.

Comments:

The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

A total of 41 DPD officers failed to qualify during the second qualification period of 2012 (July 1, through December 31, 2012). The reasons for these failures and dispositions are listed on the chart below:

Number

Status/Comment

1

Unresolved, DPD CRIB following up on status

2

Retired

25

In medical “No Gun” or other administrative status

2

Suspended or dismissed after “No Gun” status

11

Qualified and returned to duty

DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Use of Firearms Policy
CJ Requirement U22
The firearm policy shall prohibit shooting at or from a moving vehicle except in exceptional circumstances. The policy shall also prohibit officers from intentionally placing themselves in the path of a moving vehicle.6

6 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011; approved by the BOPC, November 3, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 22 of 193 Pg ID 9125

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 21

April 6, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: During this reporting period, we reviewed 200 uses of force reports and 86 Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs), and found no incidents involving officers firing at or from moving vehicles. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for use of force reports in this requirement.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 19 FI investigations, and found no incidents involving an officer firing at a moving vehicle. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for Force Investigations in this requirement.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Use of Firearms Policy
CJ Requirement U23
The DPD shall identify a limited selection of authorized ammunition and prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition. The DPD shall specify the number of rounds DPD officers shall carry.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During previous site visits, we found officers to be carrying authorized weapons and ammunition, and that the Department had implemented a procedure requiring the inspection of officers’ weapons and ammunition as part of its required biannual firearms training program which officers are required to attend.
During firearms training, officers fire the ammunition that they are carrying and are issued a new supply of approved ammunition. Ammunition is also checked periodically at roll calls when other police equipment (e.g., handcuffs, chemical spray) is inspected.
During the last full six-month firearms qualification period that ended on December 31, 2012, 98%of DPD officers participated in the biannual qualifications, where they qualified with their service firearms and authorized secondary firearms. The officers shot their old ammunition, which was replaced with authorized ammunition.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 23 of 193 Pg ID 9126

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 22

April 6, 2013

D. Intermediate Force Device Policy
CJ Requirement U24
The DPD shall select an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The DPD shall develop a policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: During this reporting period, we reviewed 200 uses of force reports, and found no strikes to the head with the designated intermediate force device (PR-24). DPD provided training on its use to 1,012 members (43%) during the first quarter of the fiscal year. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for use of force reports.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 19 cases completed by FI; there were no cases where an intermediate force device (PR-24) was used.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for Force Investigations.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

E. Chemical Spray Policy
CJ Requirement U25
The DPD shall revise its chemical spray policy to require officers to:
a. provide a verbal warning and time to allow the subject to comply prior to the use of chemical spray, unless such warnings would present a danger to the officer or others;
b. provide an opportunity for decontamination to a sprayed subject within twenty minutes of the application of the spray or apprehension of the subject;
c. obtain appropriate medical assistance for sprayed subjects when they complain of continued effects after having been de-contaminated or they indicate that they have a pre-existing medical condition (e.g., asthma, emphysema, bronchitis or heart ailment) that may be aggravated by chemical spray and if such signs are observed the subject shall be immediately conveyed to a local hospital for professional medical treatment; and
d. obtain the approval of a supervisor any time chemical spray is used against a crowd.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 24 of 193 Pg ID 9127

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 23

April 6, 2013

Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 200 uses of force reports and 86 Command Level Investigations. We found five deployments of chemical spray, with warnings or danger articulated in five (100%) of the cases.7 This is an increase from the 67% registered during the last reporting period. During our evaluation of decontamination requirements, we found that all five cases (100%) provided details of decontamination within 20 minutes of spraying or capture. This is an increase from the 83% registered during the last reporting period.
There was one complaint of ill effects from the spraying noted in the five cases, and the individual was transported to a local hospital for medical attention.
As we continue to note, the use of chemical spray by DPD officers is very limited; consequently, the Department must continue to emphasize the importance of attention to all of the details regarding the use of chemical spray.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 19 cases completed by FI, and there were no cases of chemical spray being used during the arrest of a subject. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the reporting of the use of chemical spray in use of force investigations.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U26
The DPD shall prohibit officers from using chemical spray on a handcuffed individual in a police vehicle. The DPD shall also prohibit officers from keeping any sprayed subject in a face down position, in order to avoid positional asphyxia.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 200 uses of force reports, and 86 use of force Command Level Investigations. No handcuffed individuals in a police vehicle were sprayed, and no sprayed individuals were placed facedown. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of the requirement.
Force Investigations: During our review of 19 force investigations, we found no instances of DPD officers using chemical spray on a subject who was handcuffed and in the police scout car. There were no incidents of DPD officers deploying chemical spray on a subject that was in a facedown position.

7 There were four cases in September where the warnings or danger were properly documented. There was one case in October where the warning was properly documented. There were no cases in November.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 25 of 193 Pg ID 9128

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 24

April 6, 2013

DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
 The issue of how best to determine DPD’s efforts at deescalating and disengaging with respect to use of force situations remains a perplexing issue, and one that affects DPD’s compliance with several of the requirements. As we have noted above, an improved reliance on body microphones and a strict requirement that officers utilize them when engaging Detroit citizens could prove beneficial to better documenting the de-escalation techniques. DPD advises that the issues previously experienced with the Data 911 Video System have been resolved and the system operational again; we look forward to observing its use during the next reporting period.
DPD continues to provide improved documentation of the application of de-escalation measures, and we encourage the Department to continue to emphasize the importance of practicing de-escalation and documenting same.
Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
 Continue to monitor the numbers of use of force reports generated during the next reporting period, and continue to discuss with DPD the issue of documenting the deescalation of use of force situations in an effort to identify a sound methodology for measuring the effort. We will monitor any increase in the reliance on audio recordings to enhance the documentation provided by the officers. We will also meet with CRIB personnel to further discuss issues associated with use of force compliance.

¶ Requirements 14 Revise use of force policies 15 The use of lethal, less lethal force 16 Opportunity to submit to arrest 17 Prohibit chokeholds 18 Approval of policy 19 Strike to the head-deadly force 20 Bi-annual firearms qualification 21 Failure to qualify with firearms 22 Prohibit firing at vehicles

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Deferred In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 26 of 193 Pg ID 9129

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 25

April 6, 2013

¶ Requirements 23 Selection of ammunition 24 Intermediate force device 25 Chemical spray policy 26 Spraying handcuffed subjects

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

IV. DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW
A. General Investigations of Police Action
CJ Requirement U27
The DPD and the City shall revise their policies regarding the conduct of all investigations to ensure full, thorough, and complete investigations. All investigations shall, to the extent reasonably possible, determine whether the officer’s conduct was justified and the DPD and the City shall prohibit the closing of an investigation being conducted by the DPD and/or the City simply because a subject or complainant is unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate, including a refusal to provide medical records or proof of injury.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with these requirements, we meet on a quarterly basis with Command, Internal Affairs, Force Investigations, OCI and other staff. We also review relevant investigative and other reports, including the Department’s quarter status reports.
Command Level Investigations: To assess DPD’s Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for this reporting period, we again met with relevant staff and reviewed 200 uses of force reports resulting in 86 SIRs.8 There were no instances where a SIR was closed simply because a subject or complainant was unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate, including a refusal to provide medical records or proof of injury. We also found sufficient justification for officers’ conduct in all 86 (100%) of the SIRs.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: In our previous reports, we noted that our reviews of FI and JIST investigations – which included critical firearm discharges, pursuits, and allegations of excessive force – found these investigations sufficiently detailed to support the findings relating to the conduct of the officer(s) in each case. In addition, no investigations were closed because the subject or complainant was unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate. Although we noted lack of detail or required specificity in early cases, FI addressed these issues with strengthened supervision and in-service training.

8 Many of the command-level investigations contained multiple uses of force forms. Canine deployments with no contact, acquired target cases, and cases assumed by FI were removed from the numbers reported as SIRs.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 27 of 193 Pg ID 9130

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 26

April 6, 2013

During this reporting period, we reviewed 19 FI cases, and found all in compliance with the requirements. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI cases portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During our previous reviews of completed cases, we noted that while the case files generally contained sufficient facts to support a determination that justified or did not justify an officer’s actions, there were several inconsistencies between investigators, and some cases lacked the necessary information to reach a proper determination. Additionally, we noted cases that were improperly administratively closed, and cases that were significantly overdue, impacting DPD’s ability to reach appropriate conclusions many months after the alleged occurrence.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled cases from the 307 cases that were closed in October, November, and December 2012. (This represents a 14% decrease in closed cases over the previous reporting period.) Generally, the investigations established sufficient facts to support determinations that justified or did not justify the actions of the officer(s) or non-sworn member of the Department.9 We continue to note a decrease in the number of cases that appear to have been closed prematurely, identifying eight such cases during this reporting period.
One of these cases was closed administratively. Despite an allegation that an officer was paying for sexual favors, the case was inappropriately administratively closed for not alleging a MOR violation. One case was closed prior to all involved personnel being interviewed. An officer failed to show for his Garrity interview in a case alleging the poor handling of a robbery investigation. This appropriately resulted in a sustained procedure charge, but he was never interviewed regarding his involvement in the original incident.
In one case, one of the subject officers was not questioned about an allegation that he failed to make a warrant arrest. In another case involving a missing detainee’s cell phone, the investigator erroneously assumed that the phone had been transferred to Wayne County with the prisoner and closed the case. OCI followed up on the case at our request, and learned that the Sheriff’s Department did not, in fact, have the property. In four other cases, all potential witnesses were not interviewed prior to the cases being closed. Three involved allegations of inappropriate demeanor and one involved an allegation of excessive force.
While complainants failed to cooperate in 39% of the cases, their lack of cooperation was not a factor in the closing of these cases.
With a 92% compliance rate, the City is not in compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, we interviewed IAD supervisors and selected staff, and reviewed the 30 cases that were closed by IAD in October, November, and December 2012. We assessed the investigations for consistency with the procedures contained in applicable DPD directives and generally accepted law

9 If an allegation appropriately received a finding of unfounded or not sustained, justification for the conduct was not assessed since, by definition, its occurrence was either refuted or not substantiated.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 28 of 193 Pg ID 9131

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 27

April 6, 2013

enforcement techniques – specifically relating to procedural fairness, timeliness, confidentiality, and the meticulous reporting of facts and results of an investigation.
We found that all of the cases were sufficiently investigated – including three cases where the complainants and/or witnesses failed to respond to requests to be interviewed. All of the cases met the requirements of this paragraph.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U28
The DPD and the City shall ensure that investigations are conducted by a supervisor who did not authorize witness or participate in the incident and that all investigations contain:
a. documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene during the incident and a canvas of the scene to identify civilian witnesses;
b. thorough and complete interviews of all witnesses, subject to paragraph 31 below and an effort to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements;
c. photographs of the subject’s(s’) and officer’s(s’) injuries or alleged injuries; and
d. documentation of any medical care provided.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: During the last reporting period, we found that thorough and complete interviews were conducted in only 84% of the cases. In addition, of the cases we reviewed that contained material inconsistencies, supervisors attempted to resolve these inconsistencies in only 28%. Photos of officer or subject injuries were ordered in 87% of the cases where they should have been requested.
During this reporting period, we determined the following:
 There was one case in which the investigating supervisor authorized, witnessed, or participated in the incident. This resulted in a 99% compliance rate. In 86 (100%) of the cases, the names of all of the officers involved or on the scene during the incident were included. In 86 (100%) of the cases, the investigating supervisor conducted a canvass to identify civilian witnesses, or explained why a canvass was not conducted.
 Thorough and complete interviews were conducted in 77 (90%) of the cases. As previously noted, we continue to encourage supervisors to focus on areas like who, what, where, when, why, and how questioning used by journalists and other investigative writers for basic information-gathering. The increase in compliance from 84% during the

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 29 of 193 Pg ID 9132

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 28

April 6, 2013

last reporting period, to 90% this reporting period, is encouraging. Continued critical reviews at the command level can improve compliance with this requirement.
 In 71 cases, photos should have been requested for officer or subject injuries. The reports noted that photos were ordered in 67 (94%) of the cases. Sixty-eight of the cases could have included documentation of medical care and 67 (98%) did. Not all of the administered medical care was related to police actions. Twelve of the cases involved care ranging from psychiatric evaluations to a need for medications.
DPD issued Directive 201.11, Use of Force and Use of Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012, which addresses the requirements of this paragraph. CRIB personnel believe that the implementation of this directive, which consolidates many of the previously scattered policies, will have a positive impact on the investigations and documentation of the reports. This is the first reporting period during which the directive was in effect, and we have noted improvement. We continue to emphasize the need for the critical review of completed investigations, especially at the first reviewing supervisory level. While inspectors and commanders have become more involved in the reviews, it is important that they ensure that levels below them are also complying with their responsibilities.
The Command Level Investigations are in Phase 2 compliance with these requirements.
Force Investigations: Our previous reviews of force investigations found appropriate documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene of the various incidents. The cases also contained witness interviews (recorded and written). The investigations we reviewed also contained documentation of canvasses for civilian witnesses and any medical care provided.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 19 force investigations.10 The case files included complete documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene of the various incidents, canvasses for civilian witnesses in all applicable cases, and any medical care that was provided.
The investigations contained witness interviews, both written and recorded. We noted continued improvement by FI in addressing material conflicts in investigations. Investigators used recorded statements and video evidence to address material inconsistencies and identify when officers or citizens were untruthful during an investigation. Photographs were taken as required.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled OCI investigations. All of the cases were investigated by investigators who did not authorize, witness, or participate in the incidents being investigated. In six cases, involved officers were not identified by both name and badge number. One case was transferred to Force Investigations based on the allegations and before steps were taken to identify the officers involved. In the remaining cases, OCI took diligent steps to identify involved personnel. If they were not identified, they were listed as “unknown.”

10 These investigations included 11 critical firearm discharge events and three vehicle pursuits.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 30 of 193 Pg ID 9133

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 29

April 6, 2013

We identified four cases in which investigators failed to attempt to contact potential witnesses. As noted above, three involved demeanor allegations and one involved an allegation of excessive force. In many cases, witnesses refused to cooperate, but investigators documented their steps to try to obtain statements.
In all of the cases alleging excessive force that were retained by OCI (two cases were transferred to Force Investigations), photographs were referenced where appropriate. In most of the cases, force could not be substantiated and use of force documentation, including photographs, did not exist. In five cases, it was appropriate to reference medical care; and in all of these cases, the documentation was included in the investigative packages.
With greater than 94% compliance with the paragraph requirements, the City is in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: We reviewed all 30 cases that were completed by IAD during this reporting period. The investigations consistently included the names and badge numbers of all officers who were involved in or on the scene during an incident. In seven of the cases, the complainant could not identify the officer(s) that were the subject of their complaints. IAD expended particular efforts in identifying officers when allegations of criminal misconduct were reported and the officer(s) was unknown to the complainant. IAD conducted canvasses to identify witnesses or obtain any video recordings that might be available from businesses near the location. IAD now has the capacity to access recordings from in-car video storage from the division’s desktop computers. If any related evidence has been recorded, it can be requested from the Technical Services Unit within a 90-day period. In an effort to resolve the allegations, in-car video was requested in 10 of the cases where video should have been recorded. Only one recording was available to be used in the investigation. Of the remaining nine requests for video, eight were not retrievable by Technical Services. The equipment was operational in the ninth request, but the search in question had taken place at the side of the vehicle door and was not captured by the camera. A cellblock video was used to determine culpability in one investigation of missing property. We also found in the cases that we reviewed that witnesses were interviewed, and that the investigators made an effort to resolve inconsistencies between witness statements.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U29
The DPD and the City shall revise their procedures for all investigatory interviews to require:
a. officers who witness or are involved in an incident to provide a timely statement regarding the incident (subject to paragraph 31 below);

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 31 of 193 Pg ID 9134

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 30

April 6, 2013

b. whenever practicable and appropriate, interviews of complainants and witnesses be conducted at sites and times convenient for them, including at their residences or places of business; and
c. that all IAD, OCI and Critical Firearm Discharge Investigations shall also include inperson video or audio tape-recorded interviews of all complainants, witnesses, and involved DPD officers and prohibit group interviews. In cases where complainants/witnesses refuse in-person video or audio tape recorded interviews, written statements shall be taken and signed by the complainant/witness along with a signed refusal statement by the complainant/witness.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: During the last reporting period, we found that in 84% of the cases we reviewed, timely statements were taken from officers who were involved or who witnessed the incident. We also found that the interviews of complainants and witnesses were conducted at sites and times convenient for them in 98% of the cases we reviewed.
During this reporting period, we determined that in 82 (95%) of the 86 cases we reviewed, timely statements were taken from officers who were involved in or witnessed the incident. This percentage is an improvement over the 84% noted in our last report. The interviews of complainants and witnesses were conducted at sites and times convenient for them in 86 (100%) of the 86 cases we reviewed. DPD has improved in its performance for this requirement and has returned to Phase 2 Compliance status for Command Level Investigations.
Force Investigations: In previous reporting periods, we noted that statements were generally taken at sites and times convenient for the person(s) being interviewed. However, we expressed concerns that statements from witness officers were unnecessarily delayed, or that investigators instead relied on the officer’s Crisnet report. We noted that there were significant delays in taking Garrity statements due to the practice of awaiting prosecution declinations from the District Attorney. We also noted our concerns regarding the variance in practice between FI and Homicide members of the Joint Incident Shooting Team (JIST) when interviewing witnesses and taking statements. Specifically, we were concerned with the practice adopted by Homicide members of JIST to take written, rather than recorded, statements. This is a longstanding issue that the Department has not yet addressed.
To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 19 closed FI cases, and continued to find much the same as described above. Statements were generally taken at sites and times convenient for the person(s) being interviewed. Statements of non-police witnesses were generally taken in a timely manner, usually within minutes or hours of the event; however, statements from involved officers or witness officers under the provisions of Garrity were sometimes unnecessarily delayed.
Our review found that Garrity interviews of involved officers in two cases ranged from 78 to 89 days from the date of the incident. In addition, we identified two cases involving Garrity interviews of witness officers ranged from 85 to 146 days from the date of the incident. We have discussed with FI our concern regarding interview delays for a host of reasons – not the least of

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 32 of 193 Pg ID 9135

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 31

April 6, 2013

which is credibility. As we have previously noted, officers’ recollections of the facts, weeks and months after an event, particularly one involving the use of deadly force, are externally and perhaps significantly affected by news accounts and their interactions with friends, family, and colleagues, and thus, often altered. The practice of delaying interviews, for whatever reason, mitigates the accuracy and credibility of the information provided by officers. In addition, aside from investigative reasoning regarding the delaying of interviews of involved officers, we find no legitimate basis to delay interviews of witness officers; quite the contrary, there is a compelling need to interview all witnesses – including witness officers – in an expeditious manner.
As reported, the delays discussed above often result from the desire to await a declination decision from the District Attorney. Accordingly, we examined 19 cases closed by FI during this reporting period, and found three where a prosecutorial decision from the Wayne County District Attorney’s Office was sought with the following results:
 All three cases involved critical firearm discharge events.
 All three cases included Garrity interviews conducted by FI prior to the prosecutorial decision by the District Attorney.
 One of the three cases includes a request for a prosecutorial decision that is still pending receipt. We were unable to determine from the documents provided exactly when the request for a prosecutorial decision was requested by the DPD in this matter; however, we noted that both involved and witness officer interviews were unnecessarily delayed ranging from 89 to 146 days from the date of the incident.
 None of the three cases included Garrity interviews completed within 30 days after the prosecutorial decision was rendered or completion of the criminal prosecution as required by paragraph U38.
There are few situations requiring more diligence or a professional police response than an allegation or a perceived use of excessive force – especially when involving a critical firearm discharge. All warrant a priority, thorough response and expeditious conclusion. We encourage the DPD, with the cooperation of the District Attorney, to resolve these issues.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph, with a compliance rate of 89%.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During previous reporting periods, we noted ongoing issues with untimely interviews, particularly of officers. Interviews of sworn personnel frequently take place many months after the incident complained of. Often, no reason is given for the delay other than the difficulty in scheduling the interviews. We noted that complainant/witness and officer interviews were, with limited exceptions, properly recorded.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled investigations. Timely interviews of involved parties, particularly officers, continue to be an issue. In 11 of the cases we reviewed, employee interviews were untimely. This represents a 53% reduction when compared to the last reporting period, and continues OCI’s positive trend in this area.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 33 of 193 Pg ID 9136

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 32

April 6, 2013

Complainants were identified as uncooperative in 39 of the investigations we reviewed. OCI investigators relied on the synopsis contained in the Citizen Complaint Report in these cases. When complainants and witnesses were available for interviews, they were recorded, either over the telephone or in person. When interviews were conducted, they were administered and recorded in accordance with requirements.
The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: During earlier reporting periods, we found that the DPD directive requiring timely statements from officers was inconsistently applied. Interviews of involved witness officers were often delayed with little justification other than unavailability. There were exceptions involving pending criminal proceedings against officers in some cases.
During this reporting period, timely interviews were appropriately conducted in all of the 30 cases that we reviewed.
When the Internal Affairs Alert Teams, who are available or on-call 24 hours a day, respond to a complaint or allegation of criminal activity or serious misconduct by a Department member, preliminary interviews are conducted immediately and according to DPD directives.
In all of the investigations, complainants and witnesses were interviewed at times and sites convenient for them. DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U30
The DPD and the City procedures for all investigatory interviews shall prohibit:
a. the use of leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s(s’) actions when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques; and
b. the use of interviews via written questions when it is contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command-Level Investigations: During the last reporting period, we found 83 cases (94%) in which the question-and-answer format was used to document officer interviews in the SIR. During this reporting period, we found that in 82(96%) of 85 cases, the question-and-answer format, without the use of leading questions, was used to document officer interviews in the

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 34 of 193 Pg ID 9137

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 33

April 6, 2013

SIR.11 There was one case in which some of the officer interviews were conducted via email written questions, contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level portion of this requirement.
Force Investigations: Our previous review of FI cases for compliance with these requirements found instances where leading questions were contained in written statements. Additionally, when listening to randomly selected recorded interviews conducted by various investigators, we noted that investigators asked leading questions in 80% of the interviews.
We also noted that the details of Garrity interviews are often adversely affected by the excessive delays in scheduling them. Officers being interviewed are routinely referring to their Crisnet reports and/or do not have a recollection of specific details because so much time has elapsed between the incident and the day of their interview. We noted that investigators routinely fail to ask appropriate follow-up questions leaving the interviews appearing to revolve around reporting – not investigating. And finally we noted our continued concern with investigators’ lack of preparation to conduct Garrity interviews.
To assist with our assessment of compliance for this reporting period, we listened to eight randomly selected recorded interviews of police officers. We noted that, although the interviews were not primarily based on leading questions, the use of leading questions has not been entirely eliminated. We have a continuing concern with the tendency of some interviewing officers to preface questions with “Do you remember…do you recall” or similar phrases, which tend to prompt “I do not remember…I do not recall” responses. While recognizing that interviewing skills must be acquired through training and experience and also that the DPD has attempted to address these issues, the overall quality of the interviews remains marginally acceptable.
During our review of the aforementioned eight recorded interviews we noted the following: several investigators often did not prepare adequately for their interviews; key dates – and at times, facts – were in conflict or confusing; and more probing questions should have been asked relating to how the officers’ actions interfaced with DPD policy, specifically involving vehicular pursuits and the intentional pointing of firearms while acquiring a target. One interview was disjointed and lacked consistency. These interviews are the most significant interviews police personnel can face, and must be approached seriously by the Department. We noted in one interview that the union representative took a phone call during the recorded interview, and on another occasion we could hear loud discussions occurring outside of the interview area. These types of events can reduce the significance of Garrity or compelled interviews in the eyes of personnel. Accordingly, we continue to encourage the DPD to seek comprehensive interview training, and also to carefully supervise and critique all interviews in order to avoid a future noncompliant finding.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: OCI supplied digitally recorded interviews for both sworn and civilian interviewees for a randomly selected subset of our review sample. During this reporting
11 In one case, the question-and-answer format was not utilized; questions were emailed to the officers and their responses were utilized for the report.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 35 of 193 Pg ID 9138

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 34

April 6, 2013

period, we listened to 78 interviews (60 employees, 18 citizens) associated with 22 cases. Generally, investigators are employing proper interviewing techniques, using open-ended rather than leading questions.
During this reporting period, we noted four instances in which leading questions were used. In general, we were not provided with written questions, although it is probable that they were used to structure interviews in most, if not all, of the cases involving interviews.
We note a wide disparity in the interviewing skills of OCI’s investigators, and have recommended that supervising investigators either observe the interviews conducted by OCI’s investigators or listen to the recordings, in order to identify training needs and provide appropriate, individualized corrective measures. We advised the Chief Investigator that during this reporting period, we would review a list of interviews monitored by the supervising investigators. The supervising investigators provided documentation that they either observed, or reviewed recordings of, interviews in 89 cases during the reporting period.
The City is in compliance with the OCI portion of this requirement.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: Since the first reporting period, we have found no evidence of the use of leading questions during IAD interviews. During this reporting period, we reviewed audio recordings from five randomly selected cases from the 30 investigations that were completed by IAD. We did not find any indication that investigators conducted interviews via the use of leading questions. In all cases, we sought evidence in the case summary that the investigators had asked particular questions to clarify complainants’ and witnesses statements, and/or physical evidence.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U31
The DPD and the City shall develop a protocol for when statements should (and should not) be compelled pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The directive provides criminal and administrative guidelines for investigators and supervisors regarding when statements should and should not be compelled from officers during internal investigations. In addition, it requires that all officers sign a Certificate of Notification of Constitutional Rights - Departmental Investigations prior to any interview.
The protocol also requires that all officers sign a Certificate of Notification of Constitutional Rights - Departmental Investigations prior to any interview.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 36 of 193 Pg ID 9139

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 35

April 6, 2013

Our reviews of SIR, IAD, FI, and OCI investigations found supervisors and investigators compliant with applicable Garrity requirements. Each case contained documentation that officers were advised of their rights, and each officer interview we listened to began with an on– the-record acknowledgement of Garrity rights. However, we continue to note unnecessary delays of interviews with both involved and witness officers due to a misconception that these interviews must be delayed pending the completion of a criminal review. This practice mitigates the credibility of both the interviews and the investigations.
Despite this, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U32
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding all investigatory reports and evaluations to require:
a. a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident, including a detailed account of the subject’s(s’) or complainant’s(s’) and officer’s(s’) actions and an evaluation of the initial stop or seizure;
b. a review of all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence;
c. that the fact that a subject or complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense shall it justify discontinuing the investigation;
d. reasonable credibility determinations, with no automatic preference given to an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement or discounting of a witness’s statement merely because the witness has some connection to the subject or complainant
e. an evaluation of whether an officer complied with DPD policy;
f. an evaluation of all uses of force, including the officer’s tactics, and any allegations or evidence of misconduct uncovered during the course of the investigation;
g. all administrative investigations to be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard;
h. written documentation of the basis for extending the deadline of a report and evaluation and provide that the circumstances justifying an extension do not include an investigator’s vacation or furlough and that problems with investigator vacations or workload should result in the matter being reassigned; and
i. any recommended non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action be documented in writing.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 37 of 193 Pg ID 9140

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 36

April 6, 2013

Our assessment of compliance with the Phase 2 requirements of this paragraph included interviews with relevant staff; and a review of closed command-level, FI, IAD, and OCI cases.
Command Level Investigations: During the current reporting period, we found the following:
 The data reflects a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident, including a detailed account of the subject(s) or complainants and officer(s) actions in 74 (86%) of the investigations, an increase from the 72% registered during the last reporting period. Some of the issues that continue to adversely affect compliance in this area include: insufficient details in any of the interviews; interviews that appear almost verbatim from officer to officer; officers providing statements which are evasive and nebulous, and investigators not asking follow-up questions; investigators failing to address discrepancies between officer statements; and investigators failing to interview complainants/victims.12 In 86 (100%) of the cases, an evaluation of the initial stop or seizure was conducted. In 33 (70%) of the cases, all of the relevant evidence – including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence – was reviewed.13 This is an increase from the 59% we found during the last reporting period.
 A major issue with the newly acquired recording system occurred, which prevented the video/audio recordings during most of the reporting period for all units equipped with the new equipment. The setback appeared to also affect recording in holding facilities. We were able to identify at least 36 cases that were affected by the breakdown, and have eliminated them from the count as well. We continue to assert that the review of both video and audio recordings of citizen contacts with DPD members is essential to use of force investigations and consequently we continue to recommend, in the strongest of terms, that DPD initiate all of the corrective actions necessary to ensure that encounters are captured in both video and audio recordings. Every effort should be made to review video/audio recordings prior to the submission of the SIR. The failure to have these reviews conducted prior to the submission of the final report is an unacceptable practice. In the use of force investigations, we find that audio recordings are more integral to the investigations than video recordings as uses of force routinely occur out of line of sight of the cameras. Eighty-four (98%) of the investigations contained evidence that reasonable credibility determinations, with no automatic preference given to an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement, were made to reach conclusions regarding the investigations. This is the same percentage registered during the last reporting period. Eighty- six (100%) of the investigations contained an evaluation of whether or not an officer complied with DPD policy. This is an increase from the 94% we found during the last reporting period. Seventy-five (100%) of the 75 cases that we reviewed contained an evaluation of the use of force.14 Officers’ tactics were evaluated in 86 (100%) of the 86
12 This is not an all-inclusive list.
13 Seventeen of the cases reflected either no equipment installed or officers assigned to walking beats; coupled with the 36 cases in which recordings were affected by the systemic breakdown in the Data 911 recording system and there were 53 cases which had no opportunity to record interactions between members and the public. We are informed that the system has been repaired.
14 Eleven cases were eliminated, as they were detainee injuries or attempted suicides, with no use of force.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 38 of 193 Pg ID 9141

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 37

April 6, 2013

cases reviewed, an increase from the 94% we found during the last reporting period. There were no cases with misconduct identified.
 Eighty-six (100%) of the 86 cases were evaluated on a preponderance of the evidence standard. This is an increase from the 98% that we found during the last reporting period. Seventy-six of the cases (88%) had no extension request; of the remaining 10 cases, all 10 (100%) contained documentation of the delays, either by a formal extension request or by notations in the file reflecting submission dates, return for corrections dates, and final submission dates. Of the 10 cases in which there were requested extensions, two cases included references to investigators vacations/furloughs. We continue to urge DPD to provide guidance to the various commands regarding the importance of properly documenting the extensions and the returns of reports for corrections routinely documented in the Timeline section of the SIRs. Documents returned for corrections should reflect the new due dates. There were 62 SIRs in which corrective action might have been taken; corrective action was documented in 59 (95%) of the investigations. Inclusive in the corrective action were misconduct investigations, negative administrative counseling registers, re-instructs, re-training, written reprimands, and verbal counseling.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level Investigations portion of this requirement.
Force Investigations: Our review of completed FI cases for previous reporting periods found them to be in overall compliance, but we noted cases wherein there was no evaluation of the initial stop and/or seizure; no reference to the presence or absence of circumstantial evidence; and a lack of reference to the conducting of credibility determinations.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we examined 19 completed case files and noted the continued inclusion of a detailed account of the facts of the event.15 Investigators evaluated the initial stop/contact in each case, but need to more thoroughly evaluate available direct, circumstantial, and physical evidence. For example, investigators need to review related police reports; medical documentation for injured subjects; and autopsy reports. Investigators miss opportunities to complete thorough and factual investigations when evidence is obtained and not properly analyzed. This also includes the lack of satisfactory ballistics examinations. Lastly, command/supervisory personnel are reviewing a number of these investigations and are rendering findings based upon incomplete information.
During this reporting period, there were no instances where a subject’s court-related appearances had any effect on the outcome of investigations.
The files documented some reasonable credibility determinations, but demonstrated the need for FI to continue to provide training on this issue. We found that investigations contained reviews of tactics and identified officers’ unrelated conduct violations. Findings were based mostly on a preponderance of evidence standard, and recommended referrals for disciplinary intervention were documented.

15 These investigations included 11 critical firearm discharge events and three vehicle pursuits.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 39 of 193 Pg ID 9142

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 38

April 6, 2013

We noted during this assessment that extensions were requested and documented in one case. The two extensions requested in this case were 60 days from the date of the incident to complete Garrity interview with officers. Nonetheless, despite the lack of requested extensions, only three (16%) of the 19 submitted FI cases were timely; extensions should have been requested and documented in the other 16 cases. We recognize the challenges inherent with effective case management, and recognize the continued efforts of DPD – particularly IAD and FI staff – to address them. Regardless, it is difficult to justify the approval of deadline extensions to conduct interviews, obtain an officer’s discipline history, obtain videotapes relating to an event, or locate complainants or subjects weeks or months after an incident.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: We noted in our previous reports that OCI investigations were most often not completed within the prescribed 90-day timeframe. Requests for extensions were frequently submitted well after the case was overdue, and adequate justification of the need for the extension was rarely provided. The delay in securing timely interviews has been a recurring problem that has impacted the quality of the investigations. However, OCI investigations have generally been factual and complete, and more often than not the preponderance of evidence standard is used in reaching determinations.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected cases. All cases were received – and closed – in 2012. In all of the cases, there was a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident complained of. We did not note any cases in which additional allegations were raised during interviews, but not documented or addressed. This had been a recurring issue in past reviews, and so we are encouraged by this development.
We did not note any cases in which OCI did not consider the relevant evidence available in a case. We observed that investigators generally explore the availability of video evidence in cases where it is appropriate. In 57 cases, investigators inquired as to the availability of video. In 47, or 82%, of these cases, video evidence was not available. This is concerning, given the large monetary and resource investment that DPD has made in this technology. We continue to recommend that investigators inquire about video as early in the investigation as possible, as retention times for both DPD and private sources can result in the deletion of video evidence before it can be acquired. In addition, there were three other cases in which video evidence might have been available, but OCI did not document any efforts to obtain it.
We found no evidence where a complainant’s conviction or guilty plea had a bearing on the investigation. However, credibility assessments were lacking for both officers and complainants/witnesses.
In all of the cases we reviewed, we noted appropriate evaluation of whether officers complied with DPD policy.16
In two cases, OCI investigators appropriately discovered potential misconduct during the course of their investigations. In one case, mentioned earlier, an officer failed to show up for his Garrity
16If an allegation appropriately received a finding of unfounded or not sustained, evaluation of policy compliance was not assessed since, by definition, its occurrence was either refuted or not substantiated.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 40 of 193 Pg ID 9143

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 39

April 6, 2013

interview and was charged with this violation. In the other, a complaint of an inappropriate hold on a towed vehicle, additional demeanor charges were lodged against an officer and a sergeant based on evidence obtained from reviewing footage from the precinct’s video recording system.
In 13 cases, the preponderance of evidence standard was not used. This is based on our determination that different findings were warranted based on the documentation provided for our review. For example, allegations that were unfounded or exonerated by investigators would more appropriately be classified as not sustained based on the information in the case file. As is our practice, each of these cases will be discussed in detail with OCI staff during our next site visit.
Four of the cases we reviewed were not completed within the prescribed 90-day time period. Written requests for extension were not submitted in any of these cases. Per OCI policy, if cases are not completed within 90 days, investigators are obligated to submit extension requests justifying the need for additional time to complete the cases.
There were no cases in which corrective action or specific disciplinary action was recommended as a result of the investigation. All sustained cases were referred to the Office of the Chief of Police “for appropriate action.”
We reviewed several cases in which the canvasses were either deficient or performed so long after the alleged occurrence as to have no investigative value.
In summary, although appropriate directives are in place, our analysis of OCI investigations does not yet support a Phase 2 compliance finding with this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: Our review during this reporting period found that the IAD investigative packages continue to be well organized, and elements of the investigation are easy to locate. We found that the IAD investigations were conducted in a professional manner. The supervisor meets with the investigators every two weeks to discuss the case progress and grant extensions when necessary. During this review of 30 completed IAD investigations, we found that there were precise descriptions of the incidents and reviews of all relevant evidence. There were seven cases that exceeded the 90-day requirement. All seven cases were delayed due to the criminal court process. In those cases, extensions were requested and appropriately granted. Appropriate credibility determinations were made in all of the cases, and ultimately the determinations were made using the preponderance of evidence standard. In four of the 30 investigations, additional DPD policy violations were identified and sustained.
DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U33 The DPD shall revise its policies regarding the review of all investigations to require:
a. investigations to be reviewed by the chain of command above the investigator;

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 41 of 193 Pg ID 9144

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 40

April 6, 2013

b. the reviewing supervisors to identify any deficiencies in those investigations and require the investigator to correct any deficiencies within seven days of the submission of the report and evaluation to the reviewing supervisor;
c. the reviewing supervisors to recommend and the final reviewing authority to refer any incident with training, policy or procedural implications to the appropriate DPD unit;
d. appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action when an investigator fails to conduct or reviewing supervisor fails to evaluate an investigation appropriately; and
e. a written explanation by any supervisor, including the Chief of Police, who disagrees with a finding or departs from a recommended non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action, including the basis for the departure.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our assessment of compliance with the Phase 2 requirements of this paragraph included interviews with staff; and a review of closed command-level, FI, IAD, and OCI cases.
Command Level Investigations: Our assessment for this reporting period found that in 86 (100%) of the 86 SIRs reviewed there was a chain of command review above the investigator. DPD identified deficiencies in 81 (95%) of 85 cases, with 74 (87%) requiring corrections within seven days of submission.17 In two of the cases, the reviewing supervisor made recommendations that training, policy, or procedural issues be referred to the appropriate DPD unit. In six instances, the final reviewing authority referred the matter to an appropriate DPD unit. There were 13 instances of DPD taking corrective action for investigations that were not conducted properly; the corrective action included re-instruction, training, and the issuance of corrective memos. There were three instances where appropriate actions were taken for investigations that had not been evaluated appropriately by the reviewing supervisor. There were five instances in which written explanations were provided by a supervisor who disagreed with a finding by a subordinate, and in each instance, a written explanation for the departure was provided.
As we have previously mentioned, the review of SIRs by the command level remains the most critical step in the conduct of these investigations. With specific training and more critical command reviews of the investigations, DPD will be able to improve the quality of investigations conducted at the command level. It is incumbent on the Inspectors and Commanders to continue to ensure that deficiencies in the investigations are corrected, and to consult the appropriate units if any procedural or tactical issues are identified.
DPD is not in compliance with the Command Level Investigations portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: In our previous reviews of FI cases for compliance with these requirements, we noted that the case files included chain of command reviews and recommended

17 One case was not applicable, as it had no errors and was not returned for corrections.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 42 of 193 Pg ID 9145

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 41

April 6, 2013

referrals to training. The investigations also included references to supervisors’ requests for additional information or investigative work.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 19 completed FI cases. Although we are sufficiently satisfied, based on our discussions with FI staff, that supervisory reviews and evaluations are occurring, we were unable to find supporting documentation referred by FI as Case Supervision Sheets in a majority of the cases reviewed. We recommend that these reviews be more thoroughly documented. Considering the fact that 16 of the cases we reviewed were late, correcting deficiencies within seven days in these investigations is insignificant for the purpose of compliance with this paragraph. Only 16% of the cases we reviewed were timely.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: In our previous reports, we noted our inability to determine what appropriate supervisory intervention has taken place when investigations are deficient. While there has been evidence of supervisory review in most cases, when investigations are returned, specific issues and corrective measures were usually not documented. Glaring deficiencies such as chronic timeliness issues, which would warrant counseling and/or discipline, were not addressed in writing.
For the current reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 100 closed investigations. During this reporting period, 71 cases were returned for deficiencies. Most of these were for spelling, grammar, and formatting. In eight of the cases, deficiencies were either missed or not corrected within seven days. These include lack of investigative activity for long periods of time; as well as many of the issues cited above, such as investigative shortcomings, improper findings, and failure to submit proper extension requests.
We did not review any cases in which a reviewer disagreed with the recommended findings of the investigator.
The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of the paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: During this reporting period, the IAD supervisor used the case management system, Case Trax, to record any deficiencies and instructions in the investigators’ progress notes. All of the investigations were reviewed and approved by the chain of command above the investigators within the required timeframe.
IAD is in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 43 of 193 Pg ID 9146

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 42

April 6, 2013

B. Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations
CJ Requirement U34
The DPD shall revise its reporting policies to require officers to document on a single auditable form any prisoner injury, use of force, allegation of use of force, and instance in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In the last reporting period, we found that 83% of the auditable forms (UF002) forms we reviewed were prepared correctly and documented the prisoner injuries, uses of force, and allegations of force. The forms included 15 cases that were referred to FI/IAD.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 200 auditable forms, and found that 167 (84%) were prepared correctly and documented the prisoner injuries, uses of force, and allegations of force. The forms include 11 forms that were referred to FI/IAD, and five in which the officers acquired a target.
The DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U35
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding use of force and prisoner injury notifications to require:
a. officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or prisoner injury;
b. that upon such notice, a supervisor shall respond to the scene of all uses of force that involve a firearm discharge, a visible injury or a complaint of injury. A supervisor shall respond to all other uses of force on a priority basis. Upon arrival at the scene, the supervisor shall interview the subject(s), examine the subject(s) for injury, and ensure that the subject(s) receive needed medical attention;
c. the supervisor responding to the scene to notify IAD of all serious uses of force, uses of force that result in visible injury, uses of force that a reasonable officer should have known were likely to result in injury, uses of force where there is prisoner injury; and
d. IAD to respond to the scene of, and investigate, all incidents where a prisoner dies, suffers serious bodily injury or requires hospital admission, or involves a serious use of

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 44 of 193 Pg ID 9147

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 43

April 6, 2013

force, and to permit IAD to delegate all other use of force or prisoner injury investigations to the supervisor for a command investigation.18
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the last reporting period, we found that in 97% of the Command Level Investigations cases we reviewed, a supervisor was notified following a use of force or a prisoner injury. Supervisors responded to 100% of cases in which the use of force involved a firearms discharge, a visible injury, or a complaint of injury. Supervisors responded to other uses of force on a priority basis in 100% of cases. In combination, a supervisor responded to 100% of the cases that we reviewed. Ninety-six percent of the cases reflected supervisory efforts to interview the subject, either on the scene or at the district. In 98% of the cases, the supervisor examined the subject on the scene or at the district/precinct for injuries, and ensured that the subjects received the needed medical attention. Force Investigations was notified in 27 cases, and assumed responsibility for eight cases.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 86 Command Level Investigations cases and found that in 85 (99%), a supervisor was notified following a use of force or a prisoner injury. There were 45 cases in which the use of force involved a firearms discharge, a visible injury, or a complaint of injury; and a supervisor responded to all of them. Supervisors responded to other uses of force on a priority basis in all (100%) of the remaining 41 cases. In combination, a supervisor responded to 86 (100%) of the 86 cases reviewed, maintaining the 100% registered in the last reporting period.
In 84(98%) of the 86 cases, a supervisor interviewed the subject at the scene, at the district/precinct, or at DRH.19 Also in 83 (96%) of the 86 cases, a supervisor examined the subject for injury and ensured that the subject received needed medical attention.20 Force Investigations (FI) was notified in 39 of the cases, and assumed responsibility for nine of them. There was one choking allegations which was resolved through an FI CAN transmitted to the Command.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for Command Level Investigations with this paragraph.
Force Investigations: Our review of 19 FI cases relevant to this requirement found that no officers failed to report the use of force to supervisors as required.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

18 Amended by Court Order dated September 15, 2008.
19 In some instances, a subject is moved to the District/Precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject.
20 In some instances, a subject is moved to the District/Precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 45 of 193 Pg ID 9148

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 44

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement U36
The DPD shall revise its use of force and prisoner injury investigation policies to require:
a. command use of force preliminary investigations to be completed within 10 days of the incident. These investigations shall include a synopsis of the incident, photographs of any injuries, witness statements, a canvas of the area, and a profile of the officer’s prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct, and a first-line supervisory evaluation. The final command use of force investigation shall be completed within 30 days of the incident;
b. IAD investigations to be completed within 90 days of the incident; and
c. copies of all reports and command investigations to be sent to IAD within 7 days of completion of the investigation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: In the last reporting period, we found that 89% of the Command Level Investigations were completed within 10 days of the event. All of the investigations contained the required synopsis of the event. There were photographs of injuries in 12 of the files. In 95% of the cases, the canvass and witness information was included in the file. Officers’ prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct were included in 100% of the cases. One hundred percent of the cases reflected first-line supervisor evaluations. The final command use of force investigations were completed within 30 days in 87% of the cases. Copies of completed Command Level Investigations were transmitted to IAD within seven days of completion of the investigations in 96% of the cases.
During this reporting period, we found that 82 (95%) of the preliminary investigations were completed within 10 days of the event, an increase over the previous reporting period’s 89%. Eighty-six reports (100%) included a synopsis of the incident. There were photographs of injuries in one of the files, though in two others there were comments that the photos had been viewed at the command.
In 86 (100%) of the cases, the canvass and witness information was included in the file. Officers’ prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct were included in 86 cases (100%). Eighty-eight first-line supervisor evaluations were made in 86 of the cases (100%). The final command use of force investigations were completed within 30 days in 78 (91%) of the cases. Copies of completed Command Level Investigations were transmitted to IAD within seven days of completion of the investigations in 78 (91%) of the 88 cases.
The Command Level Investigations portion of this requirement failed to achieve Phase 2 compliance due to the failure on the part of the commands to submit the reports within the 10and 30-day time constraints. In some instances, the failure can be attributed to the failure to keep track of the days; in others a failure to attend to details. DPD has not achieved Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for the Command Level Investigations.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 46 of 193 Pg ID 9149

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 45

April 6, 2013

Force Investigations: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 19 completed FI cases.21 Sixteen of the 19 cases we reviewed were untimely. Our review of the untimely cases revealed a troubling pattern, in which FI conducted a portion of the investigations soon after the event, but then took from several months to more than two years to complete the actual investigative reports. None of these cases included any justification for investigators to require several months or even years to complete a report long after the investigative work had been completed.
We continue to recommend that DPD closely evaluate case management and related issues, including staffing, and more closely monitor FI investigators’ time management and report preparation to more expeditiously complete these investigations.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U37
The DPD has created a Shooting Team, composed of officers from the Homicide Section and IAD. The Shooting Team shall respond to the scene and investigate all critical firearms discharges and in-custody deaths.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Previously, we found that the JIST appropriately responded to critical firearm discharge events; accordingly, we found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. There were 11 critical firearm discharge investigations and no in-custody death investigations completed during this reporting period. JIST appropriately responded to all of the events.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

21 These investigations included 11 critical firearm discharges and three vehicle pursuits.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 47 of 193 Pg ID 9150

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 46

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement U38
The DPD shall develop a protocol for conducting investigations of critical firearm discharges that, in addition to the requirements of paragraphs 27-36, requires
a. the investigation to account for all shots fired, all shell casings, and the locations of all officers at the time the officer discharged the firearm;
b. the investigator to conduct and preserve in the investigative file all appropriate ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests; and
c. the investigation to be completed within 60 days of the incident. If a Garrity statement is necessary, then that portion of the investigation may be deferred until 30 days from the declination or conclusion of the criminal prosecution.22
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our review of critical firearm discharge investigations for previous reports noted a number of significant issues relating to the requirements of this paragraph. We found that although investigators inventoried the officers’ ammunition to assist with determining the number of shots fired, and collected shell casings at the scene, there were instances where the number of shots believed to have been fired did not match the inventory of officers’ ammunition and/or the number of retrieved shell casings. We emphasized the importance of accounting for all rounds that are fired, and where there appears to be a discrepancy due to the described magazine problems, documenting it in the case reports. The DPD attributed this to an ongoing problem with the ammunition magazines that sometimes prevented officers from loading them to capacity and indicated its intent to correct the problem with the issuance of replacement equipment.
In addition, we noted that while the locations of officers were generally described, the files do not consistently include diagrams depicting their positions. We also expressed concern regarding the absence of gunshot residue and DNA collection and analysis. The DPD advised that gunshot residue analysis is no longer available; that DNA analysis is limited and that there are significant delays in ballistics analyses, which are conducted by the State Crime Lab. These have been – and remain – issues mitigating the ability of FI to conduct complete and timely critical firearm discharge investigations. And finally, we have repeatedly expressed concern with the failure to complete these investigations within the required 60-day time limit.
To assess compliance with requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 11 completed critical firearm discharge investigations, none of which involved fatalities. Two cases contained a discrepancy between the number of rounds (ammunition) officers were carrying at the time of the event and the number of rounds they are required to carry by policy. This discrepancy illustrates the need for investigators to document DPD policy violations relating to the carrying of a specified amount of ammunition and the need for DPD to take corrective action.

22 Consent Judgment amendment April 23, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 48 of 193 Pg ID 9151

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 47

April 6, 2013

The investigations that we reviewed described the locations of the officers; however, the diagrams that were included did not specifically indicate them. The locations of shell casings were noted; however, we are concerned that FI did not reconcile the number of shots believed to have been fired. We have continuing concerns regarding the lack of gunshot residue tests (two cases) where such tests would have served as an investigative aid in determining whether or not the suspect discharged a firearm and the lack of ballistic testing on firearms and shell casings.
We are aware that the DPD relies on the Michigan State Laboratory for ballistic testing and have been advised that the present Lab protocols and procedures do not allow for some of the required testing and analysis. This remains an area of concern that must be addressed.
Only one, or 9%, of the 11 critical firearm discharge investigations we reviewed were timely. These cases were closed in a timeframe of one month to over two years – a range of time well outside of the 60-day requirement.
These above-cited ongoing issues are significant and continue to mitigate the quality; thoroughness; and, moreover, the credibility of these investigations. Each critical firearm discharge must be investigated with a focus on whether the deadly force was used in accordance with DPD policy, regardless of whether or not it resulted in injury or death. Crime scene activities and the analyses of all evidence – including important ballistic evidence – often form the basis for making appropriate decisions regarding these most serious issues. Therefore, the deficiencies described herein and in our previous reports must be addressed.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U39
The DPD shall require a Command-level Force Review Team to evaluate all critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths. The team shall be chaired by the Deputy Chief who directly supervises IAD. The DPD shall establish criteria for selecting the other member of the team.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The Team is chaired by the Commander, Internal Affairs/Force Investigations, and includes Deputy Chiefs, the Training Commander, and a specified Chief of Police designee.
The DPD submitted nine CLFRT reports that met the composition requirements of this paragraph during this reporting period.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 49 of 193 Pg ID 9152

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 48

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U40
The DPD policy that defines the Command-level Force Review Team’s role shall require the team to:
a. complete its review of critical firearm discharges that result in injury and in-custody deaths within 21 days from the completion of the investigation and require the Chief of Police to complete his or her review of the team’s report within 14 days;23
b. comply with the revised review of investigations policies and procedures;
c. interview the principal investigators; and
d. prepare a report to the Chief of Police in compliance with the revised investigatory report and evaluation protocol.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During this reporting period, the DPD submitted nine CLFRT reports that included five reviews that did not meet the time limitations for completion. The CLFRT assessment complied with DPD protocols, and the principal investigator was interviewed. There was one review completed by the Chief of Police that was untimely.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

23 Amended by Court Order dated April 23, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 50 of 193 Pg ID 9153

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 49

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement U41
The commanding officer of Force Investigation or other appropriate DPD executive designated by the Chief of Police shall annually review critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths in aggregate to detect patterns and/or problems and report his or her findings and recommendations, including additional investigative protocols and standards for all critical firearm discharge and in-custody death investigations, to the Chief of Police. A copy of the report shall be submitted to the Monitor within five months after the end of the year reported on.24
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The CLFRT Chair previously prepared an annual report and critique of critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths and was found in compliance with this paragraph. These reports are due by May of the year following the year under review.
We received the CLFRT 2011 annual report on June 6, 2012. The report, prepared by Force Investigation, included a description of investigative processes; case summaries; and various analyses of fatal and non-fatal firearm discharges, in-custody deaths, and pursuits. As in previous reports, the report indicated a downward trend in critical firearm discharges during the latest six-year period. After peaking at 59 in 2006, DPD recorded 30 critical firearm discharges in 2011. There were two fatal shootings in 2010, after peaking at nine in 2006. The most common encounter involved armed subjects.
The CLFRT made recommendations to revise the policy addressing the discharging of a weapon at or from a moving vehicle; directed officer safety training after detecting a pattern of officer reaching inside vehicles to turn off the ignition during traffic stops, which were resulting in officers being dragged by the vehicle as operators attempted to escape; and recommended that the Training Commander re-assess instruction relating to dealing with subjects with mental conditions and/or subjects who display symptoms of Excited Delirium. In addition, the report addressed the issue of unintentional/accidental discharges by officers. There were three listed in the report – one of which occurred off duty. The accidental discharge information has been communicated to the CLFRT by FI for further evaluation. In the interim, all officers involved in the accidental discharges were found negligent and directed to firearms training for additional instruction on proper weapon handling and firearm safety.
The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

24 Amended by Court Order dated January 28, 2009.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 51 of 193 Pg ID 9154

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 50

April 6, 2013

Critical Issues:
 The failure to conduct quality investigations within prescribed timelines remains a critical issue. We again emphasize the need to provide formal documentation of reasons for delays in the completion of investigations. Many cases indicate that they are returned for corrections, but do not explain what is needed to be corrected, nor what new time limits have been established for re-submission.
 DPD needs to provide more attention to the quality of interviews; some lack details regarding the incident and exactly how the officers on the scene responded to the incident; investigators armed with new information from interviews seldom re-interview officers to resolve differences. Video and audio recordings must be reviewed as part of the investigative process; the Department needs to place greater emphasis on the appropriate use of the body microphones to capture interactions between officers and the public/subjects. Supervisors need to ensure that activity logs are properly completed with respect to the video and audio capabilities; and when equipment is inoperative, the proper documentation should be prepared and commented on in the investigation. We continue to recommend that a formalized practice of forwarding complex/faulty investigations to the Training Division and/or the Policy Section for their review as a measure of ensuring that both units are aware of the situations officers are confronting in the streets and institute any corrective measure they may seem appropriate.
 The reviews of the use of force reports reflects some tactical concerns that would be best addressed through a critical review by tactical personnel at the Training Bureau. Improved tactics will improve interactions with the public; even more importantly, they will improve officer safety. The review of these cases by those specialized units could result in enhanced training curricula or improved DPD policies.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
 Continue to assess compliance, paying particular attention to the thoroughness and completeness of investigations, their review by supervisors, and compliance with the timelines.

¶ Requirements 27 Revise investigative policies 28 Investigation by uninvolved supervisor 29 Procedures for investigative interviews 30 Leading questions prohibited, etc. 31 Garrity Protocol required 32 Revise investigatory report policies

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation Not in Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 52 of 193 Pg ID 9155

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 51

April 6, 2013

¶ Requirements 33 Chain of command reviews 34 Auditable form required 35 Notification of supervisors, etc. 36 Completion of command investigations 37 Joint Incident Shooting Team 38 Protocol for critical discharge investigations 39 Command Level Force Review Team 40 Review critical firearm discharges 41 Command-level force review requirements

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance

V. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES
The arrest and detention policies and practice requirements are a critical component of this Agreement. The policies prohibit an officer from making an arrest without probable cause, and the existing policy requires supervisory review within 12 hours of the arrest. It further requires that for an arrest that is unsupported by probable cause, or a warrant that is not sought, an auditable form must document the circumstances within 12 hours of the event.
The DPD revised its investigatory stop-and-frisk policies to appropriately define investigatory stops and reasonable suspicion and supported this effort by frequent roll call training and two Administrative Messages issued in January and April 2011. As a result of additional emphasis by the Department on investigatory stops/frisks, DPD has been in compliance in this area for three consecutive reporting periods. DPD also revised its witness identification policies to comply with the revised arrest and investigatory policies. Policy establishes that a material witness can only be taken into custody by obtaining a Court order prior to such taking.
The revised policies and procedures in this area require significant documentation and reviews by supervisors. Command notification is required in all instances where there exists a reported violation of DPD arrest, holds/warrants, investigatory stop-and-frisk, witness identification and questioning policies, and all reports in which an arraignment warrant is not sought.
While previous compliance had been achieved in these areas, we noted during this and the three previous reporting periods the inability of personnel to indicate holds over 48 hours on the Warrant Tracking Form. This has been problematic in that when command review occurs, the commanders had relied solely on whether the OIC had indicated on the Warrant Tracking Form the hold status of the detainee. Due to previous compliance, the current issues stem from combining the general investigative units that were previously housed in the districts and precincts into two central facilities. The issue of failing to document holds over 48 hours has been addressed in the Command Accountability Meetings and commanders are now required to verify the existence of any holds in violation of policy.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 53 of 193 Pg ID 9156

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 52

April 6, 2013

DPD has made significant progress in documenting Investigatory Stops, Detainee Registration and following their internal witness identification policies during the previous five reporting periods. DPD has been in compliance with its investigatory stop policies for four consecutive reporting periods; in order to remain in compliance, supervisory personnel must ensure the preparation of auditable forms when reasonable suspicion is not properly articulated for the stop. During this reporting period, DPD’s ability to articulate reasonable suspicion with frisks and their improvement in supervisory review of these documents has indicated positive results.
The Department’s ability to document and timely prepare warrant submittals to the prosecutor had been problematic, in that the failure to do so caused other violations of policy. (See U50, U51, and U53.) We have found that in a few instances, the failure to prepare the required auditable form or timely review by a commanding officer has kept DPD from compliance with certain paragraphs. Supervisory and command review continues to be lacking in some areas, and that documentation of violations should be a Departmental priority.
All paragraphs under the Arrest and Detention Policies and Practices require supervisory and command review. On August 7, 2012, Administrative Message (Teletype 12-066) mandates a 12-hour work shift for police officers in the field and the holding facilities. However, sergeants and higher level ranks will remain on eight-hour shifts. Since adequate supervisory and command review has been major issues for compliance purposes, it appears that consistency of supervision for field personnel could jeopardize DPD’s ability to monitor subordinates’ activity.

A. Arrest Policies CJ Requirement U42 The DPD shall revise its arrest policies to define arrest and probable cause as those terms are defined in this Agreement and prohibit the arrest of an individual with less than probable cause. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance is linked to and dependent upon the implementation of U43. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U43
The DPD shall review all arrests for probable cause at the time the arrestee is presented at the precinct or specialized unit. This review shall be memorialized in writing within 12 hours of the arrest. For any arrest unsupported by probable cause or in which an arraignment warrant was not sought, the DPD shall document the circumstances of the arrest and/or the reasons the arraignment warrant was not sought on an auditable form within 12 hours of the event.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 54 of 193 Pg ID 9157

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 53

April 6, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 106 arrest case files. The review included Crisnet reports, Detainee Input Sheets, DPD Warrant Verification Logs, officers’ Daily Activity Logs, Arraignment Verification Logs, and detainee file folders. In two cases, sufficient probable cause for the arrest was not present.
In all cases supervisory approval occurred within 12 hours of the arrest. In one November 2012 case, supervisory approval occurred within five hours of the arrest documented on the Crisnet report; however, the supervisor in the detention facility failed to indicate on the Detainee Information Sheet his signature indicating his probable cause approval. In two cases, probable cause for the arrest was not properly documented; and the required Review of Arrest Exception Form (UF-001) was not completed. In one of these two instances where a warrant was not sought, the reviewing supervisor clearly indicated on the Warrant Tracking auditable form that probable cause did not exist.
When an officer is not seeking an arraignment warrant, the Department is required to complete Auditable Form U004, Warrant Tracking Hold Form (effective September 2009). Of the 106 arrest cases we reviewed, the Department did not seek a warrant in 16. In all of the cases except one, the required auditable form was completed in a timely basis. In the one exception, the auditable form was completed 11 hours after the 12-hour requirement had expired. In another case where the “Warrant Not Sought” box should have been marked on the Warrant Tracking Form, the box “Discharged Pending” box was marked, which typically indicates a Warrant Not Sought. The supervisor or commander should have caught the omission.
In one arrest the OIC indicated “Warrant Not Served” on the Warrant Tracking Form when the warrant was timely submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office, and ultimately the warrant was denied. A supervisor or commanding officer should have noticed this error prior to our request for samples. We are observing more Corrective Action Notices being issued when DPD discovers violations of policy. DPD’s compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon probable cause to arrest and timeliness in preparing the required auditable forms.
DPD’s compliance rate is 97%, the same as the previous reporting period, for the three separate and distinct requirements of this paragraph. DPD has been in compliance with Phase 2 of this paragraph in all our previous reports.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 55 of 193 Pg ID 9158

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 54

April 6, 2013

B. Investigatory Stop Policies
CJ Requirement U44 The DPD shall revise its investigatory stop and frisk policies to define investigatory stop and reasonable suspicion as those terms are defined in this Agreement. The policy shall specify that a frisk is authorized only when the officer has reasonable suspicion to fear for his or her safety and that the scope of the frisk must be narrowly tailored to those specific reasons.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of U45.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U45
The DPD shall require written documentation of all investigatory stops and frisks by the end of the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD shall review all investigatory stops and frisks and document on an auditable form those unsupported by reasonable suspicion within 24 hours of receiving the officer’s report.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In our tenth quarterly report, we determined that DPD was in compliance with the provisions of this paragraph; this was the first reporting period that DPD achieved compliance in this area. DPD had previously come into compliance with traffic and investigatory stops. In the last reporting period, DPD’s compliance rate for frisks was 88%.
During the current reporting period, as in our previous review, we found that DPD personnel have made significant progress in documenting investigatory stops. We continue to find that some supervisors, when reviewing officers’ Daily Activity Logs, checked or circled each frisk on their subordinates’ logs or completed an auditable form when the frisk was not articulated. This sound accountability practice by DPD supervisory personnel should be continued. This is the first quarterly review where all frisks were properly documented or the supervisor completed an auditable form when reasonable suspicion did not exist for the police action.
Due to settling a previous litigation, DPD issued Training Directive 12-03 on January 12, 2012 reinforcing Detroit City Code 38-1-3 as it pertains to the loitering ordinance. The new guidelines clearly define the rights of the individual and provide clarity to personnel when enforcing loitering violations.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 56 of 193 Pg ID 9159

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 55

April 6, 2013

To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 371 officers’ Daily Activity Logs completed on three randomly selected dates.25 Each district/precinct provided the logs requested, which included traffic stops and other situations where officers made investigatory stops of individuals who were not in vehicles or in vehicles stopped in places where a police inquiry was warranted.
Our review yielded 59 investigatory stops, of which 57 indicated a lawful purpose. We observed and noted in previous reports that supervisors are now more thorough in their reviews of officers’ Daily Activity Logs and would complete auditable forms for violations; that is no longer the case, as we have not reviewed any auditable forms (traffic stops or investigatory stops for this or the previous reporting period. Most of the investigatory stops involved subjects being in a park after posted hours, entering premises/property without owner’s permission, and loitering. In all instances, supervisors reviewed all investigatory stops within the required timeframe. DPD’s compliance rate for investigatory stops only (excluding frisks and traffic stops) during this reporting period is 97%, an increase from the 96% registered in the last reporting period. In one of the two non-compliant investigatory stops, the officer described the stop as “youthful appearance” when the individual was 22 years old. The officer did not offer any other explanation for the detention of the individual.
The logs included 225 traffic stops, and our review indicated that one did not contain sufficient information to justify the stop, which is a basic requirement. For example, the officers failed to describe the initial necessity or purpose of the traffic stop. Supervisors reviewed all but two Officer’s Daily Activity Logs containing traffic stops in a timely fashion, marking their signatures, and dates and times of review.
DPD’s compliance rate for traffic stops is 99%, an increase from the previous reporting period’s 97%.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 15 frisks appearing on officers’ Daily Activity Logs. We found that 14 of the frisks met the requirement. In the one exception where the officer failed to articulate reasonable suspicion, the supervisor caught the policy failure and completed the required auditable form. We observed fewer frisks conducted by officers during this reporting period. Perhaps officers have a better understanding through training and frequent Administrative Messages by DPD staff of what circumstances need to exist prior to conducting a frisk.
On July 28, 2011, DPD issued an Administrative Message (Teletype 11-0925) to be read at 10 consecutive roll calls instructing supervisors how to address consent frisks by officers. Another Administrative Message (Teletype 11-1497) was issued on December 24, 2011 emphasizing the importance of officers describing the frisk and supervisors’ responsibilities completing the auditable form when required.
Officers are required to complete the “Recap of Activity” portion of the log to indicate their total daily activities and also mark the “Frisk” box in the narrative portion of the report. This is a tool

25 For this review, we randomly selected Daily Activity Logs completed on October 17, November 163, and December 2, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 57 of 193 Pg ID 9160

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 56

April 6, 2013

for the supervisor to locate and review the frisks that occur by his/her subordinates. However, supervisors have not used this tool – as we continue to find instances where the officer properly conducts a frisk but does not mark either of the appropriate boxes and the supervisors fail to discover the omissions.
During a previous site visit, the Parties held a meeting to discuss DPD’s request that consent searches (frisks) met the legal requirements of the Consent Judgment. No changes were made as a result of that meeting and we have found that on the few occasions when an officer conducts a consent frisk the supervisors have completed the auditable form.
In previous audits, to ensure compliance with the Department’s stop-and-frisk policies, the Audit Team recommended a number of steps, including retraining officers and reviewing all stop-andfrisk situations by supervisors and command personnel in a timely fashion. We have found that the emphasis DPD has placed on officers properly documenting investigatory stops and supervisory review had previously paid dividends toward compliance.
A review of in-car video of frisks by the training staff and commanders is helpful in ensuring that legal authority exists for the frisks. In our eleventh quarterly report, we noted that supervisors conducted in-car video review of their subordinates’ investigatory stops and frisks. This is a sound supervisory practice and we encourage DPD to continue the video review of these stops when the legality of these stops is in question. During previous reporting periods, we reviewed auditable forms (Stop and/or Frisk Exception form, DPD UF-003, effective October 31, 2009) from supervisors indicating that they had challenged an improper investigatory stopand-frisk. As noted above, Administrative Message 11-0151, issued on January 28, 2011; Administrative Message 11-0477, issued on April 22, 2011; Administrative Message 11-1497, issued on December 22, 2011; and a subsequent Administrative Message issued on November 9, 2012 emphasized the recording of investigatory stops and frisks by officers and supervisory review. We note that OCR continues to send Corrective Action Notices to the various commands when they review our document request for Daily Activity Logs; however, this responsibility lies with the individual commands, not OCR, and commands need to take action immediately when the violations occur.
In previous reporting periods, we found a few cases where auditable forms were completed after they were requested by the Monitoring Team and reviewed by DPD personnel. DPD personnel have been trained; this is no longer a training issue but one of accountability. Command personnel must ensure that their sergeants/lieutenants are reviewing investigatory stops and taking action when it occurs. The failure here is supervisory and command review. First-line supervisors are the key personnel in ensuring that all investigatory stops are in compliance with policy. DPD’s compliance rate for frisks this quarter is 100%, an increase from the 88% we found during the previous reporting period. DPD’s overall compliance rate for all investigatory stops and frisks is 98%, an increase from 96% in the previous quarter. Conducting frisks that follow appropriate guidelines and meet established law is an important part of this paragraph and must be compliant.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 58 of 193 Pg ID 9161

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 57

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Witness Identification and Questioning Policies
CJ Requirement U46
The DPD shall revise its witness identification and questioning policies to comply with the revised arrest and investigatory stop policies. The DPD shall prohibit the seizure of an individual without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual and require that the scope and duration of any seizure be narrowly tailored to the reasons supporting the police action. The DPD shall prohibit the conveyance of any individual to another location without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U48; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U47
The DPD shall develop the revised witness identification and questioning policies within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The revised policies shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the revised witness identification and questioning policies within three months of the review and approval of the DOJ.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U48; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 59 of 193 Pg ID 9162

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 58

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement U48
The DPD shall document the content and circumstances of all interviews, interrogations and conveyances during the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD shall review in writing all interviews, interrogations and conveyances and document on an auditable form those in violation of DPD policy within 24 hours of the interview, interrogation or conveyance.26
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
On June 1, 2011, the Court issued an order relevant to a DOJ letter dated May 1, 2010, where an agreement was accepted for timelines required for the review of all interviews, interrogations, and conveyances. The Court order permits that supervisors can review all interviews, interrogations, and conveyances within 24 hours, compared to the 12 hours previously mandated by the paragraph.
On June 13, 2012, DPD advised us that all general investigative operational units would be merged under one command, the Criminal Investigation Unit, and be divided geographically into East and West facilities (Central District and Second Precinct). Although this should be more efficient, it has created an issue with commanders’ reviews of holds (U53, U60). During our site visit in October 2012, a lieutenant in one district/precinct advised us that prior to merging the investigative operational units, if there was an issue with an auditable form, it usually occurred at that location, and the lieutenant could contact the officer and correct the problem immediately.
We reviewed 58 case files containing 77 interviews/interrogations (DPD Form 103, revised April 2009) at Central District (East) and found all in compliance. There were a few interviews conducted where investigators indicated on the form clearly that the interviews were conducted by telephone. However, we found signatures in the space provided for the witness to sign attesting to the statement. While reviewing these forms onsite with the commanding officer, we noted that having the witness or the interviewing investigator sign for the witness after the fact was confusing. DPD personnel have informed us that the Department will address this issue.
We reviewed 55 case files containing 86 interviews/interrogations from the Second Precinct (West) and found three that did not meet the requirement. In one case, there was no supervisory review and the auditable form was generated three months late; in the second instance, there was no indication of whether it was a witness interview or an interrogation; and in the third case, the interview did not contain a witness signature. DPD’s compliance rate for interviews/interrogations for both the East and West investigative facilities this quarter is 98%, an increase over the previous reporting period’s 96%.
We reviewed 60 case files from the Auto Theft Unit containing 85 interviews/interrogations. On one the investigator conducting the interview failed to indicate the ending time of the interview on the form. Auto Theft’s compliance rate for witness interviews is 99%.
We reviewed 38 case files containing 44 interviews/interrogations from the Domestic Violence Unit (DVU) and found that 43 were compliant. In one interview, the investigator failed to
26 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 60 of 193 Pg ID 9163

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 59

April 6, 2013

indicate on the form who conducted the interview. DVU’s compliance rate is 98%. We reviewed all 25 witness conveyances from Homicide and Sex Crimes Unit during the reporting period and found all but one in compliance. The non-compliant conveyance occurred in the Sex Crimes Unit where the reviewing lieutenant failed to indicate if the conveyance was compliant with policy. Due to the nature of homicide and sexual abuse investigations, witness conveyances are generally exclusive to more serious crimes. DPD’s compliance rate for this paragraph is 98%, the same as the previous reporting period.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

D. Prompt Judicial Review Policies CJ Requirement U49 The DPD shall revise its policies to require prompt judicial review, as defined in this Agreement, for every person arrested by the DPD. The DPD shall develop a timely and systematic process for all arrestees to be presented for prompt judicial review or to be released.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U50; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U50
The DPD shall require that, for each arrestee, a warrant request for arraignment on the charges underlying the arrest is submitted to the prosecutor’s office within 48 hours of the arrest.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Due to a few case reports involving traffic, probation violations, and warrant arrests that are handled by other means, or where the arrestee is taken directly to court, we reviewed 90 case reports that eventually were submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office for arraignment. The documentation supporting this review included Crisnet reports, Warrant Verification Logs, Arraignment Sheets, Detainee Input Sheets, and Warrant Tracking Hold Forms. Of the 90 cases we reviewed where an arraignment warrant was submitted or the detainee taken directly to court, all but three met the 48-hour requirement.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 61 of 193 Pg ID 9164

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 60

April 6, 2013

In one of the instances, the Crisnet Report and the Auditable Form indicated an arrest date of November 5, while the Detainee Information Sheet indicated an arrest date of November 6. Since the OIC placed the date on the Warrant Tracking Form by looking at the Warrant Verification Log he would have noticed the lateness of the submittal to the prosecutor. In addition, the “Holds Over 48 Hours” box was marked when there were no holds indicated on the DIS. This error could have occurred by the officer mistakenly marking the incorrect box. In two cases, the warrant submittal was late and the auditable forms were submitted; however, one of those did not meet the time requirement. DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement is 98%, an increase from the previous quarter’s 97%.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U51
The DPD shall document on an auditable form all instances in which the request for an arraignment warrant is submitted more than 48 hours after the arrest. The DPD shall also document on an auditable form all instances in which it is not in compliance with the prompt judicial review policy and in which extraordinary circumstances delayed the arraignment. The documentation shall occur by the end of the shift in which there was: 1) a failure to request an arraignment within 48 hours, 2) a failure to comply with the prompt judicial review policy, or 3) an arraignment delayed by extraordinary circumstances.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with these requirements, we reviewed the same documents referenced in U50. Of the 106 arrest case reports we reviewed, there were 90 that began at the initial arrest and in which a warrant was submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office for arraignment. There were three cases where there were issues with the timeliness of warrant submittals to the prosecutor (one of the cases included the required auditable form). We excluded cases that involved warrant arrests, juvenile arrests, and traffic cases.
There were 62 detainees who went to arraignment, and 39 of these where the arraignment occurred more than 48 hours from the time of the initial arrest. In all cases except two, an auditable form was completed timely. In one case, an auditable form was not generated and in another the auditable form was completed two days after the time requirement. In the first case, the detainee was held in a DPD holding facility for over 117 hours and in the latter case for 92 hours prior to being released or transferred. When the commanding officer reviews the auditable form, s/he must inspect the document to ensure that the OIC is dating or placing the time the event was recognized. If the commanding officer reviews the dates and times of the events prior to approval, determining compliance is straightforward.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 62 of 193 Pg ID 9165

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 61

April 6, 2013

DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement for the current reporting period is 97%, an increase from the previous quarter’s 96%. DPD personnel who prepare the detainee warrant request information to the prosecutor should process and forward those documents promptly as any delay can create situations where detainees are not arraigned within the 48 hour time requirement. As we noted previously, the elimination of evening arraignments by the 36th District Court of the State of Michigan will continue to be problematic for DPD in its ability to arraign detainees within the 48-hour time requirement.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

E. Hold Policies
CJ Requirement U52
The DPD shall revise its hold policies to define a hold as that term is defined in this Agreement and require that all holds be documented. This policy shall establish a timely and systematic process for persons in DPD custody who have holds issued by a City of Detroit court to have those holds cleared by presenting the arrestee to the court from which the warrant was issued or the setting and posting of bond where applicable. The fact that an arrestee has not been arraigned or charged in the current arrest shall not delay this process.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U53; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U53
The DPD shall document all holds, including the time each hold was identified and the time each hold was cleared. The DPD shall document on an auditable form each instance in which a hold is not cleared within 48 hours of the arrest. The documentation shall occur within 24 hours of each instance of a hold not being cleared.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 63 of 193 Pg ID 9166

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 62

April 6, 2013

In previous reporting periods, DPD was not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, due to holds/warrants not being cleared and the auditable form not being prepared. In the last reporting period, the Department’s compliance rate with this requirement was 89%.
To assess compliance with the requirements, we reviewed 106 Detainee Input Sheets, and found a total of 50 holds/warrants listed on the forms. In our earlier reports, we noted satisfactory completion of the auditable forms for those holds exceeding 48 hours and the detainee still in custody. Form (DPD UF004-007, revised June 2009) was created and contains appropriate indications for officers to identify more than one violation of the Prompt Judicial Review Policies. DPD personnel must be aware that if an arraignment occurs more than 48 hours after an arrest and the detainee has an outstanding hold/warrant, there is a likelihood that the warrant may not be cleared within the requirement and both boxes should be checked. There can also be an issue if the warrant submittal for the outstanding arrest is denied by the prosecutor and there is a hold on the detainee. In these cases, DPD has an expectation that the hold(s) will be addressed at the arraignment on the current charge; and if the warrant is denied, the detainee may be presented to the judge at the next available arraignment opportunity.
Our review of the data requested in our previous two quarterly samples and during this reporting period indicates a reversal of DPD’s previous progress. Of the 50 holds we reviewed, there were 26 that were not cleared within 48 hours. Eight of these did not contain the required auditable form for holds not being cleared within 48 hours of the arrest; and in another case, one auditable form was prepared two days past the required timeframe.
DPD personnel advised us that the commander of the precinct – or, in the absence of the commander, the lieutenant on duty – receives the Warrant Tracking Form only when violations occur and the form is completed and forwarded by the OIC or a supervisor. Reviewing command personnel do not receive the entire package, and assume all violations are properly indicated when they review and approve the forms. When the supervisors receive and review the form from the OIC, they must ensure that it is complete prior to forwarding it for command review. The failure of personnel to indicate detainees being held with outstanding holds has increased since the general investigative operations units were merged. DPD has devised a method of ensuring the holds are either cleared or the required auditable form has been generated. We will again closely monitor to see if these issues are resolved during the next reporting period.
On May 25, 2012 DPD issued Administrative Message (Teletype 12-0400) advising all personnel of the proper procedure to ensure that auditable forms for arraignments and holds/warrants exceeding the 48-hour requirement are processed according to DPD policy.
As we have noted previously, the lack of DPD personnel properly indicating the date and time that holds/warrants are identified/cleared and generating the required auditable forms for violations continues to be problematic for the Department. If command personnel would verify the existence of holds from the Detainee Information Sheet prior to signing off on the Warrant Tracking auditable form, the problem of non-compliance would be resolved, and it would ensure that subordinate supervisors are completing the forms accurately. The issue of failure to complete required auditable forms for holds not being cleared within 48 hours has been a topic of discussion at recent Command Accountability Meetings on several occasions. The mechanisms put forward during those exchanges between commanders should rectify existing problems.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 64 of 193 Pg ID 9167

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 63

April 6, 2013

DPD’s compliance rate for this requirement is 82%, a decrease from the 89% registered during the last reporting period. This is the third consecutive reporting period in which DPD has not been in compliance; therefore, it is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

F. RESTRICTION POLICIES CJ Requirement U54 The DPD shall develop a policy regarding restricting detainee’s access to telephone calls and visitors that permits individuals in DPD custody access to attorneys and reasonable access to telephone calls and visitors.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U55; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U55
The DPD shall require that such restrictions be documented and reviewed at the time the restriction is issued and reevaluated each day in which the restriction remains in effect. The DPD shall document on an auditable form any violation of the restriction policy by the end of the shift in which the violation occurred.
Comments:
DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 106 arrest case files and did not identify any restrictions; however, we did review a detainee restriction located in the Detainee File Folders that was not compliant. There appears to be an internal routing issue with these forms that has been acknowledged by OCR, which has committed to address the routing of the forms. DPD personnel advise us that restricting a detainee’s access to visitors, attorneys, and the use of telephone privileges rarely occurs. Personnel may impose a telephone restriction when a detainee makes threatening or harassing calls to individuals outside the facility. There are payphones in each holding facility for the detainees’ use. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, and a subsequent noncompliance finding will take the Department out of compliance.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 65 of 193 Pg ID 9168

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 64

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

G. Material Witness Policies
CJ Requirement U56 The DPD shall revise its material witness policies to define material witness as that term is defined in this Agreement and remove the term “police witness” from DPD policies and procedures.
Comments: DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent on the implementation of U57; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U57
The DPD shall obtain a court order prior to taking a material witness into DPD custody. The DPD shall document on an auditable form the detention of each material witness and attach a copy of the court order authorizing the detention.
Comments:
DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, we reviewed all of DPD’s requests to the Court for taking a material witness into custody for the period of October 1, through December 31, 2012. As in the previous reporting period, the auditable form, approved by a supervisor, was attached to the Court order in the two cases presented to the Court. The Court order was issued by a Judge in the 36th District Court of the State of Michigan prior to the witnesses’ detention.
As a result of some issues discovered during our April 2012 site visit relating to where all material witness documentation should be held, DPD issued Teletype 12-322 (April 27, 2012) formalizing a process that ensures that the Office of Civil Rights will serve as the repository for these forms. In addition, DPD issued Roll Call Informational Bulletin (12-17) reinstructing personnel the required procedure for filing these forms. DPD’s compliance rate is 100%.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 66 of 193 Pg ID 9169

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 65

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

H. Documentation of Custodial Detention
CJ Requirement U58
The DPD shall revise its arrest and detention documentation to require, for all arrests, a record or file to contain accurate and auditable documentation of:
a. the individual’s personal information;
b. the crime(s) charged;
c. the time and date of arrest and release;
d. the time and date the arraignment was submitted;
e. the name and badge number of the officer who submitted the arraignment;
f. the time and date of arraignment; was lodged and cleared, if applicable;
g. the time each warrant was lodged and cleared, if applicable; and
h. the individual’s custodial status, e.g., new arrest, material witness or extradition.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has been in compliance with this paragraph in all of the previous reporting periods. To assess Phase 2 compliance during this reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 106 arrest case files where a Detainee Input Sheet was completed that contained personal information about the detainee, charges, holds/warrants, and other supporting data. We used the 62 cases where an arraignment occurred to determine compliance due to all eight elements of this paragraph being included. The contained documents included Detainee Input Sheets, Warrant Verification Logs, Arraignment Logs, and Livescan forms. In the majority of instances, the: (a) individual’s personal information; (b) crime[s] charged; (c) date and time of arrest and release; (d) time and date the arraignment was submitted; (e) name and badge number of the officer submitting the arraignment warrant; (f) time and date of arraignment, if applicable; (g) time and date each warrant was lodged and cleared; and (h) individual’s custodial status; were listed on one of the applicable forms.
In three cases, the officers failed to include all relevant detainee personal information (U58a) on the Detainee Input Sheet. In another instance, the officer completing the Warrant Verification Log failed to include his badge number on the document (U58e). All other required information was properly documented. We examined each of the 62 cases for compliance with the eight individual requirements, and found an overall compliance rate of 99%, the same as in the last reporting period. DPD has been in compliance with this paragraph in all previous reporting periods.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 67 of 193 Pg ID 9170

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 66

April 6, 2013

DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

I. Command Notification
CJ Requirement U59
The DPD shall require the commander of the precinct and, if applicable, of the specialized unit, to review in writing all reported violations of DPD arrest, investigatory stop and frisk, witness identification and questioning policies and all reports of arrests in which an arraignment warrant was not sought. The commander’s review shall be completed within 7 days of receiving the document reporting the event. The commander’s review shall include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In our first two years of reviewing officer’s Daily Activity Logs, we did not find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement, noting the lack of auditable forms, the lack of documented reasonable suspicion for frisks, and inadequate supervisory review.
In our review of 106 arrests during this reporting period, we determined that all but two properly documented probable cause. An Arrest Exception form was not completed in either of these two arrests. In those situations where a warrant is not sought or a warrant is denied on an arrestee, supervisors should scrutinize the arrest packets to ensure that the elements required for a valid arrest are documented.
We reviewed 15 frisks, and determined that 14 met the requirement; in the one not articulating reasonable suspicion, the supervisor did complete the required auditable form for the violation. In recent reporting periods, DPD has generated auditable forms for violations of this portion of the paragraph relating to frisks. The failure of supervisors to review and recognize frisks in violation of policy and to complete the required auditable forms continues to be problematic for DPD with maintaining compliance with U45. In order to be lawful, a stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion and narrowly tailored in scope and duration to the reasons supporting the seizure. During a limited seizure, the officer may conduct a frisk if s/he has reasonable suspicion to believe that the suspect may have the means to do harm. While supervisors do review the officers’ Daily Activity Logs, they should also be challenging officers to articulate the reason for the stops/frisks.
Our review of traffic stops determined that officers’ abilities to accurately describe the actions that led to the stop are compliant; however, there was no auditable form generated for the one traffic stop in which a form was required to be completed. Commanders are not receiving the forms due to supervisors not completing them.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 68 of 193 Pg ID 9171

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 67

April 6, 2013

There were 59 investigatory stops (excluding frisks and traffic stops), of which 57 were based on a documented investigatory purpose. No auditable forms were generated by the reviewing supervisors.
There were 16 cases where documentation was completed indicating that an arraignment warrant was not sought and auditable forms were completed and contained appropriate command review. In one of the cases, the auditable form was completed 11 hours after the timeframe required for completing the document; however, the commanding officer’s review fell within the time requirement. In all cases, a commanding officer approved the form and attached his/her signature including the date of review. We have observed DPD’s progress with commanders’ oversight as it relates to warrants not served.
We reviewed 292 witness/interrogation interviews from Central Investigative Command (East & West), the Auto Theft Unit and the Domestic Violence Unit. There was one auditable form completed for one of the two violations of the witness identification policies. There were 25 witness conveyances and all but one was compliant.
There were 25 witness conveyances with all but one complaint. Under this paragraph, DPD commanders have seven days to review the requirements from time of receipt; compliance should not be an issue. There were 43 auditable forms completed in our sample under this paragraph and 42 were compliant.
DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement is 98%, the same as the previous reporting period.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U60
The DPD shall require the commander of the precinct, and, if applicable, of the specialized unit, to review in writing all violations of DPD prompt judicial review, holds, restrictions and material witness policies on a daily basis. The commander’s review shall include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 106 arrest case reports, of which 90 were submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office and 62 went to arraignment. There were 39 cases where the arraignment occurred more than 48 hours after the arrest.
In all but three cases, the request for the warrant was submitted in a timely fashion. In two instances an auditable form was completed and command review occurred.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 69 of 193 Pg ID 9172

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 68

April 6, 2013

In the 62 cases that went to arraignment, 39 of these were arraigned more than 48 hours after arrest, and auditable forms were completed. In one case the commander’s review was late and in the other two instances the same lieutenant failed to write his signature in the designated place on the form to verify his review. We noted previously that OCR sent Corrective Action Notices to commanders who failed to review the auditable forms within the allotted time constraints. DPD’s compliance rate for this portion of the requirement is 98%.
Of the 50 hold/warrants that we identified, there were 26 holds that were not cleared within the required 48 hours. In 18 instances, the Warrant Tracking Form was properly completed and forwarded to the commander for review; in eight cases, the “hold” box was not marked indicating a hold over 48 hours. There were two material witnesses taken into custody during this reporting period, and all required auditable forms were completed. The one restriction reviewed was in violation of DPD policy.
Under this paragraph, there were a total of 62 auditable forms reviewed by the commander. There were four violations of policy. Two of the four violations occurred due to one lieutenant not signing (command review) the auditable form. In the event of a commander’s absence from the district or precinct, the on-duty commanding officer (lieutenant or above) has the authority to review and sign off on the auditable forms. They serve as precinct commanders during that timeframe.
DPD’s overall compliance rate for this paragraph is 94%, a decrease over the 98% that we found in the last reporting period. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
 For the past three reporting periods, we noted several instances in which DPD failed to indicate on the Warrant Tracking Form when holds exceed 48 hours. DPD has taken steps to rectify this failure during the current reporting period by including it as a point of discussion at the Command Accountability Meetings. If there is an arraignment over 48 hours and there are Detroit holds listed on the Detainee Information Sheet, both the arraignment and the hold require an indication to be entered on the Warrant Tracking auditable form. We have stressed this issue with DPD in previous site visits and our quarterly reports.
 If warrant submittals to the prosecutor were made within 24 hours of arrest the number of holds and arraignments would be reduced significantly; thus reducing the number of auditable forms by a similar margin.
 Our review of investigative stops found that when officers fail to articulate “reasonable suspicion” in accordance with DPD policy, supervisors must complete an auditable form. During previous reporting periods, we received auditable forms for violations of

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 70 of 193 Pg ID 9173

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 69

April 6, 2013

the investigatory stop policies. Supervisors must carefully review officers’ Daily Activity Logs and complete auditable forms when they are required.
 District/precinct commanders must ensure that auditable forms are completed and forwarded promptly for their review, and advise their lieutenants that they have the authority to review and sign auditable forms under U60 in their absence.
 It is not OCR’s responsibility to issue corrective action in the districts/precincts. All issues and violations of policy should be addressed in the individual commands by the Commander’s prior to being reviewed by OCR and then the Monitor.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
 Meet with DPD’s Civil Rights Integrity Bureau (CRIB) to discuss our investigatory stop concerns, and the timeliness of commanders’ reviews as it relates to auditable forms that require daily review. Completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of all reports and auditable forms continue to affect field units and the quality of administrative review.
 Review other investigative units to determine their compliance with interrogations, interviews, conveyances, and material witness policies. During our April site visit, DPD had drafted a plan to centralize its general investigative units and the plan was implemented during this reporting period and should have resolved the issue of timeliness with command reviews of auditable forms and the inability of some OIC’s to properly complete the Warrant Tracking Hold Form (UF004-007). While command reviews have been exceptional, the ability of personnel completing the form needs to improve.
 Observe personnel who are responsible for the detainee booking process; interview them regarding procedures for detailing when holds/warrants are identified and cleared; and inquire as to their role in ensuring how auditable forms are prepared in a timely fashion. Our review of documentation for this reporting period indicated a high number of instances where holds exceeded the 48-hour requirement and where the Warrant Tracking Forms were not completed. We advised CRIB of this issue during our July and October 2012 site visit and again during the January 2012 visit.
 Meet with the commanders of each district and precinct to discuss issues relating to auditable forms and their role in ensuring compliance.
 Inquire with DPD if any additional processes have been enacted to address the dilemma that occurs when a hold has been previously placed on an arrestee, and the warrant request to the Prosecutor’s Office on the current charge has been denied. The concern for DPD in these instances creates a delay in presenting the hold for arraignment within 48 hours only on the basis of the hold. In our reviews, this issue has been and remains a problematic, in that holding cell personnel tend to utilize the time of release on clearing a hold – rather than simply writing in the date and time in the space provided on the form. We have observed during this and the previous reporting period that holding cell

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 71 of 193 Pg ID 9174

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 70

April 6, 2013

personnel have significantly improved in their documenting the clearance of holds in the proper box on the Detainee Information Sheet.

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

42

Define and prohibit arrest without probable cause

In Compliance

43 Review all arrests for probable cause

In Compliance

44 Revise investigatory stop-and-frisk policy In Compliance

45 Written account of stops and frisks

In Compliance

46 Revise witness policies

In Compliance

47 Revise above in three months

In Compliance

48 Document content, etc. of interviews, etc.

In Compliance

49 Arrests receive prompt judicial review

In Compliance

50 Charges to Prosecutor within 48 hours

In Compliance

51 Document of late warrant requests

In Compliance

52 Revise hold policies

In Compliance

53 Documentation of all holds

In Compliance

54 Policy for restricting telephone access

In Compliance

55 Document and review such restrictions

In Compliance

56 Define material witness

In Compliance

57 Custody of material witnesses-court order

In Compliance

58 Arrests and detention record requirements In Compliance

59 Required written review of violations

In Compliance

60 Required written review of violations

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation
In Compliance
In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS
The stated mission of the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) is to assure the public’s trust and confidence in DPD by conducting thorough and impartial investigations into allegations of criminality and serious misconduct lodged against members of the Department, as well as other City of Detroit employees. IAD is charged with the prevention, discovery, and investigation of criminal allegations and allegations of serious misconduct against Department members and City employees who are assigned within the DPD; IAD is responsible for all external complaints alleging possible criminal misconduct.
Consistent with this obligation, IAD accepts information from any source; and requires that all officers and employees document all complaints filed in writing, verbally, in person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile, or by electronic mail.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 72 of 193 Pg ID 9175

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 71

April 6, 2013

During our most recent site visit, we examined the investigative procedures employed by IAD for consistency in the application of procedural fairness, timeliness, confidentiality, and the meticulous reporting of facts and results of an investigation. The IAD Standard Operating Procedures were revised in January 2011 to include Section 5-8, Case Tracking.
The Office of the Chief Investigator (OCI) is the investigative arm of the Board of Police Commissioners (BOPC). OCI is responsible for investigating non-criminal external complaints. The Board has plenary authority over citizen complaints. OCI operates independently of the Detroit Police Department and is led by a civilian Chief Investigator who is appointed by the BOPC. OCI is staffed with a combination of civilian and sworn investigators who assist in the investigation of citizen complaints. OCI’s mission is to provide meaningful and objective investigations of citizen complaints of police misconduct.
OCI investigates non-criminal allegations of misconduct against Detroit Police Department personnel for the following: Arrest; Demeanor; Entry; Harassment; Force; Procedure; Property; and Search and Seizure. OCI employees are required to accept complaints from any source and by any method of communication including in writing, verbally, in person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile, or by electronic mail. Members of the public may also file complaints at the BOPC office or at BOPC meetings.
During our most recent site visit, we met with the BOPC Staff, the Chief Investigator, and supervising investigators assigned to OCI. We discussed with specificity the cases which were deemed noncompliant during the last reporting period. We also attended case review meetings with all investigative staff.

CJ Requirement U61
The DPD and City shall revise their external complaint policy to clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of OCI and the DPD regarding the receipt, investigation and review of external complaints. At a minimum, the plan shall specify each agency’s responsibility for receiving, recording, investigating and tracking complaints; each agency’s responsibility for conducting community outreach and education regarding complaints; how, when and in what fashion the agencies shall exchange information, including complaint referrals and information about sustained complaints.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The established policies and procedures set forth the jurisdictional responsibility of the DPD IAD and OCI.
IAD is charged with the prevention, discovery, and investigation of criminal allegations and allegations of serious misconduct against Department members and City employees who are assigned within the DPD. IAD is responsible for all external complaints alleging possible criminal misconduct.
OCI investigates non-criminal allegations of misconduct against DPD personnel in the following categories: arrest; demeanor; entry; harassment; force; property; search; and service. The

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 73 of 193 Pg ID 9176

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 72

April 6, 2013

established policies and procedures also provide guidance for receiving, recording, tracking, referring, and investigating complaints.
Both IAD and OCI track each open, pending, and closed case by the unique case identifier that is placed on all relevant documentation regarding the specific external complaint and provided to each citizen upon lodging a complaint. Each entity uses a computerized database to record data that is developed concerning external citizen complaints. OCI and IAD continue to enhance the databases. OCI is required to compile a summary of its investigations annually. These summaries are distributed throughout the DPD, to the Board of Police Commissioners, and to the public. In addition, the City displays informational posters in the public areas of all police facilities and public libraries. The City sponsors community meetings and runs public service announcements concerning how to file a citizen’s complaint against the police. Through OCI, the Board of Police Commissioners maintains a community outreach coordinator, who attends meetings and makes presentations at the request of community organizations or public forums. The Board of Police Commissioners website provides access to an OCI fact sheet on external police complaints. The BOPC website also allows the public to file complaints online.
The DPD and the City are in compliance with these requirements.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U62
The DPD and the City shall develop and implement an informational campaign regarding external complaints, including:
a. informing persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any DPD employee;
b. distributing complaint forms, fact sheets and informational posters at City Hall, OCI, all DPD precincts, libraries, on the internet and, upon request, to community groups and community centers;
c. broadcasting public service announcements that describe the complaint process; and
d. posting permanently a placard describing the complaint process, with relevant phone numbers, in the lobby of each DPD precinct
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During previous site visits, we inspected Police Headquarters, the Office of the Chief Investigator, police facilities, libraries, and Neighborhood City Halls for compliance with this paragraph. All locations displayed, in a prominent location, permanent placards that described the complaint process. All desk personnel in the police facilities were able to produce citizen complaint brochures immediately, and were aware that they should not discourage citizens from filing a complaint.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 74 of 193 Pg ID 9177

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 73

April 6, 2013

During our most recent site visit, we inspected the Office of the Chief Investigator; the Northeastern and Eastern Districts; and the Second, Sixth, Eighth and Twelfth Precincts. We found the appropriate citizen complaint posters, forms, and brochures in place. We contacted desk officers and field officers at each patrol site, and they were able to provide citizen complaint forms and brochures.
We also inspected three libraries: Redford Branch, Chaney Branch and Douglas Branch. We found the appropriate posters on display, and adequate supplies of complaint forms and brochures. Employees were well versed on the process for securing replacements.
Both DPD and OCI conduct community outreach programs designed to inform citizens of the complaint process and the procedures for filing complaints. The Board of Police Commissioners website allows the public to file complaints against the police online. The City of Detroit broadcasts public service announcements that describe the complaint process. DPD provided us with the broadcast schedule for the week of our site visit. We also reviewed the January 2013 External Information Campaign Audit of All Districts, which was provided to us during our most recent site visit.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U63
The DPD shall require all officers to carry informational brochures and contact forms in their vehicles at all times while on-duty. The DPD shall develop a contact form within 60 days of the effective date of this Agreement. The contact form shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the contact form within 60 days of the review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall require all officers to inform an individual of his or her right to make a complaint, if an individual objects to an officer’s conduct. The DPD shall prohibit officers from discouraging any person from making a complaint or refusing to take a complaint.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During previous site visits, we reviewed the audits conducted by the DPD Office of Civil Rights regarding citizen complaint informational brochures and contact forms carried in police vehicles, and we randomly selected officers during our field visits to police facilities and asked them to provide the brochures and forms for review. Each officer who we contacted provided the documents upon our request, and was aware of the requirements of the DPD policy concerning citizen complaints.
During this reporting period, we randomly selected both desk officers and patrol officers in the Northeastern and Eastern Districts; and the Second and Twelfth Precincts, and asked them to produce complaint forms and brochures. They were able to do so in each case.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 75 of 193 Pg ID 9178

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 74

April 6, 2013

In April, 2012, DPD issued Teletype 12-0300, advising Department employees that the Citizen Complaint Report (CCR), DPD 512, was available in MAS, and that supervisors should no longer use hard copy versions of the report. The form in MAS is to be routed to the member’s inspector or commander, who will electronically approve the CCR and forward same to OCI. The teletype also requires that the supervisor taking the complaint document the complaint information in the “electronic desk blotter,” and that each command maintains a supply of paper forms in the event MAS becomes inoperable. Paper forms can only be used, however, in such circumstances.
In each location, we reviewed the electronic desk blotters and noted that complaint information was appropriately recorded. We also inspected the supply of paper forms and record books, to be used in the event that MAS is unavailable.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

A. Intake and Tracking
CJ Requirement U64
The DPD and the City shall revise their policies regarding the intake and tracking of external complaints to define complaint and misconduct as those terms are defined in this Agreement and require all officers and OCI employees to accept and document all complaints filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our past reviews of IAD and OCI external complaint investigations determined that the complaints were filed using all of the communication facilities identified in this paragraph.
Our review of 30 IAD and 100 OCI investigations for this reporting period again found that complaints were filed using all of the communication methods identified in this requirement. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U65
The DPD and the City shall permit the intake officer or employee to include a factual account and/or description of a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but not an opinion regarding the complainant’s mental competency or veracity.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 76 of 193 Pg ID 9179

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 75

April 6, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In our previous reviews, we found no instances where personnel accepting complaints reported any opinions regarding the mental capacity or veracity of the complainant.
We reviewed 30 IAD and 100 OCI cases for this reporting period. We again found no instances where personnel accepting complaints reported any opinions regarding the mental capacity or veracity of the complainant. In one case, an OCI investigator noted that a witness appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. This description of the witness’ physical condition is appropriate under this paragraph.
DPD and the City are in compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U66
The DPD and the City shall assign all complaints a unique identifier, which shall be provided to the complainant, and a description of the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy or improper search).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During previous reporting periods, we reviewed closed IAD and OCI external complaint investigations, and found that each investigative file contained a City of Detroit Citizen Complaint Report (CCR), and a letter acknowledging the receipt of the complaint with the name of the assigned investigator and the office contact number.
For this reporting period, we reviewed 30 IAD and 100 OCI investigations. All investigations contained the required information. The letters also provided case-specific identifiers for the complainant to reference when contacting either IAD or OCI. DPD and the City are in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 77 of 193 Pg ID 9180

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 76

April 6, 2013

B. External Complaint Investigations
CJ Requirement U67
The DPD and the City shall revise its policies regarding external complaint investigations to:
a. provide that all complaints shall be referred for investigation and resolution by OCI or, if the complaint alleges potentially criminal conduct by an officer, by IAD;
b. permit the informal resolution of complaints alleging only inadequate service or the complainant’s innocence of a charge and require the investigation and formal resolution of all other complaints;
c. refer all complaints to the appropriate agency within five business days of their receipt;
d. require that the complainant shall be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation;
e. develop written criteria for IAD and OCI investigator applicants, including the applicant’s complaint and disciplinary history and investigative experience;
f. implement mandatory pre-service and in-service training for all IAD and OCI investigators, including intake, investigations, interviews and resolutions of external complaints;
g. require IAD and OCI to complete all investigations within 90 days of receiving the complaint and
h. require that: (1) upon completion of the investigation by a command other than OCI, the complainant shall be notified of its outcome and, if the complaint is sustained, whether disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action has been recommended; and (2) upon completion of an investigation by OCI the complainant shall be notified of its outcome and, if the complaint is sustained, its referral to the Chief of Police for appropriate disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.27
Comments:
Office of the Chief Investigator: For this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected OCI cases. Two of the cases were transferred to IAD, and two cases were transferred to Force Investigations. One of the IAD cases involved an allegation of stalking, and the other alleged destruction of property. The cases transferred to Force Investigations involved allegations of excessive force while effecting arrests. While all of these referrals were appropriate, three were not timely, as it took OCI between 37 and 72 days to transfer these cases.
Five cases were resolved informally, and all met the criteria for an Informal Complaint Resolution (ICR), as they involved complaints of inadequate service or innocence of the charge. In one case, a complainant did not believe she deserved the traffic citations she received. In two others cases, the complainants took exception to the perceived slow response times to their calls for service.
27 Amended by Court Order dated September 15, 2008.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 78 of 193 Pg ID 9181

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 77

April 6, 2013

Six cases in our sample were administratively closed. We determined that one was inappropriately closed via this process. This case involved an allegation that an officer was paying the complainant’s (sometime) girlfriend for sexual favors. The other cases were appropriate for administrative closure. Three lacked specificity and the complainants refused to cooperate further with the investigations. Another case involved a complaint that signs should be posted in the Central District facility, advising those with pacemakers that metal detectors are in use. While such a sign may be appropriate, their absence does not constitute a violation of policy. Another case alleged a poor investigation, but the incident complained of happened six years prior to the complaint being lodged. OCI’s SOP indicates that for complaints filed more than one year after the fact, investigation is discretionary.
Ninety-six of the 100 cases we reviewed were completed within 90 days, a notable increase from the seventy-one timely cases during the last review period. OCI successfully eliminated its backlog of cases during the last reporting period, and as of this writing OCI has posted several weekly reports with no cases overdue.
All of the 100 cases we reviewed were referred to OCI within five business days as required by DPD policy; most cases were transferred within one to three days. However, we noted the untimely transfer of cases from OCI to IAD and Force Investigations, as described earlier.
In most cases, we noted efforts to keep the complainant informed of case progress. Often, this correspondence involved attempts to encourage uncooperative complainants to participate in their investigations. However, we identified 27 cases in which complainants did not receive update letters after 45 days as required by OCI policy. This represents a 108% increase in such cases over the previous reporting period. In all applicable cases, the complainants were notified of the disposition of their cases, and if any allegations were sustained, they were advised that the case was referred to the Chief of Police for appropriate corrective action.
During our previous site visits, we verified ongoing in-service training for OCI personnel. Much of this training occurs in conjunction with other DPD employees. While we do not discourage this practice, we encourage OCI to explore training specific to OCI’s responsibilities, in order to address knowledge and skill gaps that impact the quality of its investigations. The Chief Investigator continues to develop OCI specific training, and her staff meetings frequently have a training component.
The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: IAD Standard Operating Procedures do not specifically permit or encourage informal resolution due the nature of their investigative jurisdiction of alleged criminality and/or serious misconduct lodged against Department personnel. Accordingly, IAD investigates and makes findings in each case.
IAD Standard Operating Procedures and OCI policy require that all complaints be referred to the appropriate agency within five business days of their receipt. Historically, we discovered significant delays in transferring appropriate cases from OCI to IAD. During the current reporting period, we reviewed 30 IAD cases, and determined that one non-criminal case had been referred by OCI. That case was referred to IAD due to a conflict of interest in the investigation. The complainant was an investigator in OCI.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 79 of 193 Pg ID 9182

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 78

April 6, 2013

The IAD Standard Operating Procedures contains criteria for investigator applicants and training. IAD is current in its training requirements. There have been no new applicants to IAD during this period.
In cases of prolonged investigations, IAD must provide an updated case status to complainants, and upon closure, notify them of the closure, finding(s), and action(s) taken, where appropriate.
Our review determined that IAD is in compliance with the notifications to complainants upon both the opening and the closure of all investigations.
During our current review of 30 investigations, seven exceeded the 90-day time limit. Of those, the reviewer determined that all were delayed due to criminal prosecutions. All delayed investigations were documented and approved by the supervisor. There were no cases that were inappropriately delayed during this period.
DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U68
The DPD and the City shall review and evaluate the external complaint review process to require:
a. the Chief Investigator or his/her designee to complete review of OCI investigations within 7 days of completion of the supervisor’s review;
b. the Board of Police Commissioners to complete review of OCI investigations within 45 days of completion of the Chief Investigator’s review;28 and
c. the Chief of Police or his or her designee to complete his or her review of external complaints within 7 days of completion of the BOPC’s review.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During this reporting period, the Chief Investigator (or in her absence, her designee) reviewed all investigations submitted to her within the prescribed seven-day period.
The Board of Police Commissioners completed all of its reviews within the prescribed forty-fiveday period.
During our most recent site visit, we also reviewed correspondence between OCI and the Chief’s Office showing timely transfer of cases once the Board approves them.

28 Amended by Court Order dated July 18, 2003.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 80 of 193 Pg ID 9183

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 79

April 6, 2013

The City remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U69
In addition to the investigatory report and evaluation requirements, each allegation in an administrative external complaint investigation shall be resolved by making one of the following dispositions:
a. “Unfounded,” where the investigation revealed no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred;
b. “Sustained,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur and the actions of the officer violated DPD policies, procedures or training;
c. “Not Sustained,” where there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and
d. “Exonerated,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate DPD policies, procedures or training.
Comments:
During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected OCI cases. For purposes of this paragraph, we evaluated the determination of finding based on the information in each case file. One case was improperly administratively closed; therefore, findings were not reached in the case. We do not concur with the findings assigned to one or more allegations in 15 cases. At least seven involved allegations of improper demeanor. In two of these cases, it appears that the statements of witness officers on the scene corroborated the complainants’ allegations. In one, a sergeant indicated that he had to correct “the tone” that the officer was using towards the complainant. In two other cases, the audio evidence available in the case should have led to different findings.
We disagreed with unfounded findings in at least five cases. Not sustained findings would have been more appropriate in four of them, and we believe the investigation supported a sustained finding in the remaining case. In one other case, the investigation exonerated a use of force even though the subject officer denied that force was used.
OCI must not only make one of the findings specified above, but the findings must be consistent with the defined requirements and supported by the investigations conducted. Accordingly, the City is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of the requirement.
In addition, we reviewed all 30 IAD cases – including internal and external complaints – that were completed during this reporting period. During earlier reviews, there were dispositions in each of the investigations. We did not always agree with the dispositions, especially those that were derived from faulty interviews and/or the failure to gather pertinent evidence. When we

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 81 of 193 Pg ID 9184

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 80

April 6, 2013

discussed this issue with IAD personnel, IAD advised that it was making efforts to correct the problems.
During this reporting period, all investigations contained the required dispositions. Included in the 30 investigations were 47 allegations of misconduct. The following is a breakdown of the dispositions of the 47 allegations: 26 sustained; six not sustained; 14unfounded; and one exonerated. Based on our review of the investigative documents, we are in agreement with the dispositions. IAD is in compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

Critical Issues:
We examined 30 closed IAD cases and 100 closed OCI cases for the period of October 1, through December 31, 2012. Our review disclosed that the following issues continue to require attention:
 IAD Case Tracking: During the first quarter of 2011, IAD adopted a computer program to aid in tracking its cases. While the system does not alert the users to deadlines, it does allow for communication between the investigator and supervisor. The supervisor recently incorporated a computerized calendar into the process, which notifies her when an assignment date has been reached. The calendar also allows investigators to schedule Garrity interviews to avoid conflicts. Cases that are submitted to the prosecuting attorneys are tracked, and updates are requested on a regular basis. IAD appears to have eliminated the backlog of overdue cases, with the exception of those cases that are awaiting disposition or prosecution at the Prosecutor’s Office. The IAD manager meets regularly with members of the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office to discuss the viability of the cases still awaiting decisions.
 Quality v. Quantity of OCI Investigations: As noted in our past several reports, OCI worked extremely hard to address their large backlog of cases. The quality of their investigations suffered, both because of long periods of inactivity and because of the pressure to complete these investigations and get them off of the books. OCI has eliminated the backlog and as of this writing, OCI has no overdue cases. OCI’s Chief Investigator and its Supervising Investigators must now turn their attention to addressing the quality of investigations. During every site visit, we discuss numerous cases in detail from our most recently completed assessment. We note many deficiencies that can be addressed with a thorough review of the cases and independent verification of the content of interviews.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 82 of 193 Pg ID 9185

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 81

April 6, 2013

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
 Review a sample of the cases closed by OCI and IAD for the months of January, February, and March 2013.

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 - Policy Phase 2 – Implementation

61 Revise external complaint policies

In Compliance In Compliance

62 Information campaign re complaints

In Compliance In Compliance

63 Officers carry information/contact forms

In Compliance In Compliance

64 Policy to define complaint intake/track

In Compliance In Compliance

65 Permit factual account, no opinion

In Compliance In Compliance

66 Unique identifier for complaints

In Compliance In Compliance

67 Revision of complaint investigations

In Compliance Not in Compliance

68 Time limits for review of investigations/complaints In Compliance In Compliance

69 Required finding categories specified

In Compliance Not in Compliance

VII. GENERAL POLICIES
This section of the Consent Judgment addresses a variety of issues in general terms. It seeks to ensure that when the DPD develops policies, all the terms used are clearly defined, and that prior to making policy revisions, the DPD posts the proposals on the DPD website to inform the community of the proposed revisions. It requires DPD to advise all of its officers that taking police actions in violation of DPD policies shall subject them to a variety of possible actions, to include disciplinary, criminal prosecution, or civil liability. This section also requires officers to report acts of misconduct by other officers, whether on or off duty. Additionally, this section required DPD to revise its policy regarding police actions by off-duty officers; and to revise the policies on how DPD handles prisoners, to include summoning first aid as necessary, summoning assistance if required, and prohibiting the accompanying of prisoners to the holding cell area. This section also required DPD to develop a foot pursuit policy and to plan for adequate distribution of manpower. DPD has developed the appropriate policies and has achieved implementation.

CJ Requirement U70 In developing and revising the policies discussed in this Agreement, the DPD shall ensure that all terms are clearly defined.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 83 of 193 Pg ID 9186

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 82

April 6, 2013

The DPD CRIB Planning Unit is responsible for reviewing and updating all current policies and for ensuring that revisions are consistent with the requirements of the Consent Judgment. With the effective dissemination of Directive 404.1, Definitions, it has ensured that all terms are clearly defined. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U71
The DPD shall continue to make available proposed policy revisions to the community, for their review, comment and education. Such policy revisions shall also be published on the DPD’s website to allow comments to be provided directly to the DPD.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During this reporting period, several DPD directives were revised and distributed to DPD members. None were presented to the BOPC or posted on the website, as the revisions were not substantive in nature.
The directives include: 101.2, Department Rank Structure (10/17/12); 101.11, Record Retention Schedule (12/18/12); 102.3, Code of Conduct (12/06/12); 102.6, Citizen Complaints (12/29/12); 201.6, Stolen and Wanted Motor Vehicles (12/06/12); 202.1, Arrests (12/29/12); 203.6, Surveillance (12/06/12); 301.3, Telephone Crime Reporting Non-Emergency Calls for Service (12/29/12); 305.6, Detainee Bonding (12/29/12); 305.9, Fingerprinting and Identification of Detainees (12/06/12); 307.1, Electronic Mail and Internet Systems (12/18/12); and 307.2, Technical Support (12/18/12).
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U72
The DPD shall advise all officers, including supervisors, that taking police action in violation of DPD policy shall subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 84 of 193 Pg ID 9187

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 83

April 6, 2013

To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for the first two quarters of FY 12-13. As of December 31, 2012, 1,022 members (44%) received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with this requirement.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U73
The DPD and the City shall develop a plan for ensuring regular field deployment of an adequate number of supervisors of patrol units and specialized units that deploy in the field to implement the provisions of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the first three quarters in calendar year 2012, we found that 100%, 98%, and 97%, respectively, of the randomly selected platoons and specialized units were in compliance with the required 1:10 ratio of supervisors to officers in patrol and specialized units on the dates surveyed.
During this reporting period, we again surveyed Daily Details for three days selected at random (Thursday, October 18; Friday, November 23; and Saturday, December 8, 2012). We found that of the 118 platoons deployed on the three days, 114 (97%) were in compliance with the required 1:10 span of control ratio.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U74
The DPD shall enforce its policies requiring all DPD officers to report any misconduct committed by another DPD officer, whether committed on-duty or off-duty.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for the first quarter of FY 12-13. As of December 31, 2012, 1,022 members (44%) received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with this requirement.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 85 of 193 Pg ID 9188

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 84

April 6, 2013

We reviewed no cases during this reporting wherein officer misconduct was or should have been reported. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U75
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to:
a. provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty DPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem;
b. prohibit off-duty officers from carrying or using firearms or taking police action in situations where an officer’s performance may be impaired or the officer’s ability to take objective action may be compromised; and
c. provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for the first quarter of FY 12-13. As of December 31, 2012, 1,022 members (44%) received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with this requirement.
There were three instances in which off-duty officers took police actions prior to notifying onduty DPD personnel.29 In all three instances exigent circumstances existed, precluding the notification prior to taking action. None of the materials presented for review reflected any indications that the officers were impaired or the officers’ abilities to take objective actions compromised.
On January 19, 2012, the letter to the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police (MACO), requesting that member agencies notify DPD IAD of any off-duty actions involving DPD members in their respective jurisdictions was sent. A copy of the letter was provided to the Monitoring Team.

29 There were two cases in September. In one, the officer was the victim of an armed robbery by three subjects and discharged his weapon in self-defense; in the second, an individual was being beaten at a gas station and the officer discharged his weapon at the subjects. In November, there was an armed robbery of an off-duty officer during which shots were fired. All three cases were assumed by FI.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 86 of 193 Pg ID 9189

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 85

April 6, 2013

A copy of the February 1, 2013 letter to the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police (MACO), requesting that member agencies notify DPD IAD of any off-duty actions involving DPD members in their respective jurisdictions was provided to the Monitoring Team following our most recent site visit.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U76
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding prisoners to:
a. require officers to summon emergency medical services to transport prisoners when the restraints employed indicate the need for medical monitoring;
b. require officers to utilize appropriate precautions when interacting with a prisoner who demonstrates he or she is recalcitrant or resistant, including summoning additional officers, summoning a supervisor and using appropriate restraints; and
c. prohibit arresting and transporting officers from accompanying prisoners into the holding cell area.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for the first quarter of FY 12-13. As of December 31, 2012, 1,022 members (44%) received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with this requirement.
We also reviewed all 86 Command Level Investigations completed during this reporting period. There were 11 cases that occurred in holding facilities. In none of the cases did we find evidence of arresting/transporting officers accompanying prisoners into the holding cell area. DPD remains in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U77
The DPD shall develop a foot pursuit policy to:
a. require officers to consider particular factors in determining whether a foot pursuit is appropriate, including the offense committed by the subject, whether the subject is armed, the location (e.g., lighting and officer familiarity), whether more than one officer

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 87 of 193 Pg ID 9190

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 86

April 6, 2013

is available to engage in the pursuit, the proximity of reinforcements, and the ability to apprehend the subject at a later date;
b. emphasize alternatives to foot pursuits, including area containment, surveillance, and obtaining reinforcements;
c. emphasize the danger of pursuing and engaging a subject with a firearm in hand; and
d. require officers to document all foot pursuits that involve a use of force on a separate, auditable form, such as the use of force report.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for the first quarter of FY 12-13. As of December 31, 2012, 1,022 members (44%) received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with this requirement.
We reviewed 13 foot pursuits during this reporting period. There were 10 cases in which officers considered alternatives to foot pursuits. Eight of the cases involved foot pursuits of individuals who were armed, though the subjects discarded their weapons during the pursuit. All 13 of the foot pursuits were documented on the appropriate Use of Force 002 Form.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
DPD must make a concerted effort to ensure member compliance with the DPD policy dealing with foot pursuits. Special attention should be given to considering alternatives to foot pursuits, relying more strongly on area containment and availability of support units.

Next Steps: During the next reporting period, we will:
 Continue to monitor relevant policy changes, including efforts to address the public’s interest in policy.
 Continue to heed the training requirements inherent in policy development in this area.  Monitor the presence of arresting or transport officers in the holding cell areas.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 88 of 193 Pg ID 9191

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 87

April 6, 2013

¶

Requirements

Phase 1 – Phase

2

–

Policy

Implementation

70

Clear definitions in policies

In Compliance In Compliance

71

Proposed policy changes open to comm.

In Compliance In Compliance

72

Advise officers policy violations disciplined In Compliance In Compliance

73

Adequate officer/supervisor ratio

In Compliance In Compliance

74

Enforce misconduct reporting requirements In Compliance In Compliance

75

Revise policies regarding off-duty officers In Compliance In Compliance

76

Revise prisoner-related policies

In Compliance In Compliance

77

Develop foot pursuit policy

In Compliance In Compliance

VIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
This portion of the Use of Force Consent Judgment addresses several key management areas including the development of a risk management system, audit requirements, including in-car cameras, personnel evaluations, and the reduction of a backload of disciplinary cases. Thirteen of the 28 requirements in this section address the development and use of a comprehensive risk management system.
A. Risk Management Database CJ Requirement U78 The DPD shall devise a comprehensive risk management plan, including:
a. a risk management database (discussed in paragraphs 79-90);
b. a performance evaluation system (discussed in paragraph 91); c. an auditing protocol (discussed in paragraphs 92-99);
d. regular and periodic review of all DPD policies; and e. regular meetings of DPD management to share information and evaluate patterns of
conduct by DPD that potentially increase the DPD’s liability.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. With the full incorporation of norming data in the review process, the Department’s risk management system has been in full compliance with Consent Judgment requirements for three full reporting periods. It had been in substantial compliance for an extended time period before fully adopting this last step. In the lengthy process leading to this point, the Department made advancements in the technology used for risk management, in the review process which is the

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 89 of 193 Pg ID 9192

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 88

April 6, 2013

heart of the system, and in the incorporation of risk management into the broader management functions of the Department.
Final steps remain to be completed – including the full integration of the current procedures into the computerized system and Departmental policy. Sustainability of this important process will be enhanced by those steps and by continued attention, particularly to the use of the system by supervisors. The most significant advancements are also the most recent and therefore the least tested. As discussed below, the process has addressed the problem of large numbers of officer reviews resulting in no-action recommendations. This was accomplished by a process of beginning with administrative reviews and then requiring detailed supervisory reviews of selected officers. The Risk Management Unit is also aggressive in requiring corrective action when reviews or interventions are seen as inadequate. This and the extensive review of risk management as part of the Command Accountability Meetings has greatly strengthened the way the Department identifies and manages risk.
This individual paragraph provides an overview of the requirements for the development and implementation of the risk management system that is described in detail in paragraphs U79-99 and the other requirements relating to management and supervision. Progress in particular areas reflected in those requirements is noted in the separate assessments below.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U79
The DPD shall enhance and expand its risk management system to include a new computerized relational database for maintaining, integrating and retrieving data necessary for supervision and management of the DPD. Priority shall be given to the DPD obtaining an established program and database. The DPD shall ensure that the risk management database it designs or acquires is adequate to evaluate the performance of DPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts; to manage risk and liability; and to promote civil rights and best police practices. The DPD shall regularly use this data for such review and monitoring.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. To consider compliance, we review monthly MAS status reports. For the reporting period, we also review the monthly command reviews documenting the use of MAS and we examine the results of PEERS reviews. As noted below, this material also included PEERS that were returned to supervisors as insufficient. For the current reporting period, we again examined the use of the system, including the input of data, the use of that data, and the identification and review of officers exceeding thresholds established in the system. Based on our review of the continued development and use of this system, we again recognize the achievement of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 90 of 193 Pg ID 9193

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 89

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U80
The new risk management database shall collect and record the following information:
a. all use of force reports and use of force investigations;
b. all canine deployments;
c. all canine apprehensions;
d. all canine bites;
e. all canisters of chemical spray issued to officers;
f. all injured prisoner reports and injured prisoner investigations;
g. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct” or “interfering with a city employee;”
h. all firearm discharge reports and firearm discharge investigations;
i. all incidents in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target;
j. all complaints and complaint investigations, entered at the time the complaint is filed and updated to record the finding;
k. all preliminary investigations and investigations of alleged criminal conduct;
l. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the City, or its officers, or agents, resulting from DPD operations or the actions of DPD personnel, entered at the time proceedings are initiated and updated to record disposition;
m. all vehicle and foot pursuits and traffic collisions;
n. all reports regarding arrests without probable cause or where the individual was discharged from custody without formal charges being sought;
o. all reports regarding investigatory stops and/or frisks unsupported by reasonable suspicion;
p. all reports regarding interviews, interrogations or conveyances in violation of DPD policy;
q. the time between arrest and arraignment for all arrests;
r. all reports regarding a violation of DPD prompt judicial review policy;
s. all reports regarding a violation of DPD hold policy;

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 91 of 193 Pg ID 9194

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 90

April 6, 2013

t. all restrictions on phone calls or visitors imposed by officers;
u. all instances in which the DPD is informed by a prosecuting authority that a declination to prosecute any crime was based, in whole or in part, upon concerns about the credibility of a DPD officer or that a motion to suppress evidence was granted on the grounds of a constitutional violation by a DPD officer;
v. all disciplinary action taken against officers;
w. all non-disciplinary corrective action required of officers, excluding administrative counseling records;
x. all awards and commendations received by officers;
y. the assignment, rank, and training history of officers; and
z. firearms qualification information of officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
We continue to find that the expected information is present for all the mandated data categories. The totals for data entered during the reporting period for all relevant subtasks are presented below. Our review of MAS reports also supports the fact that these data are consulted and used in the risk management process. We continue to recognize the importance of sound data entry and retention practices and we anticipate further review of specific data elements each reporting period. The data below show that there is a general consistency in the numbers across most categories for the time periods shown.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 92 of 193 Pg ID 9195

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 91

April 6, 2013

U80 Data Requirements – Quarterly Department Totals

S u bta s k

Te xt

7/1-9/30, 2011

10/1-12/31, 1/1-3/31,

2011

2012

4/1-6/30, 2012

7/1-9/30, 10/1-92012 12/31, 2012

a use of force reports a use of force investigation

278

254

237

334

267

222

132

100

95

118

107

86

b canine deployments

15

15

6

7

3

5

c canine apprehension

6

4

0

1

2

3

d canine bites

0

0

0

0

1

0

f injured prisoner reports

13

18

9

17

16

16

g injured prisoner investigations

13

18

9

17

15

14

g force and arrests for resisting arrest

116

99

101

120

126

102

g force and arrests for assault on an officer

58

36

43

65

52

69

g force and arrests for disorderly conduct

42

27

14

31

21

19

g force and arrests for interfering with city employee

32

11

5

16

12

11

h firearm discharge reports

7

6

10

8

15

12

h firearm discharge investigations

7

i officer draws a firearm & acquires target

18

j Complaints

307

k investigations of criminal misconduct by officers

15

l. criminal proceedings against members

0

4

7

8

15

12

12

30

43

21

15

264

272

232

286

247

0

10

0

0

0

2

1

3

3

2

l. all civil lawsuits

8

34

25

18

48

29

m vehicle pursuits

42

81

45

40

21

30

m foot pursuits

14

14

9

35

16

8

m traffic collisions

34

35

43

36

28

31

n reports of arrests w/o probable cause

2

10

0

0

0

4

n individuals discharged from custody w/o charges

N/A

o investigatory stops and frisks w/o reasonable suspicion Frisks=146 St o p s=5 4

555
Frisks=63 St o p s=1 0

509
Frisks=21 St o p s=1 2

610
Frisks=13 St o p s=6

529
Frisks=2 St o p s=6

453
Frisks=4 St o p s=3

p

report s of int erviews, int errogat ion, or conveyances Interviews=3 3 , Interviews=18 , Interviews=11, Interviews=0 , Interviews=1, Interviews=1,
Interro g atio n=15 Interro g atio n=10 , Interro g atio n=6 , Interro g atio n=0 , Interro g atio n=0 , Interro g atio n=0 ,

in viol of policy

Co nveyances =4 Co nveyances =0 Co nveyances =0 Co nveyances =0 Co nveyances =0 Co nveyances =0

r reports of violations of prompt judicial review

891

841

848

829

765

769

s reports of violation of DPD hold policy

134

97

111

189

350

431

t reports of restrictions on phone calls or visits

27

1

15

18

15

35

u report of declination to prosecute due to police

0

conduct or suppressed evidence

0

0

0

0

0

v disciplinary action taken against officers

37

42

70

15

41

3

w non-disciplinary corrective action

188

299

463

131

228

135

Note: Under category o (Stops and Frisks), only those for which no reasonable suspicion is reported are collected in MAS.
The quarterly review of these data provides a means by which the Department can assess DPD activity and also examine the quality of information entered into MAS. This analysis continues to indicate that the appropriate data are collected and entered into the risk management system.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 93 of 193 Pg ID 9196

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 92

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U81
The new risk management database shall include, for each incident, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (including name, pension number, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (including race, ethnicity or national origin, sex, and age).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
As noted in our past five reports, DPD has resolved issues around reporting information regarding citizens connected with reported incidents. That data continues to be entered into MAS appropriately. The data on officers also continues to be reliably entered and maintained.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U82
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management database and addressing data storage. The Data Input Plan shall:
a. detail the specific fields of information to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise);
b. specify the unit responsible for inputting data, the deadlines for inputting the data in a timely, accurate, and complete manner;
c. specify the historical time periods for which information is to be input and the deadlines for inputting the data in an accurate and timely fashion; and
d. requires that the data be maintained in a secure and confidential manner.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The Department’s revised Data Input Plan was approved by the Department of Justice in a letter dated June 9, 2011. Our observations and interviews with DPD continue to support the conclusion that the provisions of the Data Input Plan are reflected in the practices of the Department.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 94 of 193 Pg ID 9197

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 93

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U83
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Report Protocol for the risk management database that details the types of routine reports the DPD shall generate and pattern identifications the DPD shall conduct. The Report Protocol shall:
a. require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria:
i. number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
ii. average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and
iii. identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
b. establish thresholds for the numbers and types of incidents requiring a review by an officer’s supervisor of whether the officer or group of officers is engaging in at-risk behavior (in addition to the regular reviews required by paragraph 84); and
c. require the database to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The Department’s revised Report Protocol was also approved by the Department of Justice in a letter dated June 9, 2011. Our observations and interviews with DPD continue to support the conclusion that the provisions of the Report Protocol are reflected in the practices of the Department. To consider this, we also examine command monthly reviews in MAS, and confirm both the availability and use of the MAS data at the command level. As in previous quarters, during our most recent site visit, members of the Monitoring Team attended the Command Compliance Review Meeting and observed the use of information from MAS.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 95 of 193 Pg ID 9198

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 94

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement U84
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Review Protocol for using the risk management database that addresses data analysis, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and auditing. The Review Protocol shall require:
a. that when an officer or group of officers pass a threshold established in the Report Protocol the officer’s(s’) supervisor shall review all information in the risk management database regarding the officer(s), together with other relevant information;
b. the reviewing supervisor to document whether he or she took non-disciplinary corrective action or recommended disciplinary action, the basis for this decision, and what corrective action was taken, if any;
c. supervisors to review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, database reports, together with other relevant information, to evaluate individual officer and unit activity for at-risk behavior;
d. precinct and unit commanders to review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, database reports, together with other relevant information, to evaluate individual supervisor’s assessment and analysis of information in the risk management database and the corrective action taken by supervisors;
e. appropriate DPD supervisors to review and evaluate, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, police performance citywide, using all relevant information from the risk management database and other relevant information and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all DPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents;
f. commanders and supervisors conducting such periodic reviews to take non-disciplinary corrective action when appropriate for individual officers, supervisors or units and document any such action in writing;
g. that the information in the database be accessible to commanders, supervisors and the BPC;
h. that the information in the database is considered when evaluating a DPD employee for transfer or promotion;
i. commanders and supervisors to promptly review records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units;
j. commanders and supervisors to be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management database to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk;
k. that a designated DPD unit be responsible for managing and administering the database, including conducting quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above; and
l. that aggregated information from the risk management database be shared on a regular and periodic basis with training and policy planning staff.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 96 of 193 Pg ID 9199

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 95

April 6, 2013

Comments:

The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. As noted in our last report, the Review Protocol was revised, submitted for review and approved by DOJ on June 9, 2011. Interviews with staff assigned to MAS continue to support the conclusion that the review process is being implemented consistent with policy. To further assess that, we examine all Personnel Evaluation and Enhancement Review Sessions (PEERS) completed and signed off in the reporting period for the reporting period. The data comparing this reporting period to the previous reporting period are presented below.

Total PEERS No Action Needed Monitoring Other/Pending PEERS Pending Review by OCR
PEERS returned for correction or completion

PEERS and Their Outcomes

July-Sept 2011 Oct-Dec 2011 Jan-March 2012 April-June 2012 July 1-Sept 30 2012

93

77

63

68

58

65 (70%)

67 (87%)

53 (84%)

55 (81%)

41 (84%)

10 (11%)

7 (9%)

8 (13%)

8 (12%)

6 (12%)

18 (19%)

4 (5%)

2 (3%)

5 (7%)

2 (4%)

0

0

0

0

0

N/A

9 supervisors 12 supervisors 3 supervisors 5 3 supervisors 5

33 reviews 13 reviews

reviews

reviews

Oct 1-Dec 31 2012 27 0 13 7
7 PEERS are under
by OCR

The chart above reflects a significant change in procedures this quarter as it has been discussed in MAS update reports. The Risk Management Unit now performs an initial review of officers who exceed thresholds to determine if they are suitable for review. The unit also selects officers for review based on the MAS indicators as normed by arrest numbers. This quarter those processes resulted in selection of 27 officers for review. Those reviews are all either pending or have already resulted in selection for monitoring. As shown, no reviews in this process result in “no action” being taken. This is an efficient and effective improvement to the risk management process and is part of the ongoing improvement being made by the Unit.

All of the above data indicate the system is heavily used and carefully administered in a manner consistent with risk reduction goals. The use of risk management data through the command accountability meeting process illustrates the value of this system to the daily management of DPD.

DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

Compliance Status:

Phase 1: In Compliance

Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U85
The DPD shall seek to ensure that the risk management database is created as expeditiously as possible. As part of this effort, the DPD, in consultation with the DOJ, shall organize the risk management database into modules in developing the Data Input Plan, the Report Protocol, the Review Protocol and the Request for Proposals and in negotiating with contractors, such that

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 97 of 193 Pg ID 9200

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 96

April 6, 2013

difficulties with one aspect of the risk management database do not delay implementation of other modules. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. During the current reporting period, there have been no changes that would affect the compliance status with this requirement. DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U86
Where information about a single incident is entered into the risk management database from more than one document (e.g., from a complaint form and a use of force report), the risk management database shall use a common control number or other equally effective means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the Phase 2 compliance status of this requirement. The Department’s technical solution to this problem continues to be an effective response to the requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U87
The City shall maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management database during the officer’s employment with the DPD and for at least five years after separation. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in the risk management database.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The Phase 2 compliance finding for this requirement remains unchanged. The required data are accessible through MAS, and the five-year retention policy on personal information is in place.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 98 of 193 Pg ID 9201

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 97

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U88
The new risk management database shall be developed and implemented according to the following schedule:
a. By January 24, 2008, the City shall have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management database consisting of: 1) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the City and DPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary database software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the information system completed, including historic data. The DOJ and the Monitor shall have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using new and historical data and test data created specifically for the purposes of checking the risk management database.
b. The risk management database shall be operational and fully implemented by July 24, 2008.
c. The parties and the independent monitor shall meet on a monthly basis to discuss what actions have been taken during the previous month toward development of the new risk management database.
d. The defendant shall present to the plaintiff and the independent monitor, on a monthly basis, evidence of satisfactory progress sufficient to justify a conclusion that completion of the new risk management database by August 11, 2008 remains feasible. If at any time the plaintiff concludes that successful completion of the project within the timeframes described in this paragraph is unlikely, the plaintiff shall so notify the Court and the defendant. Within sixty days after receipt of such notice, the defendant shall issue an RFP to develop or complete development of the new risk management database as was required by 88c. of this Consent Judgment before it was amended. In that event, the requirements of paragraphs 88.d., 88.e., 88.f., and 88.g. of this Consent Judgment before it was amended shall be enforced, with dates adjusted as follows: the Review Protocol (paragraph 88.d.) shall be issued within five months after issuance of the RFP; the defendant shall select the contractor (paragraph 88.e) within seven months after issuance of the RFP; the beta version (paragraph 88.f) shall be ready for testing within fifteen months after issuance of the RFP; and the risk management database shall be operational (paragraph 88.g) within twenty-six months after issuance of the RFP.30
e. By May 31, 2004, the DPD shall select the contractor to create the risk management database.
30 Amended by Court Orders dated November 9, 2007, and July 22, 2008

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 99 of 193 Pg ID 9202

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 98

April 6, 2013

f. By June 30, 2005, the City shall have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management database consisting of: i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the City and DPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary database software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the information system completed, including historic data. The DOJ and the Monitor shall have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using new and historical data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management database.
g. The risk management database shall be operational and fully implemented by December 31, 2005.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the Phase 2 compliance status of this requirement. Our reports document continued progress in the development and implementation of the risk management system. The schedule set by this requirement is recognized as obsolete; and its original intention has been met and is monitored through the monthly MAS reports produced by the Department.
Accordingly, DPD is, again, in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U89
Prior to implementation of the new risk management database, the DPD shall develop an interim system to identify patterns of conduct by DPD officers or groups of officers. The interim system shall require periodic reviews of relevant information, but no less than monthly, and evaluations of whether an officer or group of officers is engaging in at-risk behavior. This interim system shall collect and analyze the following information: citizen complaint reports and investigations; use of force investigations; shootings; vehicle chases; injured prisoner investigations; traffic collisions; canisters of chemical spray issued to officers; firearms qualifications; training; prompt judicial review; disciplinary action; arrest without probable cause; all reports regarding investigatory stops and/or frisks unsupported by reasonable suspicion; and all reports regarding interviews, interrogations or conveyances in violation of DPD policy in a format that facilitates entry into the final risk management database, to the fullest extent possible.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the Phase 2 compliance status of this requirement. In accordance with the Consent Judgment, DPD developed and used the Interim Management Awareness System (IMAS) that later developed into the current system (MAS). With progress on the current

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 100 of 193 Pg ID 9203

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 99

April 6, 2013

system, the need for IMAS was superseded. Therefore, DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U90
Following the initial implementation of the risk management database, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the DPD may propose to subtract or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and subtract or modify standardized reports and queries. The DPD shall submit all such proposals for review and approval by the DOJ before implementation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the Phase 2 compliance status of this requirement. We will continue to monitor the risk management system to ensure that any significant changes are handled in a manner consistent with this requirement. Most recently, DPD has incorporated descriptions of its data norming process in the relevant policies.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Performance Evaluation System
CJ Requirement U91
DPD shall ensure that performance evaluations for all DPD employees below the rank of Deputy Chief occur at least annually and include, but are not limited to, consideration of the following:31
a. civil rights integrity;
b. adherence to law, including performing duties in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution and the Civil Rights laws of the United States; and

31 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 101 of 193 Pg ID 9204

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 100

April 6, 2013

c. supervisor’s performance in identifying and addressing at-risk behavior in subordinates, including their supervision and review of use of force, arrests, care of prisoners, prisoner processing, and performance bearing upon honesty and integrity.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for the past eight reporting periods. To verify continued compliance for the current reporting period, we again examined a random sample of 120 evaluations drawn from all a list of all personnel. Our review verified that more than 94% of reviews were current and properly completed with original narratives, references to “no change in status,” or references to material in MAS. Four evaluations were excluded since they were not completed due to the suspension of the employees or extended leave. Three evaluations were not available and were described as unsigned.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Oversight
CJ Requirement U92
The DPD shall develop a protocol for conducting annual audits to be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol shall establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all DPD units and commands. The annual audit period for conducting the audits required by paragraphs 93 to 97 for the first year shall end on August 31, 2004. The subsequent annual periods shall end on July 17, 2005, and every year thereafter.32
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
This requirement, and the five which follow it, established the structure and processes for auditing key functions in the Department. The required audits are completed annually and most were reported our in or last quarterly report leaving limited activity to report for this period.
While substantial audit activity is ongoing this quarter this is also a useful time for a general review in the area. With regard to maintaining a proper audit protocol and successful completion of audits, the Department has been in compliance for eight reporting periods. This has been accomplished through a clear commitment to quality in the review of data, and the identification of issues of concern, and by requiring and reviewing corrective action which it is necessary. The
32 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 102 of 193 Pg ID 9205

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 101

April 6, 2013

Department’s activity in this area continues to reflect a commitment to the audit process as a necessary and important component of Departmental management.
Phase 2 compliance with this requirement is linked to compliance with the requirements of U9397. As noted in our last report, the audit protocol was revised, past audits were completed on schedule and all new audits are now scheduled. Accordingly, the DPD continues in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U93
The DPD shall issue a report to the Chief of Police on the result of each audit and examine whether there is consistency throughout the DPD. The DPD shall also provide the reports to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD is also in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. All requirements were met for the previous quarter as they had been for previous quarters. These specific requirements will be reconsidered when new audits are completed.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U94
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits, covering all DPD units and commands that investigate uses of force, prisoner injuries, and allegations of misconduct. The audits shall include reviewing a statistically valid sample of command, IAD, and Homicide Section investigations; evaluating whether the actions of the officer and the subject were captured correctly in the investigative report; and evaluating the preservation and analysis of the evidence and the appropriateness of the investigator’s conclusions.33
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
33 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 103 of 193 Pg ID 9206

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 102

April 6, 2013

There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Audits on use of force, prisoner injuries, and allegation of misconduct were completed in July and were followed by corrective action reports when necessary. As part of the audit protocol, new audits are scheduled.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U95
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits covering all precincts and specialized units that review a statistically valid sample of findings of probable cause, stop and frisk reports and witness identification and questioning documentation. The audits shall include evaluating the scope, duration, content, and voluntariness, if appropriate, of the police interaction. The audits shall include a comparison of the number of arrests to requests for warrants and a comparison of the number of arrests for which warrants were sought to judicial findings of probable cause.34
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. Stop and frisk audits were completed on schedule, and corrective action reports were completed. New audits are scheduled for completion on an annual basis. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U96 The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits covering all precincts and specialized units that examine custodial detention practices. The audits shall include reviewing the length of detention between arrest and arraignment and the time to adjudicate holds.35 Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
34 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004. 35 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 104 of 193 Pg ID 9207

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 103

April 6, 2013

The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. Custodial detention audits of all relevant facilities were completed on schedule and new audits are scheduled. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U97
The Chief Investigator of OCI shall designate an individual or entity to conduct regularly scheduled annual audits that examine external complaints and complaint investigations. The audit shall include reviewing a statistically valid sample of complaints that were resolved informally, reviewing a sample of OCI investigations of complaints, and contacting the complainants to evaluate whether the actions and views of the complainant were captured correctly in the complaint report and/or investigation. The Chief Investigator shall review all audit reports regarding officers under OCI command and, if appropriate, shall take nondisciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.36
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. Consistent with the other oversight related requirements, the Department has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. In the most recent audit cycle, complaint and complaint investigation audits were completed on schedule; and corrective action reports and plans were completed based on the audits. The Department remains in compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U98 The DPD shall conduct and document periodic random reviews of scout car camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes. In addition, the DPD shall require periodic random surveys of scout car video recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
36 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 105 of 193 Pg ID 9208

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 104

April 6, 2013

While the numbers in our past audits were in compliance; and, as a result, the DPD has been found in Phase 2 compliance, the reviews produced few substantive results for the DPD. We have noted that reviews where a supervisor simply randomly selects and views an event that has been recorded are helpful in confirming that the video equipment is operational and that, to some extent, it is being used. A better review technique would be for supervisors to select an event that occurred during the shift that requires video to be recorded and confirm that it was, in fact, recorded. A March 9, 2012 roll call message specifies that the segment reviewed shall be one that reflects officer and citizen contact as indicated on the officer’s activity log. We viewed this as a step in the supervision of the mobile video program that could enhance its management. We noted to DPD management that fewer – but higher quality – reviews should provide DPD management with a more accurate picture of the use of the MVS.
On August 17, 2012, in an administrative message read at all roll calls, DPD announced a change in its random review policy. The new policy addressed the following:
1. Discontinued daily reviews and use of the DPD713a form;
2. Required shift supervisors to conduct a more detailed review using the new DPD713b form for 4 traffic stops each month;
3. Set a schedule for the reviews to be conducted; and
4. Advised supervisors how to handle situations when the reviewed event did not upload properly.
The new review procedure was implemented on August 17, 2012, with the introduction of the new policy. During our last on-site review we found that a total of 89 reviews were attempted and recorded on the new form DPD713b. A serious technical failure, however, was encountered by DPD that affected the whole MVS system during the last reporting period made videos unavailable to be reviewed by supervisors. We found that only 12 (14%) of the 89 new reviews included both video and audio.
While the technical failure disrupted the review process, the few that were conducted successfully led us to conclude that the new procedures can lead to improvement. In the few reviews where video and audio were available, the supervisors commented on the officers’ tactics, safety, deportment, and use of video. Commanders in the chain of command also reviewed the DPD713bs and signed off on them. We observed that if the video system was stabilized, the new procedures for review should produce a clear picture of officers’ compliance with procedures relating to mobile video and of command accountability.
In our current review we found that the video system was repaired in mid-October but not stabilized until late November 2012. Accordingly, we reviewed the December 2012 random reviews to determine if the new procedure was working.
Our examination of the random reviews generated in December 2012, produced mixed results. While we found a number of quality reviews done by supervisors that commented upon such matters as officer safety, tactics, professionalism and use of video and audio, the instances of supervisors identifying officer non-compliance with MVS requirements to video and audio every traffic stop were not realistic. We reviewed the random review forms for December 2012, and found 229 reviews were conducted during the month and 219 (96%) were recorded as having

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 106 of 193 Pg ID 9209

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 105

April 6, 2013

video and 198 (86%) audio. The results of the random reviews conducted by the DPD supervisors were as follows:

Number

of

Reviews Video

%

Audio

%

229

219

96%

198

86%

Our own random reviews produced less favorable results for the month. Our review (see discussion in U102) for December 2012 showed that 83% and 47% had video and audio, respectively. The problem, in part, we think, is that the selection of the event to be reviewed is not truly random; it is done by the supervisor who will conduct the review. DPD has advised that the Department is instituting a new random selection process whereby the Office of Civil Rights will identify which traffic stops to be reviewed effective February 2013. This change can have a significantly favorable impact on the efficacy of the random review process. A second important step is being taken that we expect will improve the random review process. Heretofore, DPD has been unable to use CAD generated traffic stop data to select the events to be reviewed by supervisors. DPD Dispatch now records traffic stop data in the CAD system. This should produce timely automated information that will accurately show the car, officers and times for traffic stops and other events that could be reviewed. DPD anticipates that the data generated by Dispatch will be available to select events to be reviewed DPD was in compliance prior to adopting the new random review process. While the Department is experiencing difficulties in implementing the new system, we believe that the random review process is being improved. For that reason, DPD will be held in compliance and we will review the requirement in April 2013 at which time we expect that the new system will be fully implemented and producing desired results.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U99
The DPD shall ensure regular meetings with local prosecutors to identify issues in officer, shift or unit performance.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. To verify continued compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we reviewed the minutes of the November 13, 2112 quarterly meeting involving DPD and members of the Prosecutor’s Office. Consistent with previous meetings, a wide range of topics discussed is reported in the meeting minutes including those relating to records management, arrestee

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 107 of 193 Pg ID 9210

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 106

April 6, 2013

identifiers, in car video, court attendance, warrant processing, open Internal Affairs cases, and other police operations. The next meeting is scheduled for May 8, 2013. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

D. Use of Video Cameras
CJ Requirement U100
The DPD shall repair or replace all non-functioning video cameras.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
MVS equipment, particularly older units, is subject to breaking down and requiring repair. As a result, the total number of operational units at any one time varies. In July 2012, DPD estimated that it had about 303 MVS units operational. The complement of MVS equipment actually installed has remained the same, about 300 vehicles, since July 2011. At any one time, however, the equipment that is operational is oftentimes less than 300. The IT Bureau has initiated a program to identify and list cars that have equipment that is operational and in working order. The goal is to document when the vehicle had operational equipment and when it did not.
During the third quarter of 2012, the IT Bureau was focused on addressing and repairing a significant technical failure that had occurred and was disrupting the system for uploading data to its central server. To correct the problem, the Department acquired and in October 2012, installed a new central server that was dedicated to handling all the data from the newly acquired Data 911 (D911) MVS units. The new server resolved the uploading problem but, since cars had not been able to upload for an extended period, many units were at maximum capacity and the overall system was not stabilized until late November 2012. The DPD IT Bureau resources were properly focused on repairing the disrupted uploading system. We reviewed 72 instances where repairs were requested of MVS units installed in DPD cars. In 71 (99%) instances the repair was accomplished on the same day as requested.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 108 of 193 Pg ID 9211

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 107

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement U101
The DPD policy on video cameras shall be revised and augmented to require:
a. activation of scout car video cameras at all times the officer is on patrol;
b. supervisors to review videotapes of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits and external complaints; and
c. that the DPD retain and preserve videotapes for at least 90 days, or as long as necessary for incidents to be fully investigated.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During past site visits, we found:
1. The DPD MVS cameras are set to operate 100% of the time on patrol. Full video is 2430 frames per second; MVS units are set to capture one frame of video per second at all non-emergency times. The equipment is set so that whenever the emergency lights are activated, the units switch to full-video mode and capture 28 frames per second. The Department now erases the one frame a second video after it has been stored for 24 hours.
2. While supervisory review of videotapes involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits, and external complaints is required, DPD has made strides in providing these data for our review but has not yet been able to provide comprehensive data identifying all such incidents.
3. DPD preserves and retains videos when it is able to upload them successfully in the central server, as required by U101c.
U101b requires that video be activated for each of the incidents specified and that supervisors conduct a review of the video where one is available. The impact of the technical failure described in the Use of Video Cameras severely retarded progress the following areas.
 Uses of Force: We requested 102 cases for review; and after removing cases that were inappropriate for review for MVS, there remained 86 SIR reports to be reviewed.37 Of the 86, 36 had no recordings due to Data 911 system issues (see technical failure discussed in U100 above). Of the remaining 50, 17 had no recording equipment installed or the MVS systems were not involved (e.g., officers were on walking beats). Twentythree (70%) of the remaining 33 instances included video/audio recordings from mobile units, recordings from holding facilities, or recordings from casinos or the city council. All 23 recordings (100%) were reviewed by supervisors. Further, we found that there were 23 instances where it would have been possible for recordings to be produced by mobile units. Of these, video and audio were recorded in only 12 (52%).

37 Includes cases assumed by investigator, acquiring target cases, and K9 deployments without contacts.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 109 of 193 Pg ID 9212

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 108

April 6, 2013

 Injuries: DPD has been unable to produce a report that identified a comprehensive list of incidents involving injuries to officers or subjects in which MVS should have been recorded by officers and reviewed by supervisors. Beginning in January 2013, the Department has tracked injuries to both officers and subjects. The list will be available for our next review in April 2013.
 External Complaints: We were provided OCI data regarding 60 cases in which we deemed it appropriate that the investigator should check to see if video was available. In 57 cases (95%), OCI actually checked to see if there was video or audio available. In 47 of these cases, no audio or video was recorded. In four cases (7%), both video and audio were recorded and reviewed. In five cases (9%), video was not found but audio was available. In one case (1%), only video was located.
Our review of IAD cases for the fourth quarter of 2012 revealed that there were 10 incidents in 30 cases where MVS should have been available. It was available in two cases (20%).
The Department is not in Phase 2 compliance with any section of U101.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U102
The DPD policy on video cameras shall require officers to record all motor vehicle stops, consents to search a vehicle, deployments of a drug-detection canine, or vehicle searches.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has never achieved Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. During our October 2012 site visit, we found that use of video cameras by DPD was severely disrupted during the third quarter of 2012 due to a technical failure that prevented video from being uploaded successfully. When the technical failure occurred, video failed to upload to the central server where it is stored. As a result, the storage in the patrol cars quickly filled to capacity and the mobile units could not store new videos. The entire MVS was disrupted. During our October site visit, DPD failed to produce data for review of motor vehicle stops, consents to search a vehicle, or vehicle searches. Accordingly, DPD was continued in non-compliant status for this requirement.
The MVS system was stabilized in October 2012, through the acquisition of a new central server that was devoted to the new Data 911 (D911) MVS. Since most of the DPD’s deployed MVS equipped cars were loaded to capacity with data that could not be uploaded until the new server was installed, the system was not stabilized until mid-November 2012.
DPD appears to have emerged from a difficult period in which technical failures severely disrupted the operation of the MVS system. Our review of traffic stops in December indicates that the system has been stabilized. DPD must now work to ensure that the CAD system

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 110 of 193 Pg ID 9213

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 109

April 6, 2013

produces a comprehensive list of events that can project a realistic picture of its state of compliance. The Department is not in compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U103
The City shall ensure that adequate resources are provided to eliminate the backlog of disciplinary cases and that all disciplinary matters are resolved as soon as reasonably possible.
Comments:
This requirement, and the two that follow, address with the Department’s disciplinary process. When the City of Detroit signed the Use of Force Consent Judgment, the Department’s disciplinary process was almost completely dysfunctional. A backlog of cases numbered in the thousands, and the system was neither effective at addressing improper actions or at maintaining due process for officers. Conditions are dramatically different now. The backlog was completely eliminated, and the Department now manages its processing of cases to ensure that it does not return, and the Department does so in a manner consistent with the rights of officers and the needs of the Department. An established matrix of expected sanctions based on charges is followed, and cases are completed according to an established and predictable timeline.
In this area, the Department has also gone beyond the requirements of the Consent Judgment. It has instituted several programs designed to enhance case processing and improve outcomes. These include an arbitration process which supports improved case processing and a restorative intervention process that is designed to address officers’ emerging patterns of disciplinary problems in a way that seeks to recognize underlying problems and change behavior. The process of consultation, involving all those concerned with the events that triggered disciplinary action, seeks to meets the needs of both the officers involved and their supervisors.
Within the Department, the disciplinary process is also no longer viewed as an isolated and exclusively reactive process. The Disciplinary Administration Unit regularly reviews information to identify patterns of problematic behavior in individual officers, units and the Department as a whole. It provides this analysis for consideration in the risk management process and in Departmental training. With these changes, the disciplinary process is now fully incorporated into the broader context of management of the Department.
With regard to this specific requirement, DPD is in Phase 1 compliance. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 90 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. There is no backlog of cases and case-flow is being managed sufficiently. During the current reporting period, a total of 40 new disciplinary cases were opened. We also established that all previously noted resources remain in place to support compliance with this requirement at this time.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 111 of 193 Pg ID 9214

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 110

April 6, 2013

As noted in our previous report, the Disciplinary Unit has introduced and continues to utilize other procedures that can expedite cases and prevent backlogs. These include voluntary mediation as an alternative to trial boards and restorative practices for resolving low-level discipline issues. These provide positive approaches to addressing administrative requirements while also holding officers accountable for their behavior.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U104
The DPD shall schedule disciplinary hearings, trials, and appeals at appropriately frequent intervals, to prevent a disciplinary backlog from developing. As part of determining how often to schedule such hearings, the DPD shall establish guidelines dictating the maximum period of time that should elapse between each stage of the disciplinary process.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 90 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. All disciplinary proceedings met the established timelines and were consistent with this requirement. As of the end of December, there are no cases remaining open that predate 2011. For 2011, a total of seven cases remained open, down from 20 the last reporting period; and 106 cases were open from this 2012 at the end of the year. The status of all open cases is tracked by the disciplinary unit and reported quarterly. All open 2011 and 2012 cases reflect appropriate scheduling and steps toward closure.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U105
The DPD shall create a disciplinary matrix that:
a. establishes a presumptive range of discipline for each type of rule violation;
b. increases the presumptive discipline based on both an officer’s prior violations of the same rule as well as violations of other rules;
c. requires that any departure from the presumptive range of discipline must be justified in writing;

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 112 of 193 Pg ID 9215

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 111

April 6, 2013

d. provides that the DPD shall not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix calls for the imposition of discipline; and
e. Provides that the DPD shall consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action also is appropriate in a case where discipline has been imposed.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 90 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. The disciplinary matrix is provided for use at disciplinary trial boards and other disciplinary processes. All decisions this reporting period fell within the matrix and were consistent with this requirement. DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 78 Comprehensive Risk Management Plan 79 Improve risk management system 80 Database requirements (a-z) 81 Database to include officer information 82 Data Input Plan (a-d) 83 Report Protocol for database (a-c) 84 Review Protocol for database (a-l) 85 Use modules to ensure work progress 86 Common control number required 87 Data retention 88 Database schedule (expired) 89 Interim database (rescinded) 90 Change process needs DOJ approval 91 Annual officer review criteria specified 92 Protocol for conducting audits 93 Audit results to Chief and commanders 94 Annual audits-use of force

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 113 of 193 Pg ID 9216

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 112

April 6, 2013

¶ Requirements 95 Annual audits-probable cause/stop-and-frisk 96 Annual audits-detention practices 97 Annual audits-external complaints 98 Random reviews of in-car camera videos 99 Regular meeting with local prosecutors 100 Replace/repair video cameras 101 Revision of video camera policy 102 Record all vehicle stops, searches, etc. 103 Elimination of disciplinary case backlog 104 Scheduling of disciplinary cases 105 Disciplinary matrix of responses/sanctions

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

IX. TRAINING
During our most recent site visit, we visited the Detroit Police Training Center and interviewed the Training Commander and key members of the training staff. The DPD revises and updates its training courses annually and introduces the new material in July of each year. Accordingly, during our July 2012 site visit, we reviewed a variety of memoranda and policy material for use during the 2012-2013 training year (July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013). There have been no substantive changes in the policies that pertain to Training; the training directive 304.5 was revised on July 10, 2012, to address minor numbering typographical errors. DPD continues to make progress in addressing the Consent Judgment training-related requirements. For over two years, the Department has achieved compliance with all training-related requirements and, as we have noted in our recent reports, DPD should now take steps to ensure that the changes it has made are institutionalized and accepted throughout the organization.
A. Oversight and Development
CJ Requirement U106
The DPD shall coordinate and review all use of force and arrest and detention training to ensure quality, consistency and compliance with applicable law and DPD policy. The DPD shall conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually, and produce a report of such reviews to the Monitor and the DOJ.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The required review was conducted in the fourth quarter of 2012, and documented in a DPD report entitled, “Training Oversight and Development Report – Semi-Annual Review, December

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 114 of 193 Pg ID 9217

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 113

April 6, 2013

2012.”This report – the eighth such report to be issued – contained the evaluation of use of force, arrest, and detention training; and covered all elements of this requirement. The report is prepared twice each year, and the next such report will be produced in June 2013.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U107
The DPD, consistent with Michigan law and the Michigan Law Enforcement Officers Training Council standards, shall:
a. ensure the quality of all use of force and arrest and detention training;
b. develop use of force and arrest and detention training curricula;
c. select and train DPD officer trainers;
d. develop, implement, approve and oversee all training and curricula;
e. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
f. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that training governing use of force and arrest and detention are responsive to the knowledge, skills and abilities of the officers being trained.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we met with the In-Service Training Director and staff and reviewed training records. DPD training complies with the Michigan Law Enforcement Council’s standards and Michigan law. With regard to subparagraphs a-f, during the past year, we found as follows:
a. During our July 2012 site visit, we reviewed the revised lesson plans that are being used in the 2012-2013 training cycle. In addition, during our most recent site visit, we reviewed the new use of force scenarios that are being deployed; and the report entitled, “Training Oversight and Development Report – Semi-Annual Review,” dated December 2012, which documents the DPD’s semi-annual review and evaluation of its training. The next such report will be completed in June 2013. Use of force and detention training are adequate.
b. As noted above, during our July 2012 site visit, we examined the lesson plans for the Use of Force and Arrest and Detention training that are being used in the current training year (July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013), and found them to be adequate for the training required.
c. DPD selected no new trainers during the second quarter of 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 115 of 193 Pg ID 9218

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 114

April 6, 2013

d/e. As we have observed in past reviews, DPD policy, curricula, and lesson plans address these provisions.
f. Directive 304.5-3.4, revised July 10, 2012, places responsibility on the Commander of Training to conduct a training needs assessment. Directive 304.5-6.2, Needs Assessment, requires that such an assessment be conducted and documented every two years. As noted previously, in July and December 2011, the DPD conducted and documented training needs assessments. DPD has initiated new training and modified in-service training in order to address many of the deficiencies identified in the needs assessments that it has conducted. At present, DPD plans to conduct a needs assessment before the next training year (July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014).
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U108
The DPD shall create and maintain individual training records for all officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training completed for all training conducted on or after the effective date of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD captures data relating to its in-service training, and records it on a spreadsheet. Since the spreadsheet is used by the Department to determine if all of its officers have attended the required in-service training sessions, we have conducted audits of its accuracy during the current and past reporting periods. Inasmuch as the DPD has been in compliance with this requirement for two years, we reduced the sample to 25 officers and their 100 class sign-in lists.
We randomly selected 25 officers who were listed on the spreadsheet as having received and completed in-service training during the period of October 1, through December 31, 2012. In order to complete their in-service training, these officers would have to attend and sign attendance sheets for four courses: Legal; Use of Force; PR-24; and Firearms Qualification. DPD was able to locate all (100%) of the expected signatures.
During our previous reviews, we found that the Department committed to recording training data in the MITN System, a part of the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) data system. Training has now entered all DPD training records for years 2003 through the present. During this reporting period, we selected the 100 training records for the 25 officers in our random sample relating to Use of Force, Legal, PR-24 and Firearms Qualification, and checked the MITN system to see if they had been recorded. All (100%) were found to have been entered into MITN.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 116 of 193 Pg ID 9219

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 115

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U109
The DPD shall ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors and that instructors engage students in meaningful dialogue regarding particular scenarios, preferably taken from actual incidents involving DPD officers, with the goal of educating students regarding the legal and tactical issues raised by the scenarios.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD training directives and lesson plans properly direct and instruct on the relevant provisions of the Consent Judgment. During previous reviews, we found that DPD developed new scenarios utilizing DPD Internal Affairs incidents, and accepted them for incorporation into the Legal block of training. We reviewed all new scenarios and found them acceptable. We have reviewed all the lesson plans that were updated for the 2012-2013 training year and found them to be adequate. No additional scenarios or lesson plans were implemented during the fourth quarter of 2012.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U110 The DPD shall meet with the City Law Department on a quarterly basis concerning the conclusion of civil lawsuits alleging officer misconduct, information gleaned from this process shall be distributed to DPD risk management and training staff.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD met with the City Law Department pursuant to this requirement on November 12, 2012. Meetings are held quarterly. The DPD remains in compliance with U110.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 117 of 193 Pg ID 9220

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 116

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement U111
The City and the DPD shall distribute and explain this Agreement to all DPD and all relevant City employees The City and the DPD shall provide initial training on this Agreement to all City and DPD employees whose job responsibilities are affected by this Agreement within 120 days of each provision’s implementation. Thereafter, the DPD shall provide training on the policies contained in this Agreement during in-service training.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
This training is conducted by CRIB for both civilian and sworn personnel. The Department had no new hires (either civilian or officers) to train during the fourth quarter of 2012. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Use of Force Training
CJ Requirement U112
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers, and supervisors with annual training on use of force. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. The DPD’s use of force continuum; proper use of force; decision making; and the DPD’s use of force reporting requirements;
b. The Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including recent legal developments;
c. Examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper use of force decision making, including the use of deadly force;
d. The circumstances in which officers may draw, display, or point a firearm, emphasizing:
i. Officers should not draw their firearm unless they reasonably believe there is a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or another person;
ii. The danger of engaging or pursuing a suspect with a firearm drawn; and
iii. That officers are generally not justified in drawing their firearm when pursuing a subject suspected of committing only a misdemeanor;
e. The proper use of all intermediate force weapons;
f. Threat assessment, alternative and de-escalation techniques that allow officers to effect arrests without using force and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 118 of 193 Pg ID 9221

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 117

April 6, 2013

units or even letting a subject temporarily evade arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation, even when the use of force would be legally justified;
g. Interacting with people with mental illnesses, including instruction by mental health practitioners and an emphasis on de-escalation strategies;
h. Factors to consider in initiating or continuing a pursuit;
i. The proper duration of a burst of chemical spray, the distance from which it should be applied, and emphasize that officers shall aim chemical spray only at the target’s face and upper torso, and
j. Consideration of the safety of civilians in the vicinity before engaging in police action.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During our previous site visits, we assessed training policy directives, curricula, lesson plans, special orders, training needs assessment and teletypes, among other materials that were prepared to address the requirements of U112 during the 2012-2013 training year (July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013). Our review showed that the course content requirements of U112 and all of its subparagraphs were met for all recruits and in-service trainees.
During this reporting period, we found that 1,022 (44%) of the 2,385 DPD officers available to train attended and completed the in-service blocks for Use of Force and Legal training in which the requirements for U112 are fulfilled. Fifty percent of the training year was reached in December, and inasmuch as the DPD trained 44% of its officers, it is making satisfactory progress toward fulfilling this requirement.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Firearms Training
CJ Requirement U113
The DPD shall develop a protocol regarding firearms training that:
a. Ensures that all officers and supervisors complete the bi-annual firearms training and qualification;
b. Incorporates professional night training, stress training (i.e., training in using a firearm after undergoing physical exertion) and proper use of force decision making training in the bi-annual in-service training program, with the goal of adequately preparing officers for real life situations;
c. Ensures that firearm instructors critically observe students and provide corrective instruction regarding deficient firearm techniques and failure to utilize safe gun handling

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 119 of 193 Pg ID 9222

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 118

April 6, 2013

procedures at all times; and undergoing physical exertion) and proper use of force decision making training in the bi-annual in-service training program, with the goal of adequately preparing officers for real life situations;
d. Incorporates evaluation criteria to determine satisfactory completion of recruit and inservice firearms training, including:
e. Maintains finger off trigger unless justified and ready to fire;
f. Maintains proper hold of firearm and proper stance; and
g. Uses proper use of force decision making.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The requirements specified in U113 are addressed in the Department’s firearms training, which officers are required to attend and qualify in every six months. During the previous six-month firearms qualification period (January 1, through June 30, 2012), 98% of the officers available to train attended firearms and qualified.
During this review, we found that 2,344 (98%) of the 2,385 officers available to train had attended firearms training and qualified.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

D. Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training
CJ Requirement U114
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on arrests and other police-citizen interaction. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. The DPD Arrest, Investigatory Stop and Frisk and Witness Identification and Questioning Policies;
b. The Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including:
c. Advising officers that the “possibility” that an individual committed a crime does not rise to the level of probable cause;
d. Advising officers that the duration and scope of the police-citizen interaction determines whether an arrest occurred, not the officer’s subjective, intent or belief that he or she affected an arrest; and

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 120 of 193 Pg ID 9223

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 119

April 6, 2013

e. Advising officers that every detention is a seizure, every seizure requires reasonable suspicion or probable cause and there is no legally authorized seizure apart from a “Terry stop” and an arrest; and
f. Examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper police-community interactions, including scenarios which distinguish an investigatory stop from an arrest by the scope and duration of the police interaction; between probable cause, reasonable suspicion and mere speculation; and voluntary consent from mere acquiescence to police authority.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force, Search, and Detention training were taught in the eight-hour Use of Force inservice training and, until the current year, in the four-hour Arrest Procedures in-service training. The Arrest Procedures session has been discontinued as a separate course, and is now being addressed in the Use of Force and Legal blocks of instruction. Annual training is provided by DPD in its in-service training program for officers and supervisors. During the last training year (July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012), the Department trained 98% of its available members in its Use of Force in-service training and 99% in the Legal in-service training.
During this reporting period, we found that 1,022 (44%) of the 2,385 DPD officers available to train attended and completed the in-service blocks for Use of Force and Legal training in which the requirements for U114 are fulfilled. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

E. Custodial Detention Training
CJ Requirement U115
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on custodial detention. Such training shall include DPD policies regarding arrest, arraignment, holds, restrictions, material witness and detention records.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD developed appropriate policies and lesson plans to comply with this provision, as well as a protocol to train all recruits, sworn members, confinement officers, investigators, and supervisors. All officers who attend the Use of Force and Legal in-service training receive the detention training specified by this requirement. Officers who serve in the detention cell areas are required to receive additional annual detention officer training, which is more specifically related to detention responsibilities. (See C73.)

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 121 of 193 Pg ID 9224

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 120

April 6, 2013

During the training year that ended on June 30, 2012, 98% of DPD members attended the Use of Force and 99% its Legal in-service training sessions and received this training. As noted in U114, 44% of DPD officers attended the Use of Force training and the Legal training during the first two quarters of the new training year (July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013).
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U116
The DPD shall advise officers that the DPD arraignment policy shall not be delayed because of the assignment of the investigation to a specialized unit, the arrest charge(s), the availability of an investigator, the gathering of additional evidence or obtaining a confession.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has incorporated these training requirements into its Use of Force and Legal lesson plans. During the 2011-2012 training year, the Department trained 98% of its officers in its Use of Force in-service training session and 99% in the Legal in-service.
In the first two quarters of the new training year, DPD remains in compliance, having trained 44% of its officers available to train in these in-services. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U117
The DPD shall advise officers that whether an individual is a material witness and whether that material witness should be committed to custody is a judicial determination.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Material witness training has been incorporated into the Use of Force and Legal lesson plans. As noted above (see U115), the DPD trained 98% and 99%, respectively, of its officers in the Use of Force and Legal in-service training during the last completed training year (July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012).

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 122 of 193 Pg ID 9225

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 121

April 6, 2013

In the first two quarters of the new training year, DPD remains in compliance, having trained 44% of its officers available to train in these in-services. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

F. Supervisory Training
CJ Requirement U118
The DPD shall provide supervisors with training in the appropriate evaluation of written reports, including what constitutes a fact based description, the identification of conclusory language not supported by specific facts and catch phrases, or language that so regularly appears in reports that its inclusion requires further explanation by the reporting officer.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD fulfills Consent Judgment requirements U118-122 through its annual Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training that is required for both supervisors and investigators. During the training year that ended on June 30, 2012, the Department trained 98% of its supervisors in its Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service.
During the first two quarters of the new training year (July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013), 219 (45%) of the Department’s 483 supervisors who were available to train attended the Leadership and Accountability in-service training.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U119
DPD supervisors shall receive leadership and command accountability training and learn techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training shall be provided to all DPD supervisors within 30 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities and shall be made part of annual in-service training.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the training year that ended on June 30, 2012, the DPD trained 98% of its supervisors and investigators at its annual Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training. The

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 123 of 193 Pg ID 9226

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 122

April 6, 2013

DPD did not promote any personnel to the supervisor rank during the first two quarters of the new training year. As noted in U118, during the first two quarters of the new training year, 219 (45%) of the Department’s 483 supervisors attended the Supervisory and Leadership in-service training. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U120
The DPD shall provide training on risk assessment and risk management to all DPD supervisors, including the operation of the risk management database.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The Department’s Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training session addresses this requirement. During the previous reporting period, we found that DPD had provided this training to 98% of its supervisors during the training year that ended on June 30, 2012. During the first two quarters of the new training year, the Department provided this training to 45% of its supervisors.
The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

G. Investigator Training
CJ Requirement U121
The DPD shall provide training on appropriate burdens of proof, interview techniques and the factors to consider when evaluating officer, complainant or witness credibility to all officers who conduct investigations to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform and legally appropriate.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The training required by U121 is delivered in the DPD Supervisory and Leadership Accountability in-service training, which is attended by both supervisors and investigators. During this the previous reporting period, we found that DPD had provided this training to 98% of its supervisors during the training year that ended on June 30, 2012. During the first two

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 124 of 193 Pg ID 9227

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 123

April 6, 2013

quarters of the new training year, the Department provided this training to 45% of its supervisors. The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U122
The DPD shall provide all supervisors charged with accepting external complaints with appropriate training on handling external complaints that emphasizes interpersonal skills. The DPD shall provide training on the DPD external complaint process, including the role of OCI and IAD in the process, to all new recruits and as part of annual in-service training.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The training required by U122 is delivered in the DPD Supervisory and Leadership Accountability in-service training, which is attended by both supervisors and investigators. During the previous reporting period, we found that DPD had provided this training to 98% of its supervisors during the training year that ended on June 30, 2012. During the first two quarters of the new training year, the Department provided this training to 45% of its supervisors.
The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

H. Field Training
CJ Requirement U123
The DPD shall develop, subject to DOJ approval, a protocol to enhance the FTO program within 120 days of the effective date of this Agreement. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting and removing the FTOs and for training and evaluating FTOs and trainees.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD conducted a training class for its Field Training Officers in April 2011, in which it trained three new FTOs and recertified another. The Department has not conducted a certification or recertification class since April 2011. DPD currently has 118 FTOs assigned throughout the Department.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 125 of 193 Pg ID 9228

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 124

April 6, 2013

As we noted during previous on-site review, 33 probationary officers graduated on April 13, 2012, and entered the FTO Program. Ten of these probationary officers have successfully completed the FTO Program and moved to full status as police officers. Twenty-three officers remain in the FTO Program. No other probationary officers have entered the FTO Program. Since the DPD has 118 FTOs, additional FTOs are not needed at this time.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 106 Coordination and review of training 107 DPD will meet state training standards 108 Maintain individual training records 109 Train from approved objectives and plans 110 Quarterly meetings with Law Department 111 Distribute and training on the agreement 112 Annual use of force training required 113 Develop firearms training protocol 114 Annual arrest, citizen interaction training 115 Annual training on custodial detention 116 Prohibition of arraignment delays 117 Material witness custody 118 Supervisory training-report evaluation 119 Supervisory training-leadership 120 Supervisory training-risk management 121 Investigator training-procedures 122 Supervisory training-external complaints 123 Enhance the FTO program

Phase 1 - Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 126 of 193 Pg ID 9229

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 125

April 6, 2013

SECTION THREE:
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT
This Consent Judgment sets forth procedural and operational requirements relating to the confinement facilities maintained and operated by the Detroit Police Department. The Judgment requires the revision and implementation of policies and practices that are safe, respectful, and constitutional in the areas of fire safety, emergency preparedness, medical and mental health, prisoner safety, environmental health and safety, persons with disabilities, food service, and personal hygiene. In addition, the Judgment sets forth requirements relating to the use of force in detention facilities, as well as procedures for the investigation of the use of force and complaints relating to other events occurring in these facilities. The Judgment also establishes requirements for management and supervision, the auditing of internal practices, and the training of personnel who are assigned detention responsibilities.
During our first site visit in November 2009, we reviewed required directives, supporting logs, forms, and documentation relating to the operation of the detention facilities. Accompanied by key members of the DPD Office of Civil Rights personnel, we conducted our first tour of the Detroit Police Department’s five facilities with holding cells and the Detroit Receiving Hospital.38 We have repeated our tours and inspections of some or all of these facilities during each of our subsequent site visits, and have interacted with command and key detention staff at each facility.
In addition, we have met with key CRIB command staff, Audit Team personnel, and the designated health care professional to conduct a thorough review of all requirements, DPD directives, forms, logs, and documentation relating to and required by this Judgment. Our review disclosed the need for the DPD to revise various health-related directives and to have them reviewed and approved by a health care professional. This was accomplished. In addition, we met with DPD Training staff regarding training issues, which were promptly addressed.
During our visits to and inspections of the various facilities with holding cells, we are always accompanied by CRIB staff, and assisted by the cell block supervisors and compliance officers. These inspections included our entering and examining every holding cell, interviewing detention staff, and reviewing forms and logs. When we find errors, omissions or violations during the inspections we advise facility and CRIB staff immediately of our observations.
We have worked with DPD holding facilities staff to streamline reporting mechanisms and to offer alternatives to ensure that requirements are met and are consistent with policy.
During our July 2012 site visit, CRIB (OCR) advised us that in the near future the duties of the cell block supervisor (CBS) and the desk supervisor would be merged into one position for efficiencies of operation. That proposal was not implemented, and the responsibilities of the

38 Facilities with holding cells are located in the Northeastern, Eastern, and Southwestern Districts; Sixth and Twelfth Precincts.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 127 of 193 Pg ID 9230

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 126

April 6, 2013

CBS were clearly defined in the revised Department Rank Structure Policy, giving that position sole authority over the operations of the holding cell areas.
Since the implementation of the virtual precinct concept earlier in 2012, citizens can report many more crimes by telephone rather than requiring that officers either respond to the scene or citizens travel to a District or Precinct. The virtual precinct reduced the number of police reports that the desk supervisor previously had to review thus freeing the position up for other responsibilities. We will monitor this change during our next report period.
Prior to forwarding documents requested for our quarterly reviews, CRIB personnel routinely review the documents before they are forwarded to us. During this review, CRIB typically identifies errors and/or omissions and forward corrective action notices to the various commands. Written responses are required. If appropriate supervisory review occurred and errors/omissions were initially identified and corrected at the District/Precinct level, that action would have a positive bearing on compliance.
The Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment is comprised of several different categories relating to the confinement facilities maintained and operated by DPD.

III. FIRE SAFETY POLICIES
CJ Requirement C14
The DPD shall ensure that all holding cells, and buildings that contain them, achieve and maintain compliance with the Life Safety Code within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. The City shall ensure that the Detroit Fire Marshal conducts regular and periodic inspections to evaluate whether the conditions in DPD holding cells, and buildings that contain them, are in compliance with the Life Safety Code.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The Fire Marshal Division of the Detroit Fire Department conducted its annual review and approved the Fire Safety Program (FSP) and the Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP) for all DPD buildings containing holding cells on June 7, 2012. The semiannual inspection was completed at all facilities during unannounced visits by the Audit Team during July 2012.
The next Fire Marshal’s inspection is due in May 2013.
Accordingly, DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 128 of 193 Pg ID 9231

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 127

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement C15
The DPD shall develop and implement a comprehensive fire detection, suppression and evacuation program for the holding cells, and buildings that contain them, in accordance with the requirements of the Life Safety Code and in consultation with the Detroit Fire Department.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the second reporting period.
During this reporting period, we reviewed DPD 716, Fire Extinguisher Monthly Inspection/Inventory, and DPD 703, Fire Drill Documentation Forms, for all of the districts/precincts with holding cells; and determined that all facilities are in compliance with these requirements. We also examined a sample of the fire extinguishers at each holding facility, and found them all to be fully charged.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C16
The fire safety program shall be developed in consultation with, and receive written approval by, the Detroit Fire Department. As part of developing the fire safety program, the Detroit Fire Department shall evaluate the need for and, if necessary, the DPD shall install: fire-rated separations, smoke detection systems, smoke control systems, sprinkler systems and/or emergency exits for the holding cells and buildings that contain them. The fire safety program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of the Agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Following the development of the Fire Safety Plan, the DPD made required structural changes to districts/precincts’ holding facilities, including the updating and/or installation of sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, and fire-rated doors. During our inspection of the district/precinct holding cells, we found the presence of all three.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 129 of 193 Pg ID 9232

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 128

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement C17
The DPD shall implement the fire safety program within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the plan.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has developed and implemented the required Fire Safety Plan.
During our most recent site visits to each district/precinct that maintains holding cells, we found documentation of the Fire Marshal’s inspections. The most recent inspections were conducted and documented on June 7, 2012. The next Fire Marshal’s inspection is due in May 2013. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C18
The DPD shall take immediate interim fire safety measures in all buildings that contain holding cells. At a minimum, these interim measures shall:
a. Ensure that the activation of any individual smoke alarm sounds an alarm throughout the building;
b. ensure that prisoners in holding cells have an adequate means of reporting emergency conditions to DPD staff immediately;
c. ensure that automated back-up power systems exist for all buildings containing holding cells that are capable of providing immediate power for emergency lighting, exit signs, fire alarm and smoke detection systems in the event of an electrical power failure through batteries or an emergency generator; and
d. reduce the likely spread of smoke and fire throughout the buildings by means of stairwells, garages, hazardous rooms and exposed pipes, such as ensuring that fire doors in stairwells are closed.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in full Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the first reporting period.
As previously noted, we visited each district/precinct that maintains holding cells, and determined that the DPD has made the required structural, electronic, and mechanical upgrades within the facilities. We also noted that Fire Systems of Michigan and the Fire Marshal conducted and documented inspections of suppression systems on June 7, 2012. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 130 of 193 Pg ID 9233

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 129

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C19
The DPD shall ensure that fire safety equipment is routinely tested, inspected and maintained, including the sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, manual fire extinguishers, emergency lighting and exit signs, and self-contained breathing apparatuses.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the second reporting period.
The Fire Safety Plan places responsibility for ensuring the required testing, inspections, and maintenance of the various systems, fire extinguishers, emergency lighting and signs, and equipment with the DPD Office of Facilities Management. During the previous reporting period, we found that the sprinkler system at one precinct was out of order from September 19, to October 20 due to two broken sprinkler heads. The inability to deliver water in the event of a fire for a period of one month is unacceptable and places the Department’s compliance rating in jeopardy. During this reporting period, we found all sprinkler systems in working condition. Additionally, we reviewed DPD 715 - Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells forms. There was no indication that sprinkler systems were out of order during the CRIB monthly inspections.
Fire Systems of Michigan and the Fire Marshal conduct the required inspections, which were last conducted in June 2012.
Because sprinkler heads are often broken by detainees in the holding cells – requiring the shutdown of the water delivery system – the DPD added language to the CEPP/FSP, under the auspices of the Fire Marshal, requiring that the detention staff perform visual fire inspections as an alternative when the fire detection system is disabled or not functioning.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C20
The DPD shall enforce immediately its no-smoking policy in the holding cells or provide ashtrays and ensure that all holding cell areas are constructed and supplied with fire-rated materials.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 131 of 193 Pg ID 9234

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 130

April 6, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the first reporting period. During our most recent inspection, we did not observe any persons smoking in unauthorized areas. Also, during our review of all of the monthly inspections on DPD 715, Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells, we found no documentation that any smoking had been observed in the facilities.
DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C21 The DPD shall insure immediately that all flammable and combustible liquids in holding cell areas and the attached and nearby DPD buildings are stored properly.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Our inspection of the holding facilities found that each district/precinct was equipped with at least one yellow storage cabinet, located in the garage area, for flammable and combustible liquids. We checked the cabinets, and found flammable materials and gas storage containers. DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C22
The DPD shall remove immediately all highly-combustible kane fiber ceiling tiles from buildings that contain holding cells.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in continued compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph since 2005 when it closed some of the facilities where kane fiber ceiling tiles were in place, and it removed the tiles from the remaining facilities.
DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 132 of 193 Pg ID 9235

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 131

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 14 Holding Cell Life Safety Code compliance 15 Fire detection, suppression, and evacuation 16 Fire Department consultation/evaluation 17 Implementation of fire safety program 18 Immediate interim fire safety measures 19 Routine testing of fire safety equipment 20 Enforce no smoking in holding cells 21 Proper storage of flammable liquids 22 Remove combustible cane fiber tiles

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

IV. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES CJ Requirement C23 The DPD shall ensure a reasonable level of safety and security of all staff and prisoners in the event of a fire or other emergency. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. As noted previously, Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of C24-25; DPD is in compliance with C25. Accordingly, we find this paragraph in compliance. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C24
The DPD shall develop a comprehensive emergency preparedness program that is approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department. This program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the programs within three months of DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department at least

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 133 of 193 Pg ID 9236

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 132

April 6, 2013

every year, or prior to any revisions to the plan. At a minimum, the emergency preparedness program shall:
a. include an emergency response plan for each building that contains holding cells identifying staff responsibilities in the event of fire-related emergencies and other emergencies, including notification responsibilities, evacuation procedures and key control procedures (discussed below); and
b. require performance and documentation of fire drills for all buildings containing holding cells on all shifts every six months (documentation shall include the start and stop times of each drill, the staff members who participated in the drill, a summary of the drill, and an evaluation of the success of the drill).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CEPP identifies staff responsibilities in the event of a fire emergency to include notifications, evacuation, and key control procedures. (See C15.)
The DPD achieved full compliance in the second and subsequent reporting periods as it increased the frequency of fire drills to the 100% level required by policy. During this reporting period, we determined that the fire drills were again conducted according to policy at the 100% level.
Following our recommendations that the detention evacuation equipment be stored in the immediate vicinity of the holding cells so that it is readily accessible to officers, we found, during the last reporting period, that the shackles were fully accounted for and placed individually in crates, or hanging from hooks. During our most recent inspection, we found that the shackles were easily accessible. We determined that the detention officers had sufficient handcuffs and/or shackles for use in the event of an evacuation, and that all of the detention officers that we interviewed were aware of DPD policy to retain the assigned holding cell keys on their persons.
The DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C25
The DPD shall develop and implement key control policies and procedures that will ensure that all staff is able to manually unlock all holding cell doors in the event of a fire or other emergency.
At a minimum, the key control policies and procedures shall:
a. provide for emergency identification of keys by touch;

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 134 of 193 Pg ID 9237

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 133

April 6, 2013

b. and require routine inventory, testing and maintenance of keys and locks.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our first site visit, we recommended that each officer working in a cell block be issued a complete set of keys. Following this recommendation, we were informed that two extra sets of keys were distributed to each district/precinct with holding cells, bringing the total at each to five – three in the cell block, one with the sergeant assigned to the public lobby, and one in the emergency key box in the lieutenants’ and sergeants’ office.
During our two previous inspections, we found that each district/precinct had, at the minimum, five sets of keys – three in the cell block, one with the sergeant assigned to the public lobby, and one in the emergency key box in the lieutenants’ and sergeants’ office. Teletype 11-0989, Holding Cell Facility Keys – Required Documentation, regarding inventory and assignment of keys by the cellblock supervisor, had been distributed. This policy directed the cellblock supervisor to conduct an inventory of the keys at the commencement and the conclusion of his/her tour of duty and document same in the MAS Desk Blotter.
During a previous site visit, we found that CRIB had distributed Department Teletype 11-01395, which thoroughly explained the procedure for documenting the inventory and security of keys. When interviewed, the detention supervisors and officers appeared to have an understanding of their responsibility for key control.
During our most recent site visit, we determined that the supervisors and officers that we interviewed appeared to understand the process for inventory and control of the keys. The MAS Desk Blotter indicated that key inventories were entered in a timely manner. Earlier this year while reviewing a random sample of key control inventories, we found that a set of keys had been taken home by one of the detention officers. This was discovered and properly documented, and the officer returned the keys to the district within the hour.
DPD is now in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

23 Ensure reasonable safety in emergency

In Compliance

24

Develop

comprehensive

preparedness program

emergency In Compliance

25 Implementation of key control policies

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 135 of 193 Pg ID 9238

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 134

April 6, 2013

V. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES
CJ Requirement C26
The DPD shall ensure the appropriate identification of, and response to, prisoner’s medical and/or mental health conditions.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During all previous reporting periods, we found DPD not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
During previous reporting periods, we reviewed all DPD’s Audit Team’s report of its findings of the Holding Cells and are in agreement with their findings as they have been similar to ours. The most recent audit of the holding cells was released on July 31, 2012 and the deficiencies noted, for the most part have been addressed. DPD issued its B-Weekly Compliance Report on December 28, 2012 and its Quarterly Status Report on December 29, 2012; we note that the Department’s internal inspections of C26 and C32g show that it is in compliance with both paragraphs. We are in agreement with DPD’s assessment, as we have similar findings for the current reporting period. We have observed steady improvement during the past year to address the deficiencies described in our reports.
Our inspections and review of the quarterly detainee file folders demonstrated progress in most areas; however, previous documentation of detainee medical information and release of medication continued to be problematic. DPD revised the Detainee Intake Form (DIS) with implementation on September 20, 2012. The document was approved by the Department’s consulting physician on August 31, 2012. The new form is completed (via hand) by the processing officer during intake screening, streamlined, and has resolved the most pressing issues with documentation from the previous form. New guidelines for the completion of the revised DIS were issued to assist processing officers conducting screening of detainees. As a result of the implementation of the revised Detainee Intake Form, it was disabled from Livescan.
Medical referrals and the thoroughness of medication logs have also sustained improvement during this and the five previous reporting periods, and the documentation of the exchange of health information between shifts remains compliant. In previous reviews, holding cell personnel did not adequately list the medical needs of the detainees on the Platoon Daily Detail Summary (PDDSL); and the shift preparing or receiving the log failed to place the date or the time on the form. DPD has rectified this problem, and those forms are now complete, with the exception of completing the new medications portion of the form that was recently added. While four of the facilities are completing this form correctly, Northeastern District is still experiencing difficulty; its compliance rate for this reporting period dropped from 97% to 33%.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed and inspected a random sample of 229 detainee file folders and observed personnel. We found that most DPD personnel are properly implementing these procedures in accordance with the DPD directives. However, with the small sample size in some instances, one employee can thwart compliance. We continue to note a few clerical errors and incomplete or missing documentation of medical information and medication logs.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 136 of 193 Pg ID 9239

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 135

April 6, 2013

In order to assess compliance with this paragraph, we reviewed those issues that had a direct impact on identification and response to a detainee’s medical or mental health conditions. We found 16 instances where the detainee processing time did not meet the requirement (six with no explanation for the delay), no release of medication was indicated, no transfer of medical/mental health information transferred to the Detainee Information Form, medication not being disbursed timely, not classifying the detainees correctly, failing to provide the discharge instructions or the conveying officer not indicating his name on the appropriate form of the conveyance back to the holding facility from DRH.
The three critical issues for DPD to address at this time for maintaining compliance with the Medical and Mental Health Care Policies (C26-33) are: sanitary conditions of the holding facilities; the capture of the medical/mental health information initially obtained by the arresting officers being transferred to the Detainee Information Form; and ensuring that remaining medications at the time of detainee release are either given to them or transferred with them to another facility. At this point, DPD needs to fill out the required forms completely to be in compliance with this paragraph. Compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon compliance with C27-C33.
DPD is now in compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C27
The DPD shall develop a comprehensive medical and mental health screening program (CMMHSP) that shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals. This program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the program within three months of DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least every year and prior to any revisions to the programs. At a minimum, the comprehensive medical and mental health screening program shall include prisoner screening procedures and medical protocols.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD Health Authority completed the annual review and approved the CMMHSP policies and directives. The DPD provided us with documentation indicating that the CMMHSP was approved on February 17, 2012, and the mental health portion was approved on February 29, 2012. DPD revised the Detainee Information Form with implementation on September 20, 2012 with written approval on August 31, 2012 by the Department’s consulting physician.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 137 of 193 Pg ID 9240

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 136

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C28
The prisoner screening procedure, at a minimum, shall:
a. enable the DPD to identify individuals with medical or mental health conditions, including infectious diseases, chronic conditions, including disabilities, ambulatory impairments, mental health conditions, and drug/alcohol withdrawal;
b. identify persons who are at risk of committing suicide, persons who have been on heightened observation for suicide risk at any time during a past incarceration and persons who have any medical contraindications for the use of chemical sprays,
c. require that the DPD follow a standard intake procedure for each individual entering DPD custody;
d. require that intake screening be conducted within two hours of intake and through a verbal exchange between the DPD and prisoners; and
e. incorporate all health information pertaining to a prisoner acquired by the arresting or transporting officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our review of documentation and July 2012 site visit, we found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement for the first time. For this reporting period, we observed few deficiencies. There remain minor clerical errors and occasionally incomplete or incorrect completion of required forms. With few exceptions personnel documented those instances where information was critical to the detainee’s health care.
Occasionally an arrestee is taken directly to DRH from the scene, and the two-hour screening mandate from time of arrest to processing does not meet the requirement. DPD processes detainees for Wayne State University Police, Detroit Public Schools Police, and the Michigan State Police. As we have noted in previous reports, many times DPD is late processing these detainees, due to the other agencies not presenting them to the holding facilities until the two hours from the time of arrest has passed. Any instance in which a detainee is screened more than two hours from the time of the arrest the processing officer should so indicate the reason on the DIF. In each case, staff had transported to DRH detainees needing medical attention within a reasonable time of the request or transported them directly from the scene for those detainees needing immediate attention.
There were 229 detainee file folders we reviewed that included 24 instances where the intake screening took more than two hours; however, in seven of these cases, the arrestee was transported to DRH or another hospital directly from the scene. In six cases, the processing

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 138 of 193 Pg ID 9241

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 137

April 6, 2013

officer indicated a backup of detainees to be processed as the cause for the delay; in two cases, the arrest was made by Michigan State Police or Wayne State University Police; and in six cases, the processing was late and the reason for the delay was not documented. Occasionally there are operational issues at the facilities where screening may be delayed, due to safety of the detainee and employees or several detainees are brought into the facility at the same time.
Many of these issues would be resolved if personnel would complete all the information the forms require and the OIC approving the form investigate those in violation of the two-hour requirement at the conclusion of the detainee processing and address those issues immediately. Compliance for processing detainees within the two-hour requirement remains at 97%.
The Medical/Mental High Risk Logs (DPD 661) for this reporting period revealed that high-risk detainees were observed by staff and were compliant. We reviewed DPD 661 Forms for detainees who were maintained on suicide watches and all of them properly specified “constant supervision.” The forms met the requirements for constant supervision as required by DPD policy. We reviewed the documentation of a detainee in the Eastern District that was confusing and not well documented. It appears that the officers responded to the situation in an appropriate manner but that their complete recording of the events was lacking. While reviewing documentation for C64b (supervisors to review video of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force and external complaints) we reviewed three cases of suicide attempts by detainees. While each individual indicated their attempt was to “get attention,” DPD staff in each instance followed proper procedure.
All facilities met or exceeded the requirement.
In some cases, medical professionals at DRH may recommend placing a detainee on constant watch or remove them from the watch. In these cases, DPD personnel need to indicate these changes in the comment section of the High Risk Log or on the form when they have returned to the holding facility. If there is any question whether a detainee should be monitored every 15 minutes or placed under constant observation; the detainee should be constantly monitored.
During this reporting period, we continued to find some deficiencies including missing or incorrect information on forms and logs or logs not filled out completely. When a detainee’s medical or mental health status changes, detention staff should update the documents accordingly and indicate the date and time of the new information. Note: With the revised DIF, detainee’s medical information has been disabled from the Livescan system. Overall, we found that DPD had a 94% compliance rate with this paragraph due to the compliance of C28e (C28a, b, and c had previously been in compliance). There were 68 instances where the Detainee Input Sheet indicated that the arresting or transporting officer listed a mental or medical issue with the detainee. In 67 cases, the processing officers in the facilities transferred this information to the Detainee Information Form. DPD’s compliance rate for this reporting period is 99%, an increase from the previous reporting period.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 139 of 193 Pg ID 9242

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 138

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement C29
The medical protocols, at a minimum, shall:
a. identify the specific actions the DPD shall take in response to the medical information acquired during prisoner screening or detention, including the need for emergency care, hospitalization, prescription medication and/or intensive monitoring; and
b. require prior supervisory review and written approval, absent exigent circumstances, of all decisions made in response to acquired medical information.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD was not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph in previous reporting periods.
During this reporting period, we reviewed a sample of 229 detainee file folders, and inspected each of the districts/precincts that maintain holding cells and the Detroit Receiving Hospital. We continue to find that staff did not follow policy in a few key areas, including:
 Sixty-three referrals of detainees in need of medical or mental health care to DRH or another local hospital and all were within policy, with the following exceptions: the officer transporting the detainee back to the holding facility from hospital failing to sign the Medical Referral Form as the conveying officer. In two cases, the Referral Form was not provided; and in the third case, the supervisor did not indicate approval of the treatment.
 Six cases in which intake screenings were not conducted within the two-hour timeframe and where no operational delay was indicated.
 Detainees not receiving medications prescribed by the Detroit Receiving Hospital in a timely manner. Forty-nine detainees had medications disbursed; and in two instances, the dosages were not administered according to schedule. DPD administered several hundred dosages to detainees during our review of the samples provided for this reporting period.
 Sixty-eight instances where detainee medical information was listed by the arresting officer on the Detainee Input Sheet; and in one case, the processing officer did not transfer that information to the Detainee Information Form.
 Sixty-three detainees who were sent to the Detroit Receiving Hospital for treatment or medication; in all but two, discharge instructions were included in the detainee file folders.
 Written prior supervisory approval was issued for all decisions made in response to acquired medical information, with one exception.
 The required Hospital Prisoner Form was included in all but one of the detainees who were sent to DRH.
 Of 229 classifications of detainees into the holding facilities after screening, 227 were correctly classified.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 140 of 193 Pg ID 9243

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 139

April 6, 2013

Overall, we found that 98% were in compliance with this paragraph – a slight increase from the 97% we found during the last reporting period. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C30
The DPD shall develop and implement policy regarding infectious disease control (IDC) in consultation with medical health professionals. The policy shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical health professionals at least every year after implementation and prior to any revisions to the policy. At a minimum, the policy shall:
a. establish appropriate housing for prisoners believed to have infectious diseases; and
b. mandate measures the DPD shall take to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, including proper handling and disposal of bio-hazardous material.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our previous site visits, our inspections of the Detroit Receiving Hospital and the five DPD facilities that maintain holding cells disclosed satisfactory levels of sanitation in similar degrees at all of the sites with a trend toward improvement. During our most recent site visit, we found all facilities to be in compliance.
During our most recent inspection, we found that the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) kits were in order and included an adequate supply of the required contents. Our inspection of the first aid kits found that the contents were satisfactory, as we have observed improvement by the detention staff in this area. We continue to recommend that detention staff open the first aid kits on a regular basis to verify that the contents have not expired.
An effective infectious disease control plan must account for the sanitation and maintenance of all plumbing and equipment; physical plant cleanliness; and documentation that a plan to maintain the physical plant is being implemented in the holding cell areas and holding cells. The DPD Infectious Disease Policy 403.0, Section 403.2-6.3, Statements 1-6, Department Equipment, vehicle or facility, affirms the importance of building maintenance and cleaning and decontamination of the facility. Administrative Message (Teletype 12-1124), released on December 14, 2012, stressed the importance of holding cell cleaning and sanitation.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 141 of 193 Pg ID 9244

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 140

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement C31
The DPD shall develop and implement a protocol for updating and exchanging prisoner health information. At a minimum, this protocol shall;
a. require that prisoner’s health information is recorded at intake and thereafter immediately readily available to all relevant medical and transporting personnel in a manner consistent with the relevant federal and state confidentiality statutes;
b. require that prisoner health information is continually updated to incorporate any additional relevant information acquired during his or her detention;
c. require that relevant prisoner health information is documented and communicated between consecutive shifts, such as whether a prisoner is taking medication or has a medical condition; and
d. require that prisoner health information travel with prisoners who transferred to another facility.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During previous reporting periods, our reviews of DPD form 661, Detainee Medical/Mental Health Monitoring and form 659a, Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Form; indicated that required detainee health information – such as whether a detainee is taking medication or has a medical condition – was not always being documented and communicated between consecutive shifts. Issues remain with staff properly documenting medications on the new reporting form.
As noted above our reviews of these documents is important to ensure that the detainees’ health needs are met, and for the purposes of staff safety. This information must be documented, updated, and communicated between the initial shift receiving the detainee and the subsequent shifts until the detainee is released. It is critical for the oncoming shift to indicate the date and time they receive the Platoon Daily Detainee Summary and to acknowledge its accuracy to assure the continuity of health monitoring for detainees requiring it.
We reviewed DPD log 659a, Platoon Daily Detainee Summary, in the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, and found fewer errors than in our previous reports; however, the logs from the Northeastern District were not provided for October and December, resulting in a 33% compliance rate for that facility. Of the errors we found, the most prevalent is the failure of DPD personnel to mark the “Prescribed Meds” column, the “Medicine Cabinet” checkbox on the form, and the “Detainee Alert” column. It should be noted that form DPD 659a was amended during the ninth reporting period to indicate for each detainee whether medications are prescribed. It is apparent from our observations that staff is not, in some cases, completing this section of the form and supervisory personnel are not catching the omissions. Detainee medications are captured on the Medication Disbursement Log (DPD 664). DPD’s is appropriately capturing information and listing the medical/mental needs of the detainee on the form. The Second Precinct (formerly Southwestern District), Northeastern District, and the Sixth Precinct’s logs were again complete for the two previous reporting periods. The overall compliance rate (C31c) for all holding cell facilities is 84% due to the Northeastern District’s

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 142 of 193 Pg ID 9245

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 141

April 6, 2013

failure to provide the required documentation, a decrease from the 94% registered during the previous reporting period. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C32
The DPD shall develop a prescription medication policy in consultation with qualified medical and mental health professionals that ensures prisoners are provided prescription medication as directed. The policy shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals and shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the policy within three months of the DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the policy shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least annually and prior to any revisions to the program. At a minimum, the policy shall:
a. indicate when the DPD shall convey prisoners taking prescription medication to the DRH or other treating hospital for evaluation;
b. require the DPD distribute to prisoners only medications that have been prescribed at the DRH or other treating hospitals;
c. require that the DPD distribute medications as prescribed and not rely on inmates to identify their need for medication;
d. require that all prisoner medications be stored in a secure location near the holding cells and travel with prisoners that are transferred;
e. require the DPD to record relevant information regarding the administration of prescription medication on an auditable form;
f. require that injected medications are administered as prescribed and in a safe and hygienic manner; and
g. require that unused mediations prescribed at the DRH or other treating hospitals are provided to prisoners upon their release.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During all of the previous reporting periods, at the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, we found Medication Logs missing critical detainee and staff information. In prior reviews detainee dosages, dosing times, signatures, the names of the persons administering the medications, and prescription release information did not always appear on the logs. Those

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 143 of 193 Pg ID 9246

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 142

April 6, 2013

issues had previously been addressed with the exception of C32g, prescription release information.
During the current reporting period, in our review of 229 detainee file folders, we found few instances where the DPD failed to record essential detainee and staff information. We noted, for example, that the medication logs on detainees who had been released showed that one detainee was not given his unused medications, although just above where the detention officer signs the form is a box that should be checked indicating the release.
There were 49 cases where medications were disbursed to detainees. In one instance, it was unknown if the remaining medication was released to the detainee or transferred with them to another facility due to personnel not indicating the status on the form. We examined the Platoon Daily Detainee Summary logs, which are used to ensure that detainee health information is exchanged and communicated between shifts. During a previous reporting period, DPD included a section on the PDDSL to indicate if detainees on a monitoring status were taking medications. This serves as an immediate alert for the CBS at the beginning of the shift that informs him/her if any detainees are on medication.
During our most recent site visit, we checked all active detainee file folders in all facilities for those detainees who were on medication or on a monitoring status. Each of the medication disbursement logs were reviewed and matched with the medication contained in the medication storage cabinet. We found that the prescribed medication for each detainee was properly stored. We did not find any medication left in the cabinet from detainees who had already been released as we had found in previous inspections. Our inspection of medication cabinets and medications for detainees at the districts/precincts maintaining holding cells revealed that all was satisfactory in the location of the cabinets and storage of medications.
Based on the noted improvements in our twelfth quarterly report, we found DPD in pending Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. DPD has addressed the previous failures with the requirements of C32g, and has achieved compliance with this paragraph for the past two reporting periods. The Department must continue to focus on the concerns related to the documentation of medication disbursements; C32a through 32f are in compliance. The compliance rate for C32g is 98%, compared to the 96% we found in the last reporting period. All five subsets of this paragraph exceed the >94% requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 144 of 193 Pg ID 9247

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 143

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement C33
The DPD shall provide appropriate clothing, such as paper gowns or suicide smocks, to all prisoners placed under suicide precautions.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During previous reporting periods, we found that detention personnel were generally familiar with where the appropriate clothing items, paper gowns and/or suicide smocks, were stored. Our inspections revealed ample inventory of appropriate clothing.
During our most recent inspections in all five districts and precincts with holding cells, we found sufficient inventory of paper gowns and/or suicide smocks. The staff we interviewed was knowledgeable regarding the use of the clothing and where the appropriate clothing was stored.
We find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C34 The DPD shall remove or make inaccessible all suicide hazards in holding cells including exposed pipes, radiators and overhead bars.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During all of our previous site visits, we conducted comprehensive inspections of each of the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, as well as the Detroit Receiving Hospital cells, and did not observe any hazards that could affect detainees or staff. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 26 Prisoners’ medical/mental health conditions 27 Medical/mental health screening program 28 Medical/mental health screening procedures 29 Medical protocols

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 145 of 193 Pg ID 9248

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 144

April 6, 2013

¶ Requirements 30 Infectious disease policy required 31 Prisoner health information protocol required 32 Prescription medication policy required 33 Clothing-suicide prevention 34 Removal of suicide hazards

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VI. PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES CJ Requirement C35 The DPD shall ensure a reasonable level of safety of staff and prisoners through the use of appropriate security administration procedures. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of staff and inmate safety measures required by C36-38; accordingly, the DPD is in compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C36
The DPD shall develop and implement a prisoner security screening program for all buildings containing holding cells. At a minimum, the program shall:
a. establish protocols based upon objective, behavior-based criteria for identifying suspected crime partners, vulnerable, assaultive or special management prisoners who should be housed in observation cells or single-occupancy cells; and
b. require that security screening information is documented and communicated between consecutive shifts.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
DPD Form 659A (Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Log [PDDSL]), revised August 2011, is used to record information on detainees with medical conditions or special needs. During this reporting period, we reviewed Eastern District logs that contained 620 entries. The most common errors noted were failures to mark the “Prescribed Meds” column and failures to mark the appropriate “Detainee Alert” columns. The Eastern District’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 96%, a 2% increase from the last reporting period.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 146 of 193 Pg ID 9249

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 145

April 6, 2013

We reviewed Northeastern District logs containing 563 entries. The Northeastern District’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 98%, a 1% increase from the last reporting period.
We reviewed Sixth Precinct logs containing 278 entries. The Sixth Precinct was closed for cleaning for the reporting week of October 17-22, 2012. Therefore, there were no detainees present during this time. For the months of November and December, the Sixth Precinct’s compliance rate with this paragraph was 97%, a 1% increase from the last reporting period.
We reviewed Twelfth Precinct logs containing 261 entries. Only three errors were identified in these entries. The Twelfth Precinct’s compliance rate with this paragraph for this reporting period is 99%, a 7% improvement over the last reporting period.
We reviewed Second Precinct logs containing 405 entries. The Second Precinct’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 95% for this reporting period, a 4% decrease from the last reporting period.
The average for all districts/precincts during this reporting period is 97% compliance for the 2,127 log entries, an increase of 1%. For the first time, all districts/precincts met or exceeded the required >94% compliance requirement.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C37
The DPD shall develop and implement procedures for the performance, documentation and review of routine cell checks in all holding cells to ensure safe housing. At a minimum, the procedures should:
a. require that cell checks on the general population are performed at least twice per hour and that cell checks of prisoners in observation cells and DRH holding cells are performed every 15 minutes, unless constant supervision is required; and
b. require detention officers to document relevant information regarding the performance of cell checks in an auditable log.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The duties of cell block supervisors (CBS) and detention officers relating to well-being checks are established by DPD policy. Supervisors are required to walk through the holding cell areas four times per shift to check on the well-being of the detainees. Detention officers are required to make similar visual checks every 30 minutes (or every 15 minutes for high-risk detainees). Their observations are documented on the Detention Cell Check Log (DPD 659).

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 147 of 193 Pg ID 9250

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 146

April 6, 2013

At the Detroit Receiving Hospital (DRH), 15-minute well-being checks are entered on the DPD 659 Form when holding cells are occupied. The review of the DPD 659 forms from DRH this reporting period indicated an apparent compliance rate of 100%. Reporting numbers are very low for DRH due to low population counts. During this reporting period, which spans 144 hours of documentation, only two detainees were present in the holding cells for a total period of one hour and 15 minutes.
General population well-being checks are entered on the DPD 659 Form every 30 minutes at the districts/precincts. Detainees held in observation cells are monitored every 15 minutes on DPD Form 661 (Mental Health High Risk Monitoring MHHRM). During the current reporting period, our review of 5,727 entries in the Detention Cell Check Logs (DPD 659) for the general detainee population from the districts with holding cell facilities reflected a 96% compliance rate (rounded percentages). As previously stated, the Sixth Precinct was closed during the October reporting period. However, this precinct only achieved an 80% compliance rate for November and December due to unreadable documentation. The detention officers’ time stamps were unreadable on many of the logs, a problem that exists in varying degrees in other districts. This problem with the time stamp machines has been called to the attention of staff during past visits, yet the problem continues to worsen. During this reporting period, we considered any time checks that were unreadable to be not in compliance. A continued decline in the quality of time stamp records will bring the Department out of compliance in future reporting periods.
For the periods of October 17-22, November 4-9, and December 2-7, 2012, we reviewed logs for 12 detainees who required a 15-minute MMHRM watch, reported on Form DPD 661. No MMHRM logs were submitted from the Second Precinct for this reporting period.
With the exception of the Sixth Precinct, all districts met or exceeded the required >94% compliance standard for cell checks.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C38
The DPD shall record in a written policy and implement a procedure that requires detention officers to provide continual direct or on site remote observation of all observation cells while they are occupied.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Documentation concerns were identified in one log from the Eastern District. One detainee was placed on “mental 15-minute monitoring” on November 5 at 02:00 hours due to a suicide attempt. The detainee was conveyed to DRH at 02:30 hours on the same day, and returned to the holding facility at 03:30 hours. There was no indication of the results of the hospital evaluation. The detainee was placed back on 15-minute monitoring, and remained in that status until the following day, November 6, at 02:00 hours when the DPD 661 indicates the detainee was placed

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 148 of 193 Pg ID 9251

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 147

April 6, 2013

on Suicide Risk, Constant Observation. No explanation was provided for the change in status. At 06:00 hours, the detainee was placed back on mental 15-minute observation with no comments. At 13:30 hours, the log had the following notation: “DFO A.__ observed [the detainee] with a string tied around neck to the cell block door. DFO A.__ remove [sic] string from [the detainee]who never lost consciousness and was alert. No marks from the string were left on neck. PO E.__ and PO J.__ removed clothing from [the detainee] and given gown. Cell was searched and free of contraband.” At 15:00 hours the detainee was transported to DRH for evaluation. At 17:00 the detainee was back to the facility and placed on Suicide Risk, Constant Monitoring. On November 7, the detainee was transported back to DRH at 05:00 hours, where he remained until 07:00 hours. The DMMHML 661 Log for this period indicates two types of monitoring: mental 15-minute and Suicide Risk Constant Observation, both blocks checked. This documentation is fraught with errors that could have resulted in extreme liability to the Department and the possible death of a detainee. This case should be investigated; and corrective action should be taken, as necessary.
With the exception of this issue in the Eastern District, all districts met or exceeded the required >94% compliance standard. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 35 Security procedures to ensure safety 36 Prisoner security screening program 37 Procedures for cell checks required 38 On-site remote observation of cells

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES
CJ Requirement C39
The DPD shall ensure that all holding cells are cleaned immediately and thereafter are maintained in a clean and sanitary manner.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During this reporting period, we evaluated all districts/precincts for general cleanliness and sanitation. The cleanliness levels in most areas were satisfactory. The Second Precinct had been freshly painted prior to our visit. Lighting continues to be an issue in areas where there is no direct light source in the toilet areas. Many of the concrete benches in the Sixth and Twelfth Precincts and the Eastern and Northeastern Districts have corroded or have been damaged over time and are no longer capable of adequate cleaning and disinfection.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 149 of 193 Pg ID 9252

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 148

April 6, 2013

Documentation of holding cell cleaning was improved overall during this reporting period. Additional attention to detail is needed in the Second Precinct, which had an 89% compliance score, and the Eastern District, which had a 76% compliance score. We considered instances of missed documentation to be in compliance, if supervisory oversight and follow-up was reported. The Sixth Precinct, the Twelfth Precinct, and the Northeastern District achieved compliance rates of 100%, 96%, and 96% respectively. Department-wide, the holding cell cleaning compliance documentation averaged 91%, due to the low scores from the Eastern District and the Second Precinct. This score will have to improve to >94% for the Department to be in compliance during the next reporting period.
One note of concern involved an officer’s comment in a cleaning log that he was “mopping floors with hot water due to no facility cleaner.” During the previous tour, an officer indicated that he had to mop the floor with bleach and water because there were no other chemicals available. It is fully expected that adequate cleaning supplies will be maintained in each facility at all times.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C40
The DPD shall design and implement a cleaning policy for all holding cells. The policy shall require routine cleaning and supervisory inspection of the holding cells and nearby areas.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
DPD Directive 305.4 (effective July 6, 2012) is the relevant document for this section; this document is reviewed on an annual basis. Additional documents have been issued to command staff for guidance purposes to ensure consistency in cleaning methods and procedures. The Holding Cell Compliance Committee (HCCC) has issued detailed cell block cleaning instructions that cover procedures, schedules, and documentation.
The Department continues to have to use whatever chemicals the City provides it to accomplish cleaning and disinfection tasks. The lack of standardization of chemicals used in the facilities prevents officers from being trained in the appropriate application and chemical contact times necessary for adequate disinfection. Since the most recent inspection, we were advised that the Department is pursuing the use of automated chemical dispensers in all of the holding facilities. This is a step in the right direction, but it is only one part of the equation. The Department must pursue a standardized procurement system for chemicals used in the various holding facilities and these chemicals must be available in each facility at all times. Staff must also be trained in the proper use of these chemicals. Most chemical suppliers will provide this training at no cost to the facility.
This requirement addresses the design and implementation of a cleaning policy for all holding cells. It also requires the routine cleaning and supervisory oversight of cleaning of the cells and

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 150 of 193 Pg ID 9253

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 149

April 6, 2013

nearby areas. The policy is in place and is adequate. The application of this policy has improved since our last site visit, but improvements in the chemical aspects of the cleaning operations are still needed.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C41
The DPD shall design and implement a maintenance policy for all holding cells that requires timely performance of routine maintenance and the documentation of all maintenance requests and responses in an auditable log.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The Platoon 1 Cell Block Supervisor is responsible for conducting a weekly maintenance inspection and for documenting discrepancies in the Facilities Maintenance Log (DPD 702). The Platoon 1 Cell Block Supervisor is required to submit repair orders via e-mail to the Facilities Maintenance Department.
Based on the Holding Cell Facility Logs (DPD 702), OCR prepares a monthly spreadsheet listing all current outstanding repairs and their status. Items on this spreadsheet are reviewed monthly by the HCCC. During this reporting period, HCCC meeting agendas were reviewed and confirmed that current facility repairs were being discussed.
During our evaluation of this reporting period’s Facility Maintenance Logs, we reviewed all logs from each of the five districts/precincts that maintain holding facilities and matched those repair requests to the master tracking log maintained by OCR. This section of the Consent Judgment requires “timely performance of routine maintenance.” Compliance with this requirement remains challenging due to the age of the facilities and furnishings and the lack of availability of replacement parts. We continue to find satisfactory response times in addressing repair issues.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 151 of 193 Pg ID 9254

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 150

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement C42
The DPD shall provide adequate heating and ventilation for all buildings containing holding cells.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
No HVAC issues were identified during our most recent site visit. As we toured the holding cells each day, we checked the temperatures in the cell areas, and found the temperatures in each of the holding facilities to be within the limits established by the Department between 66 and
. Measured temperatures in the cell bloc s were in the 6 ° – °F range.
Several ventilation ducts were observed to be heavily clogged with dust and drink cartons that impede the flow of air into the holding cells.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C43
The DPD shall repair all broken or malfunctioning lighting, toilets, sinks and windows in holding cells and observation cells.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our most recent inspection, we continued to find only isolated instances of malfunctioning lights, toilets, and sinks. Repairs are being made promptly when parts are available. The facilities and the equipment are old and outdated. It can be difficult to locate replacement parts for some of the toilet and sink units. When these malfunctions occur in the holding cells, the cells are taken out of service and signage is posted on the front of the cell to prevent usage until repairs are completed. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 152 of 193 Pg ID 9255

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 151

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement C44
The DPD shall ensure that lighting in all cell block areas is maintained at an appropriate level for all tasks related to the housing of DPD detainees, including but not necessarily limited to, security, safety, cleaning and disinfection of housing areas.39
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
As in past visits, during our most recent site visit, lighting levels were determined to be marginally sufficient in the cell areas. In the Eastern District, the toilet areas are particularly dark; these areas were not adequately cleaned at the time of this inspection. This lighting deficiency is also present in some of the cells in the Sixth Precinct. Command staff are looking into ways to improve lighting conditions in the toilet areas where light levels are particularly dim. Consideration is being given to removing part of the wall separating the bench and toilet areas. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph at this time. No further action has occurred regarding this issue since the previous tour.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C45
The DPD shall provide all prisoners with reasonable access to toilets and potable water 24 hours-a-day.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
No issues were identified during our most recent site visit. All prisoners had access to toilets and potable water at all times. Cells with plumbing deficiencies were not being used and signage was posted accordingly. Based on the published directive and our observations of conditions of the physical plant in the district/precinct holding cells, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

39 Amended by Court Order dated April 23, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 153 of 193 Pg ID 9256

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 152

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement C46 The DPD shall ensure that all Hepa-Aire purifiers comply with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Agency standards. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. All Hepa-Aire purifiers have been permanently removed from the district/precinct holding cell areas. DPD is in full compliance with the requirements of this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 39 Clean and maintain holding cells 40 Holding cell cleaning policy required 41 Holding cell maintenance policy required 42 Provide adequate heating and ventilation 43 Repair broken/malfunctioning cell elements 44 Insure sufficient cell lighting 45 Provide reasonable access to toilets and water 46 Hepa-Aire purifiers comply with standards

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VIII. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
CJ Requirement C47
The DPD shall ensure that persons with disabilities are provided with reasonable accommodations.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
No issues were identified during our most recent site visit. The Northeast District (NED) is the designated ADA-compliant holding facility; all detainees with disabilities requiring special accommodations are housed in this facility. A wheelchair is available at NED for detainee use as needed. During our most recent site visit, we found that detention staff in the districts/precincts continue to demonstrate competency in the use of Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD). In addition, the TDD equipment was working properly in all sites. DPD detention staff are now required, per policy, to conduct tests on a monthly basis to ensure the equipment is

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 154 of 193 Pg ID 9257

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 153

April 6, 2013

working properly. In each holding facility, detention staff were able to demonstrate the use of the equipment. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C48
The DPD shall develop and implement a policy concerning the detention of individuals with disabilities in consultation with qualified medical and mental health professionals. The policy shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least every year and prior to any revisions to the program.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The provisions of this requirement are covered in DPD 305.1, Detainee Intake, and DPD 305.5, Detainee Health Care. An annual review of these policies was conducted on February 17, 2012, and approved by qualified medical and mental health professionals.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 47 Reasonable accommodation for disabled 48 Detention of persons with disabilities

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

IX. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES CJ Requirement C49 The DPD shall ensure food is stored and served in a sanitary manner and in compliance with state and local health codes. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 155 of 193 Pg ID 9258

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 154

April 6, 2013

Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of C50; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. See C50. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C50
The DPD shall develop and implement a food service policy that shall be approved in writing by a qualified sanitarian. At a minimum, the food service policy shall:
a. require that the meal plan is initially approved in writing by a qualified dietician and, hereafter, is reviewed and approved in writing by a qualified dietician at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the program;
b. require that all food is stored and handled in a sanitary manner;
c. ensure that all prisoners are provided with an alternative meal if they are unable to eat the standard meal for religious or dietary reasons; and
d. ensure that food service is provided to all prisoners who are held over six hours.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. DPD’s Detainee Food Service and Hygiene Items Policy 305.8, was reviewed and approved by the Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Promotion, dated March 22, 2012.
In June, the Department instituted a new reporting system for documenting the feeding of detainees. Meal service is now documented electronically on the Department’s Desk Blotter, by the Cell Block Supervisor in each holding cell facility.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed Desk Blotter logs for the periods of October 17-22, November 4-9, and December 2-7, 2012. Food service documentation improved slightly during this reporting period. We considered instances of missed documentation to be in compliance if supervisory oversight and corrective actions were reported. However, a review of the districts’ Desk Blotter logs for meal service documentation revealed compliance rates ranging from 100% in the Sixth and Twelfth Precincts, 99% in the Northeastern District, 88% in the Second Precinct, and 89% in the Eastern District. The Department’s overall compliance rate was 95% for this reporting period. Improvements must be made in the Second Precinct and Eastern District if the Department is to remain in compliance with this paragraph.
The Detention Refrigeration Log, DPD form 655, is used to capture daily refrigerator temperatures and weekly cleaning and sanitization information on a monthly basis. This revised form was implemented on June 7, 2012, Department-wide. During this reporting period, we found documentation that the refrigerators had been cleaned weekly and refrigerator temperatures were satisfactory. Expiration dates on the food were up to standard. All districts were 100% compliant with the new refrigeration logs.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 156 of 193 Pg ID 9259

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 155

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 49 Ensure sanitary food storage and service 50 Food service policies and practices

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

X. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES
CJ Requirement C51
The DPD shall ensure that personal hygiene items should include; soap, toothbrushes, toothpaste, toilet paper, a comb, deodorant, and feminine hygiene products. The DPD shall implement this provision within one month of effective date of this Agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
In the current reporting period, we inspected each area where the hygiene kits are stored to determine if the kits were readily available, and found that in all five facilities there were an adequate number of hygiene kits to distribute to detainees when needed. Feminine hygiene products were also available in all sites. Our interviews with the PDOs demonstrate an understanding of the importance of providing personal hygiene items to the detainees on a daily basis.
The DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement is 100%. Accordingly, we find the Department in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 51 Make available personal hygiene items

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 157 of 193 Pg ID 9260

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 156

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement C52
The DPD shall require that any use of force on prisoners in holding cells complies with the DPD’s use of force policies and procedures.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the last reporting period, we reviewed eight incidents occurring at detention facilities. Three of the cases were attempted suicides. Seven of the eight cases should have had video reviews, but only four (57%) had details of the reviews utilizing facility and handheld camera recordings.
During this reporting period, we examined 11 SIRs regarding incidents occurring at detention facilities. All of the cases were in compliance with DPD’s use of force policies and procedures. Two of the cases were attempted suicides, one of which required the officers to use force to extract the detainee. Nine of the 11 cases should have included video reviews; nine (100%) included sufficient reviews utilizing facility and handheld camera recordings.40
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C53
The DPD shall revise and augment its policies regarding prisoners to require that:
a. officers utilize appropriate precautions when interacting with a prisoner who has previously demonstrated he or she is recalcitrant or resistant, including: summoning additional officers; summoning a supervisor; and using appropriate restraints;
b. absent exigent circumstances, officers notify a supervisor before using force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell; and
c. the supervisor assesses the need to use force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell, direct any such use of force and ensure the incident is videotaped.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
All districts/precincts that maintain holding cells are equipped with some level of videotaping/digital recording equipment that is linked to a camera system that monitors hallways
40 Two cases were not applicable; in one, there was no equipment installed in an interview room; and in the second, there was a technical problem that was reported to Tech Support.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 158 of 193 Pg ID 9261

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 157

April 6, 2013

and common areas as well as most, but not all, cells. In addition to the mounted video equipment, the detention districts/precincts have been issued handheld cameras that can be used for planned extractions. Our visits to the various holding facilities found that supervisors were aware of the handheld cameras and had received some training in their use. All supervisors contacted during our most recent site visit were aware of the cameras’ location, and were aware of the need to check the recorders to ensure that the batteries were functional. In the previous reporting period, we found that there were eight SIR investigations of incidents occurring in detention facilities cases; only three of these cases were cell extractions.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 11cases occurring in DPD detention facilities. Four of the cases were detainee injuries in which no force was required or used. Of the seven remaining cases, three of the cases contained information regarding detainees who had previously demonstrated recalcitrant or resistant behavior.41Only one of the cases in which force was used, the attempted suicide at the Second Precinct in October, was an actual cell extraction. The remaining six incidents occurred either in an interview room, the processing area, or as the officers attempted to place a detainee in a cell. In five (71%) of those seven cases, appropriate precautions were taken, to include the summoning of a supervisor and the utilization of additional officers.
Of the seven use of force cases reviewed, only one was a cell extraction, at the Second Precinct in October. The supervisor was not notified and was not present to assess the need to use force on the detainee. The SIR did not document a level of exigency that would have precluded the notification of the cell block supervisor. In reviewing the remaining six cases involving uses of force on detainees, we find that they are primarily uses of force involving detainees refusing to cooperate during processing or detainees being placed in their cells from the processing area. These are incidents that mostly occur spontaneously; and consequently, do not allow for preplanning. There are instances, however, in which the detainee’s behavior during the processing is such that supervisors should be notified; and plans should be made to have sufficient officers present to move the detainee into a cell with the minimum force possible.
Video was available and reviewed in nine of the 11 cases, including one in which the handheld camera was utilized. Of the two cases which did not have video review, one occurred in an interview room, and one occurred in a cell in which the camera was experiencing technical issues which were reported to Tech Support.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

41 There was one case in September and two cases in November.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 159 of 193 Pg ID 9262

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 158

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement C54
The DPD shall not handcuff prisoners to benches for longer periods of time than are necessary.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found the DPD in deferred Phase 2 compliance status during the first reporting period, and in Phase 2 compliance during subsequent reporting periods.
During our visits to detention facilities during the most recent site visit, we did not observe any prisoners handcuffed to benches or fixed objects. Our review of DPD 715 forms (Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells), question 22 (“Were any detainees observed handcuffed to an object?”) and Office of Civil Rights monthly inspections, revealed three instances in which prisoners were handcuffed to fixed objects. In each case, the detainee was making a phone call and remained secured in this fashion for duration of the call. The times were not excessive, the maximum being 10 minutes.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 52 Use of force policies 53 Revise policy re use of force with prisoners 54 Handcuffing of prisoners to benches

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance

XII. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW
CJ Requirement C55
The DPD shall require that all uses of force, injuries to prisoners and in-custody deaths occurring in the DPD holding cells are investigated in compliance with the DPD’s general incident investigation policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found the DPD out of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during all of the previous reporting periods.
During the last reporting period, we reviewed eight incidents involving uses of force in holding cells and three attempted suicides. All eight cases had SIR investigations completed. Eight made the 10-day requirement, and six made the 30-day requirement. Four (50%) of the eight cases included video reviews.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 160 of 193 Pg ID 9263

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 159

April 6, 2013

During this reporting period, we requested 11 cases. Two were attempted suicides, one of which required the use of force to resolve and three were detainee injuries. Nine of the cases made the 10-day requirement (82%), and 10(91%) of the 11 met the 30-day requirement. Of the nine cases that could have included video review, all included acceptable reviews. As with the SIR investigations involving uses of force outside of the detention facilities, we continue to encourage staff to conduct more critical reviews of the investigations. There was only one case in which the handheld camera was utilized. There were no in-custody deaths in the cell block areas.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement C56
The DPD shall require that all uses of force occurring in the DPD holding cells are reported and investigated in compliance with the DPD’s use of force investigation policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the last reporting period, we commented on the video reviews, noting that seven of the eight cases had opportunities for video recording and reviews. Four of the eight cases contained acceptable reviews of the recordings.
During this reporting period, we found that nine of the 11 cases had opportunities for video recordings and reviews.42 Nine (100%) contained acceptable reviews; DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C57 The DPD shall require that all injuries to prisoners occurring in DPD holding cells are reported and investigated in compliance with the DPD’s prisoner injury investigation policies. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
42 One incident had no equipment installed in the area, and the other experienced technical difficulties which were reported to Tech Support.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 161 of 193 Pg ID 9264

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 160

April 6, 2013

During the last reporting period, we reviewed three attempted suicides and one detainee injury.
During this reporting period, we reviewed two attempted suicides and three detainee injuries. One of the attempted suicides required minimal force to remove the detainees from the cell. The attempted suicides and the detainee injury were investigated in conformity with the requirements in C57. The detainees involved in the two attempted suicides were promptly transported to DRH for treatment.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
 The issues that impact the quality of use of force investigations as described in the Use of Force section of the Consent Judgment are applicable to the use of force investigations of incidents occurring in the cell block area. The remedies we have recommended in those areas remain constant for the Conditions of Confinement requirements. Timely and thorough investigations, coupled with critical command level reviews, are the keys to achieving compliance. We have noted improvements in video review and the use of the handheld portable cameras.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
 Continue to review all force, injury, and complaint incidents originating from detention facilities.
 Monitor the supervisory review of video captured in the detention areas, and, where appropriate, monitor the use of handheld cameras in each detention facility.
 Conduct field visits to various detention facilities to verify the Department’s adherence to policy requirements.

¶ Requirements 55 Use of force investigations 56 Use of force investigations 57 Injury to prisoner investigations

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 162 of 193 Pg ID 9265

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 161

April 6, 2013

XIII. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS
CJ Requirement C58
The DPD shall ensure that it accepts and processes all external complaints regarding incidents occurring in holding cells consistent with the DPD’s external complaint policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during all of the previous reporting periods.
During this reporting period, the Department closed three complaints originating from detention facilities – two in October and one in December. All complaints were accepted and processed in accordance with DPD policy. Two contained demeanor and force allegations, and one involved missing property. OCI retained investigation of the cases. While there were issues associated with the investigation of these complaints (see C59), DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C59
The DPD shall ensure that all external complaints it receives regarding incidents occurring in holding cells are investigated and reviewed consistent with the DPD’s policies concerning external complaint investigations and review.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during the first reporting period, but not in compliance during successive reporting periods.
OCI closed three complaints originating from detention facilities during the reporting period. All were completed within 90 days. As mentioned above, two cases involved allegations of excessive force. In one, the force allegedly took place inside the detention facility. That allegation was unfounded based on the evidence from the facility’s video recording system. One case involved a missing cell phone. The written summary of a sergeant’s statement did not coincide with what she actually said in her interview. Also, the investigator inaccurately assumed that the cell phone was transferred to Wayne County with the prisoner and was in the Sheriff’s Department’s possession. He closed the case prematurely without verifying this information.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 163 of 193 Pg ID 9266

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 162

April 6, 2013

In summary, the detention cases exhibited some of the issues delineated in CJ requirements U2733, impacting DPD’s compliance with this requirement. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

Critical Issues:
 The issues that impact the quality of use of force investigations and OCI investigations, as outlined in CJ requirements U27–33 and U61–69 are also evident in the cases reviewed for requirements C58–59. As these issues are addressed Department-wide, we hope to see a positive impact on the subset of cases originating from detention facilities.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
 Continue to review all force, injury, and complaint incidents originating from detention facilities.
 Check, in applicable cases, for the appropriate use of handheld cameras, now that they are deployed in all detention facilities.
 Conduct field visits to various detention facilities to verify members’ knowledge of and the Department’s adherence to policy requirements.

¶ Requirements 58 Receipt of external complaints 59 Investigation of external complaints

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance Not in Compliance

XIV. GENERAL POLICIES CJ Requirement C60 In developing, revising, and augmenting the policies discussed in this Agreement, the DPD shall ensure that all terms are clearly defined. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 164 of 193 Pg ID 9267

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 163

April 6, 2013

We found the DPD in Phase 2 compliance in all of the previous reporting periods. That status continues in this reporting period. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C61 The DPD shall continue to make available proposed policy revisions to the community, for review, comment and education. Such policy revisions shall also be published on the DPD’s website to allow comments to be provided directly to the DPD. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. See U71. The DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 60 Clearly define all terms in policies 61 Policy changes available to community

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

XV. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
CJ Requirement C62
The DPD shall routinely evaluate the operation of the holding cells to minimize harm to staff and prisoners.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During this reporting period, CRIB staff inspected all of the facilities with holding cells and the DRH each month and documented their findings on Form 715 Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells. Upon review of the completed forms we found that all forms contained critical findings – e.g., broken toilets and sprinkler heads, and inoperable video cameras. Requests for repairs had been made and were documented on the maintenance log. All 715 forms were complete with all of the required signatures.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 165 of 193 Pg ID 9268

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 164

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C63
The DPD shall operate the holding cells in compliance with DPD’s comprehensive risk management plan including implementation of:
a) the risk management database;
b) the performance evaluation system;
c) the auditing protocol;
d) regular and periodic review of all DPD policies; and
e) regular meetings of the DPD management to share information and evaluate patterns of conduct by DPD that potentially increase the DPD’s liability.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Phase 2 compliance with this requirement is unchanged since the last report. The components of this requirement incorporate compliance requirements detailed in the Use of Force Consent Agreement and are applicable across the Department’s patrol and holding cell personnel. These include U91 with regard to personnel evaluations, U92-U99 which address audit requirements, policy review and monthly risk related reviews and U78-90 which establish requirements for the risk management database. Our findings of compliance with those requirements inform the finding with C63.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C64 The DPD policy on video cameras shall be revised and augmented to require:
a. the installation and continuous operations of video cameras in all prisoner processing areas of the DPD holding cells within one year of the effective date of this Agreement;43
b. supervisors to review videotapes of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force and external complaints;
43 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 166 of 193 Pg ID 9269

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 165

April 6, 2013

c. that the DPD retain and preserve videotapes for at least 90 days, or as long as necessary for incidents to be fully investigated; and
d. that the DPD conduct and document periodic random reviews of prisoners processing area camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes and conduct periodic random surveys of prisoners processing area video recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our previous inspections of holding cells, we observed the operation of video cameras in all processing areas and throughout the holding facilities. We noted that CRIB and/or detention staff conducts monthly random reviews of videos in processing areas as well as specific reviews when a use of force incident occurs.
During our January 2011 site visit, the Parties determined that video cameras were not required outside of the processing areas. During our previous site visits, the video cameras in all of the districts/precincts that maintain holding cells were operational in the processing areas.
During our October 2012 site visit, the Eastern District was unable to pull up archived processing area video and at the Northeastern District personnel advised that the ability to pull up archived video was sporadic. At that time, we reviewed 44 Detainee Processing Area Video Forms (DPD-713, revised 05/12) from all five facilities and found 27 where the facility was able to review archived video. In the remaining 17, the comments on the form ranged from video not working, system would not allow access, no video available to no archived video in the Insight Net system. The majority of the incidents occurred at the Eastern District and the Second Precinct.
For this reporting period, we reviewed 37 Detainee Processing Area Video Forms, and found five instances where video was not available for review. In two of the instances, occurring on October 29, 2012, the technical issues of retrieving the archived video was being addressed by DPD and the City. In three of the reviews on December 4, 2012, the video could not be accessed by the holding facility. We have observed that not all staff in the holding facilities are familiar with the mechanisms of retrieving archived video, and recommend that OCR be notified immediately when a supervisor cannot retrieve those videos.
DPD has purchased handheld video cameras to achieve compliance with C53, subparagraph c, which states: “The DPD shall revise and augment its policies regarding prisoners to require that: c. the supervisor assesses the need to use force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell, direct any such use of force and ensure the incident is videotaped.” Personnel in the five facilities were able to activate the handheld cameras. This equipment should be routinely checked to ensure its operability.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 14 cases, within or at the holding facilities that involved a use of force or a prisoner injury. In one case, there was a preplanned extraction where the handheld video camera should have been utilized but was not. Corrective action was taken in this case. There were three cases occurring in August 2012 where the processing area video was requested for the supervisor’s investigation but it was not available. These three cases occurred

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 167 of 193 Pg ID 9270

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 166

April 6, 2013

prior to this quarterly review and prior to DPD implementing more server capability. In all other cases, the video was operational and reviewed by the supervisor. Commanding officers are taking a more active role in use of force and prisoner injury investigations in the holding facilities by making inquiries about the use of video as an evidentiary and management tool.
We have observed that the ability to pull up archived video at the holding facilities has much improved and we will monitor it closely. Although DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, the Department has addressed the hardware issues and is now working on correcting the minor bugs remaining in the system. If the processing area archived video cannot be accessed during our next site visit (April 2013) and the Detainee Processing Area Video Logs are not complete, DPD will be placed in non-compliance status with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C65
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled semiannual audits, covering all DPD units and commands that investigate uses of force, injuries to prisoners and allegations of misconduct in holding cells, including;
a. reviewing a statistically valid sample of command, IAD, and Homicide Section investigations;
b. evaluating whether the actions of the officer and the subject were captured correctly in the investigative report;
c. evaluating the preservation and analysis of the evidence;
d. examining whether there is consistency in use of force and injured prisoner investigations throughout the DPD;
e. evaluating the appropriateness of the investigator’s conclusions; and f. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.44

44Amended to reflect the below stipulated language contained in the Court order of April 15, 2009:
The audits required by paragraphs 65 to 71 in this Agreement shall be submitted on a semiannual basis with the first and second semiannual periods ending on January 31 and August 31, 2004. Subsequent semiannual periods shall end on January 31, 2005, and every six months thereafter. Each of these audits may be conducted on an annual rather than a semiannual basis when the Monitor concludes that the most recently submitted audit for the same topic is compliant, and the remaining requirements of this paragraph have been met for the prior audit of that topic. The DPD shall issue all audit reports to the Chief of Police and also provide copies to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take nondisciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 168 of 193 Pg ID 9271

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 167

April 6, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its Combined Use of Force and Allegations of Misconduct in Holding Cells Investigations Audit for the audit period ending July 31, 2012. We reviewed the audit for that reporting period; and found that the Audit Team conducted a comprehensive audit regarding uses of force, injuries to prisoners, and allegations of misconduct in holding cells. The respective command staff were notified of the deficiencies and responded to the Command Action Notices with non-disciplinary corrective action and/or training as appropriate. The next semi-annual audit will have been completed by January 31, 2013
Accordingly, we continue to find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C66
The DPD shall create a Holding Cell Compliance Committee that is responsible for assuring compliance with requirements of this Agreement. The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate compliance with fire detection, suppression and evacuation program, including:
a. testing a sample of smoke detectors and sprinklers;
b. testing the back-up power systems;
c. reviewing a sample of fire equipment testing and maintenance records; and
d. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that meets monthly and collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB audit team conducted the semi-annual Fire Safety Practices and Policies Audit that was completed for July 31, 2012. The audit was comprehensive and indicated that deficiencies were discovered relating to fire safety. The Audit Team found broken sprinkler heads at three of the precincts with holding cells, no hydrostat testing and expired tags on several fire extinguishers. The next audit is scheduled to be completed on January 31, 2013.
During this reporting period, we inspected the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, and examined the policies and practices related to Departmental fire safety. Our current findings are documented in C14-22.
Accordingly, we continue to find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 169 of 193 Pg ID 9272

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 168

April 6, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C67
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled audits in all buildings containing holdings cells to evaluate emergency preparedness, including;
a. reviewing a sample of key and fire equipment maintenance and inventory records; interviewing selected detention officers about their participation in fire drills and on their responsibilities under emergency preparedness program and testing their ability to identify keys necessary to unlock all holding cell doors; and
b. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit team completed the Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program audit for the period ending July 31, 2012. We confirmed that the DPD met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The Audit Team conducted tabletop exercises to determine the knowledge and skills of the personnel working in the Detention areas. The percentage of total correct answers was 95%, the same as the last audit period. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for January 31, 2013.
The DPD developed and published a Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP) addressing safety and security, as required. The CEPP includes an emergency response plan for each district/precinct (see C24) and a key control system requirement (see C25).
During our most recent inspection of all districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, we examined the policies and practices related to the Emergency Preparedness Program. Our findings are discussed above in C23-25.
The DPD has conducted and documented fire drills, as required. Accordingly, we continue to find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with these requirements of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 170 of 193 Pg ID 9273

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 169

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement C68
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate the medical/mental health programs and policies, including:
a. reviewing a sampling of hospitals referral forms in comparison to prisoner intake forms to evaluate the accuracy of the intake screening and whether appropriate action was taken;
b. observing intake screening interviews to assess thoroughness;
c. reviewing a sampling of the prescription medication log to ensure that medications were administered as prescribed and that their distribution was accurately recorded; and
d. issuing a written report regarding the finding of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The most recent approval letter for the Comprehensive Medical/Mental Health Screening Program (CMMHSP) was signed by a medical and mental health Professional from the City’s Health Department on February 29, 2012.
The most recent semi-annual audit was completed for July 31, 2012. The audit is comprehensive and addresses the deficiencies by issuing Command Action Notices to the appropriate command staff. Included in the audit are the responses from the commanders, indicating training or issuance of non-disciplinary or disciplinary notices. The Audit Team found deficiencies in C26, C28, C28d, C29, C29a, C31, C31c, C32, C32e, and C32g. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for January 31, 2013.
During this reporting period, we visited the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, and examined the policies and operational practices related to the Medical and Mental Health Program. Our findings are discussed above in C26-34.
We conclude that the DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C69
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate detainee safety programs and policies, including;

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 171 of 193 Pg ID 9274

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 170

April 6, 2013

a. reviewing a sampling of security screening records, including written supervisory approvals, to ensure that prisoners are being properly screened and housed;
b. reviewing a sampling of the cell checks logs to ensure that checks are being accurately and regularly performed and that cell checks logs are receiving supervisory review and written approval; and
c. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its audit results for the Detainee Safety Program on July 31, 2012. We reviewed the current audit independently, and found that many of the deficiencies founded are similar to our findings during our inspections. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for January 31, 2013.
Additionally, we independently reviewed the operational implementation of policies and practices related to the Detainee Safety Program during our visits to all five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells and the DRH. Our findings are discussed in C35-38.
We conclude that the DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of the requirements of this paragraph. Accordingly, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C70
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate the environmental health and safety programs, including:
a. inspecting holding cells and surrounding areas to ensure that they are clean and clear of debris and that the lighting, sinks, and toilets are operable;
b. reviewing a sampling of cleanings and maintenance logs to ensure they are properly maintained and reflected the scheduled performance of the requisite cleaning and maintenance tasks;
c. reviewing the systems in place for assuring that all prisoners have reasonable access to potable water and toilets 24 hours a day;
d. observing whether holding cells are free of any potential suicide hazards; and
e. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 172 of 193 Pg ID 9275

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 171

April 6, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team completed its first combined semi-annual audit of the Environmental Health and Safety Program, Detainee Food Services and Personal Hygiene Policies and issued their findings on January 31, 2012. The audits were combined for efficiency reasons. They cover C70-71 and focus on Paragraphs C34, C39-45, and C49-51. Additionally, CRIB staff conducts monthly audits of the elements of this paragraph and documents the results on DPD Form 715 Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells. We reviewed the current Audit Team Report from July 31, 2012 and found it to be comprehensive. The Audit Team listed three areas of concern. They were: a.) Timely Performance of Routine Maintenance; b.) Documentation in Holding Cell Cleaning Logs; and c.) Documentation in Meal Logs. We continue to conduct inspections separately on operational implementation of policies and practices of the five districts/precincts with holding cells and the DRH. Our findings for the paragraph are discussed above in C39-46. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for January 31, 2013.
DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C71
The Holding cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled semiannual audits of all building containing holding cells to evaluate the food service program, including:
a. reviewing a statistically valid sample of food service documentation to evaluate whether prisoners who are held over six hours receive regular and adequate meals;
b. assuring that food is handled in a sanitary manner; and
c. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its command-specific audit on the DPD food service program and hygiene practices on January 31, 2012. This was the first combined audit that also included Personal Hygiene Policies and Environmental Health and Safety Policies. We found the audit to be comprehensive and meeting the requirements for performance and

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 173 of 193 Pg ID 9276

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 172

April 6, 2013

documentation of requirements of this and the previous paragraph, C70. We reviewed the results of the audit that was conducted for July 31, 2012, and as stated in the previous paragraph, found it to also be comprehensive.
We continue to visit the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells. We examined the implementation of the policies and practices related to the food service program and hygiene practices. Our findings are discussed in C49-50.
The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for January 31, 2013.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C72
The audits required by paragraphs 65 to 71 in this Agreement shall be submitted on a semiannual basis with the first and second semiannual periods ending on January 31 and August 31, 2004. Subsequent semiannual periods shall end on January 31, 2005, and every six months thereafter. Each of these audits may be conducted on an annual rather than a semiannual basis when the Monitor concludes that the most recently submitted audit for the same topic is compliant and the remaining requirements of this paragraph have been met for the prior audit of that topic. The DPD shall issue all audit reports to the Chief of Police and also provide copies to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.45
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CRIB is mandated under this Consent Judgment paragraph to provide written reports for the Chief of Police and specified commanders. In previous reporting periods, we found that the various reports and field responses were unacceptable, in that these reports were specific to the district/precinct and did not receive sufficient attention. The CRIB conducted a review of the audit process, and subsequently changed the audit process to focus on individual commands. These command-specific audits were anticipated to result in clearer command accountability and increased awareness to issues that are identified through the audit process.
For the last reporting period, we received and reviewed the command-specific audits for the period ending July 31, 2012. The audits included are Medical and Mental Health Program and Policies; Combined Environmental Health and Safety; Detainee Food Service and Personal Hygiene Practices; Fire Safety Practices and Policies; Allegations of Misconduct in Holding
45 Amended by Court Order, dated April 15, 2009.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 174 of 193 Pg ID 9277

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 173

April 6, 2013

Cells and Uses of Force in Holding Cells Combined; and Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program. We also reviewed the Corrective Action Notices from the commands that were submitted prior to August 15, 2012. The next set of audits is due to be completed by January 31, 2013. We will report on these audits in our next quarterly report. Although we find the audits to be comprehensive and accurate, we cannot recommend that they be conducted on an annual basis due to the excessive number of repeat deficiencies that continue to be discovered.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 62 Evaluation of holding cell operation 63 Operate cells in compliance with risk plan 64 Augment policy regarding video cameras 65 Quarterly audits required 66 Fire safety audits required 67 Emergency preparedness audits required 68 Medical/mental health program audit 69 Detainee safety audits required 70 Environmental health/safety audits 71 Food service program audits required 72 Audit results to Chief and Commanders

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

CJ Requirement C73
The DPD shall provide comprehensive pre-service and in-service training to all detention officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During past site visits, we have conducted surveys to evaluate the comprehensiveness of training provided to detention officers, and determine the Department’s compliance with its policies requiring that officers who are assigned detention duties have been afforded detention training. DPD steadily improved in this area. In our January 2011 review, we found for the first time that DPD was in compliance with this requirement. The Department continued throughout 2011 and 2012 in compliance; over 95% of the officers who were assigned to detention duties in 2011 had been trained in detention as required.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 175 of 193 Pg ID 9278

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 174

April 6, 2013

During our most recent site visit, we interviewed the Training staff and randomly sampled the Daily Details for Precincts and Districts where detention responsibilities are fulfilled. Our survey involved three randomly selected days (Thursday, October 18; Friday, November 23; and Saturday, December 8, 2012). We found that 101 (96%) of 105 officers and all 65 (100%) of supervisors who fulfilled detention duties during the three days had received detention training during the past year. Overall, 166 (98%) of officers and supervisors had received the required training. The chart below reflects the training.

Number Number % Q1 2013 Assigned Trained Trained

Officers

105

101

96%

Supervisors 65

65

100%

Total

170

166

98%

The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C74
The DPD shall create and maintain individual training records for all detention officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training, completed for all training completed on or after the effective date of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
In July 2011, we found that DPD had completed the entry of all training records since 2003 into the Michigan MITN automated records system. During this reporting period, we again verified the accuracy of the DPD Training records (see U108) and their entry into the MITN system. DPD was able to produce an accurate and current list of officers and supervisors who received in-service training. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 176 of 193 Pg ID 9279

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 175

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement C75
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors of detention officer and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in emergency preparedness. Such training shall include drills and substantive training in the following topics:
a. Emergency response plans and notification responsibilities;
b. Fire drills and use of fire extinguishers and other fire suppression equipment;
c. Key control drills and key control policies and procedures; and
d. Responding to emergency situations, including scenarios detention officers likely will experience.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Since 2011, our reviews determined that over 95% of the officers who were assigned to detention duties had been trained in detention, as required.
During this site visit, we found that 98% of the officers working in detention duties had received the required training. We reviewed the training provided to the members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee and found that all had been provided detention officer training as required.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C76
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in the medical/mental health screening programs and policies. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. prisoner intake procedures and medical and mental health protocols, including protocols for transferring or housing prisoners with infectious diseases, disabilities and/or requiring increased monitoring;
b. recording, updating and transferring prisoner health information and medications
c. the prescription medication policy, including instructions on the storage, recording and administration of medications; and
d. examples of scenarios faced by detention officers illustrating proper intake screening and action in response to information regarding medical and mental health conditions.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 177 of 193 Pg ID 9280

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 176

April 6, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
This requirement addresses training to be afforded to all detention officers, supervisors, and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee. Since we determined that all (100%) members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee and 98% of the officers serving in detention duties received this training, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C77
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in detainee safety programs and policies. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. the security screening program, including protocols for identifying and promptly and properly housing suspected crime partners, vulnerable, assaultive or special management prisoners;
b. protocols for performing, documenting and obtaining supervisory review of holding cell checks;
c. protocols concerning prisoners in observation cells, including protocols for direct and continual supervision, for spotting potential suicide hazards and providing appropriate clothing; and
d. examples of scenarios faced by detention officers illustrating appropriate security screening, segregation and monitoring techniques.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
This requirement addresses training to be afforded to all detention officers, supervisors, and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee. Since we determined that all (100%) members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee and our random review of training files during this reporting period showed that 98% of the officers serving in detention duties received this training, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 178 of 193 Pg ID 9281

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 177

April 6, 2013

CJ Requirement C78
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in environmental health and safety and hygiene. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. cell block cleaning and maintenance protocols; and
b. sanitary food preparation and delivery protocols.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
This requirement addresses training to be afforded to all detention officers, supervisors, and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee. Since we determined that all (100%) members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee and 98% of the officers serving in detention duties received this training, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 73 Pre-service and in-service training 74 Maintain records training 75 Emergency preparedness training 76 Medical/mental health training 77 Detainee safety programs training 78 Environmental, safety, and hygiene training

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 179 of 193 Pg ID 9282

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 178

April 6, 2013

APPENDIX A: Use of Force – Directives/Policies

USE OF FORCE POLICY

14

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

15

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; and Training Directive 04-3,

Use of Force Continuum, effective May 9, 2005.

16

See paragraph #15 above.

17

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

18

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, approved by DOJ April 14, 2005, effective March 19, 2012; and

DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30,

2012.

19

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

20

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective September 27, 2012, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective August 4, 2011 which replaced DPD Directive 304.1, effective November 2010;

and Directive 304.5, Training, effective July 10, 2012, which replaced Directive 304.5, Training,

effective May 13, 2011.

21

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective September 27, 2012, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective August 4, 2011, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1, effective November 2010,

and in Directive 304.5, Training, effective July 10, 2012, which replaced Directive 304.5, Training,

effective May 13, 2011.

22

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective September 27, 2012, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective May 2, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and August 4, 2011).

23

See paragraph #22 above. Also, Directive 304.5, Training, effective July 10,2012, which replaced

Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011.

24

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 304.4, PR 24

Collapsible Baton, effective July 1,2008 (revised November 1, 2010); DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; and Training Directive

04-3, Use of Force Continuum, effective May 9, 2005.

25

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 304.3, Chemical Spray

Device, effective July 2, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010); and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

26

See paragraph #25 above.

INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW

27

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct

Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; DPD Directive 102.6 Citizens Complaints, effective July 1,

2008 (revised November 2010) (revised April 13, 2011) (revised December 29 2012); Training

Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009); Office of the

Chief Investigator, Standard Operating Procedure, July 1, 2010; and Internal Affairs Standard

Operating Procedure, January 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 180 of 193 Pg ID 9283

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 179

April 6, 2013

28

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 102.4,

Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; and

29

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 102.4,

Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; DPD Directive 203.3, Notifications,

effective February 22, 2012; Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006

(revised October 24, 2009); Internal Affairs Standard Operating Procedure, (January 2011); and

Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedure (July 1, 2010).

30

See paragraph #29 above.

31

Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, dated February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009).

32

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 102.4,

Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; Training Directive 04-4, Garrity

Protocol, effective February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009); Internal Affairs Standard Operating

Procedure (January 2011); and Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedure (July 1,

2010).

33

See paragraph #32 above.

34

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective May 2, 2005 and revised August 4, 2011 (revised September 27, 2012); and

Training Directive 11-01, Reporting/Documenting The “Acquiring of a Target” effective August 4,

2011, Training Directive 11-01a, Reporting/Documenting The “Acquiring of a Target” Audio/Video

Review of the Incident, effective April 11, 2012

35

See paragraph #34 above and DPD Directive 203.3, Notifications, effective February 22, 2012.

36

See paragraph #34 above.

37

See paragraph #34 above. Also DPD Joint Incident Shooting Team Standard Operating Procedures

and DPD Training Directive 04-07, Use of Force/Detainee Injuries or Allegations of Injuries

Reporting and Investigating, effective November 21, 2005.

38

See paragraph #37 above.

39

DPD Special Order 09-13, Command Level Force Review Team (CLFRT) dated March 2, 2009,

replaced with DPD Special Order 11-02, effective January 1, 2011; and DPD Directive 101.9, Special

Purposes Committees, effective February 22, 2012 (revised September 27, 2012).

40

See paragraph #39 above.

41

See paragraph #39 above.

ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES

42

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 2010 (revised December

6, 2012).

43

See paragraph #42 above.

44

See paragraph #42 above (202.1); 202.2, Search and Seizure, effective May 2, 2005; revised

November 2010; 203.9, Custodial Questioning, effective November 20, 2010; and 404.1, Definitions,

effective November 20, 2010.

45

See paragraph #42 above.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 181 of 193 Pg ID 9284

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 180

April 6, 2013

46

DPD Directive 203.9, Custodial Questioning, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 20, 2010

(revised November 17, 2011).

47

See paragraph #46 above.

48

See paragraph #46 above.

49

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 20, 2010(revised

December 6, 2012).

50

See paragraph #49 above.

51

See paragraph #49 above.

52

DPD Directive 305.2, Detainee Registration, and effective September 12, 2005 (revised July 26,

2012).

53

See paragraph #52 above.

54

See paragraph #52 above.

55

See paragraph #52 above.

56

DPD Directives 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 20, 2010) (revised

December 6, 2012) and 305.2, Detainee Registration, effective September 12, 2005 (revised July 26,

2012). Also Training Directive #04-01, Confinement of Material Witness, effective March 1, 2005.

57

See paragraph #56 above.

58

See paragraph #56 above.

59

See paragraph #56 above.

60

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 20, 2010) (revised

December 6, 2012); and DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised

March 3, 2010).

EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS

61

DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 2010) (revised

December 29, 2012); IAD Standard Operating Procedures, Sections 1 and 3 (January 2011); and OCI

Standard Operating Procedure, effective July 24, 2003 (revised April 29, 2004, and July 1, 2010)

(revised July 6, 2012).

62

Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedures, effective July 24, 2003 (revised April

29, 2004, and July 1, 2010).

63

DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 2010) (revised

April 13, 2011) (revised December 29, 2012).

64

See paragraph #61 above. Also see DPD Directive 102.6 (revised December 29, 2012).

65

See paragraph #63 above.

66

See paragraph #61 above.

67

See paragraph #61 above.

68

See paragraph #65 above.

69

See paragraph #61 above. Also DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations,

effective July 1, 2008; and Training Directive 04-4 Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006

(revised October 24, 2009).

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 182 of 193 Pg ID 9285

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 181

April 6, 2013

GENERAL POLICIES

70

DPD Directives 101.1, Directive System, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) (revised

May 2, 2012) and 404.1, Definitions, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010).

71

DPD Directive 101.1, Directive System, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) (revised

May 2, 2012). The DPD also utilizes a Protocol for Proposed Policy Revisions; an SOP outlining

procedures for posting proposed policies to the website; and a flow chart (Visio-DPD Policy Flow

Chart) that tracks the movements of proposed policy revisions through the Department and public

review.

72

DPD Directive 102.3, Code of Conduct, effective November 1, 2009 (revised November 1, 2010)

(revised July 24, 2012) (revised December 6, 2012).

73

On November 6, 2007, the DPD agreed to a 1:10 ratio of supervisors to officers in patrol and

specialized units.46 Also Directive 101.10, Organization and Management, effective March 30, 2011.

74

DPD Directive 102.3, Code of Conduct, effective November 1, 2009 (revised November 1, 2010)

(revised July 24, 2012) (revised December 6, 2012).

75

See paragraph #74 above. Also DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective May 2. 2005 (revised

November 1, 2010 and August 4, 2011) (revised September 27, 2012).

76

Directives 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised effective March 1 2010)

(revised July 6, 2012) and 305.7, Transportation of Detainees, effective February 29, 2012.

77

DPD Directive 202.7, Foot Pursuits, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) (revised May

26, 2011).

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

78

DPD Directive 401.13, Management Awareness System, effective November 6, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010).

79

See paragraph #78 above.

80

See paragraph #78 above.

81

See paragraph #78 above. Also see the DPD Data Input Plan, approved by the Department of Justice,

June 9, 2011.

82

See paragraph #81 above.

83

See paragraph #78 above.

84

See paragraph #78 above.

85

See paragraph #78 above.

86

See paragraph #81 above.

87

See paragraph #78 above.

88

See paragraph #78 above.

89

See paragraph #78 above.

46Section I, Paragraph of the UOF CJ defines a supervisor as a sworn DPD employee at the rank of sergeant or above and non-sworn employees with oversight responsibility for DPD employees.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 183 of 193 Pg ID 9286

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 182

April 6, 2013

90

See paragraph #81 above.

91

DPD Directive 401.2, Performance Evaluation Ratings, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1,

2010).

92

DPD Audit Protocol, effective September 30, 2011. Annual revision required.

93

See paragraph #92 above.

94

See paragraph #92 above.

95

See paragraph #92 above.

96

See paragraph #92 above.

97

See paragraph #92 above.

98

DPD Directive 303.3, In-Car Video, effective March 8, 2012 (revised September 4, 2012).

99

DPD Directive 304.5 Training, effective May 13, 2011 (revised July 10, 2012).

100

DPD Directive 303.3, In-Car Video, effective March 8, 2012 revised September 4, 2012).

101

See paragraph #100 above. Also, Teletype #11-1468, Roll Call Informational Bulletin, Use of

Department Issued In-Car Video Equipment and Body Microphones.

102

See paragraph #100 above.

103

DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective July 1, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010) (revised May 2, 2012) and the related DPD Discipline Matrix (DPD22a).

104

See paragraph #103 above.

105

See paragraph #103 above.

TRAINING

106

DPD Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011 (revised July 10, 2012).

107

See paragraph #106 above.

108

See paragraph #106 above.

109

See paragraph #106 above.

110

See paragraph #106 above.

111

See paragraph #106 above.

112

See paragraph #106 above.

113

See paragraph #106 above. Also Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective August 4, 2011 (revised

September 27, 2012).

114

See paragraph #106 above.

115

See paragraph #106 above.

116

See paragraph #106 above.

117

See paragraph #106 above.

118

See paragraph #106 above.

119

See paragraph #106 above.

120

See paragraph #106 above.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 184 of 193 Pg ID 9287

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 183

April 6, 2013

121

See paragraph #106 above.

122

See paragraph #106 above.

123

See paragraph #106 above.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 185 of 193 Pg ID 9288

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 184

April 6, 2013

APPENDIX B: Conditions of Confinement – Directives/Policies

FIRE SAFETY POLICIES

14

DPD Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan (CEPP), which includes a Fire Safety Plan (FSP)

requiring compliance with the Life Safety Code and inspections. The FSP was approved by DOJ on

May 23, 2006. The Fire Marshal reviews the FSP annually; the last review was conducted on June 7,

2012. Also, DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective July 6,2012.

15

See paragraph #14 above.

16

See paragraph #14 above.

17

See paragraph #14 above.

18

See paragraph #14 above.

19

See paragraph #14 above.

20

See paragraph #14 above.

21

See paragraph #14 above.

22

See paragraph #14 above.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES

23

DPD Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan (CEPP), effective May 2011 and DPD Directive

305.4, effective April 21, 2011 (revised July 6, 2012).

24

See paragraph #23 above.

25

See paragraph #23 above.

MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES

26

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake Assessment; effective May 2, 2012; 305.5, Detainee Health

Care and; effective February 22, 2012; 403.2, Infectious Disease Control Plan, effective February 29,

2012, reviewed and updated by a qualified health care professional on February 17, 2012 and

February 29, 2012 as required. DPD Directive 305.5 cited above along with forms and logs,

comprises the Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening program (CMMHSP).

27

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

28

See paragraphs #26.

29

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.1).

30

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 403.2).

31

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

32

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

33

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.1)

34

See paragraph #26 above.

PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES

35

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake, effective May 2, 2012; Directive 305.2, Detainee

Registration (revised July 26, 2012); Directive 305.3, Detainee Personal Property, effective May 20,

2010 (revised November 3, 2011); DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective February 1,

2008 (revised July 6, 2012); Directive 305.5, Detainee Health Care, effective February 22,

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 186 of 193 Pg ID 9289

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 185

April 6, 2013

2012;Directive 305.7, Transportation of Detainees; effective February 29, 2012 and Directive 305.8, Detainee Food Service and Hygiene, effective May 2, 2012 (revised July 19,2012).

36

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.1)

37

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.4).

38

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.1 and 305.4).

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES

39

DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective February 1, 2008 (revised July 6, 2012). Annual

review and revision required.

40

See paragraph #39 above.

41

See paragraph #39 above.

42

See paragraph #39 above.

43

See paragraph #39 above.

44

See paragraph #39 above.

45

See paragraph #39 above.

46

See paragraph #39 above.

POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

47

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake and Assessment, effective May 2, 2012 (revised February 29,

2012); and 305.5, Detainee Health Care, effective February 22, 2012, approved and updated by a

qualified medical and mental health professional on February 17, 2012 and February 29, 2012. Also

the Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening Program (CMMHSP).

48

See paragraph #47 above (DPD Directive 305.1).

FOOD SERVICE POLICIES

49

DPD Directive 305.8, Detainee Food Service, effective May 2, 2012 (revised July 19, 2012).

50

See paragraph #49 above.

PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES

51

See paragraph #49 above.

USE OF FORCE AND RESTRAINTS POLICIES

52

DPD Directives 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 1, 2010) (revised

July 6, 2012) and 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

53

See paragraph #52 above.

54

See paragraph #52 above.

INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW

55

DPD Directives 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and 305.4, Holding Cell Areas,

effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 1, 2010) (revised July 6, 2012) and DPD Directive 201.11, Use

of Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

56

See paragraph 55 above. Also DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012 and

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 187 of 193 Pg ID 9290

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 186

April 6, 2013

DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

57

See paragraph #55 above.

EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS

58

See paragraph #55 above. Also see DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008

(revised November 2010) (revised April 13, 2011) (revised December 6, 2012).

59

See paragraph #58 above.

GENERAL POLICIES

60

DPD Directive 404.1, Definitions, effective November 2010.

61

DPD Directive 101.1, Written Directive System, effective November 2010 (revised May 2, 2012).

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

62

DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised April 21, 2011) (revised

July 6, 2012).

63

DPD Directive 401.13, Management Awareness System, effective November 6, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010); DPD Directive 401.2, Performance Evaluation Ratings, effective July 1, 2008

(revised November 1, 2010); and DPD Audit Protocol, effective September 30, 2011.

64

See paragraph #62 above.

65

DPD Audit Protocol meeting generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS), effective

August 31, 2008 (revised October 31, 2010 and September 11, 2011).

66

See paragraph #65 above.

67

See paragraph #65 above.

68

See paragraph #65 above.

69

See paragraph #65 above.

70

See paragraph #65 above.

71

See paragraph #65 above.

72

See paragraph #65 above.

TRAINING

73

Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011(revised July 10, 2012).

74

See paragraph #73 above.

75

See paragraph #73 above.

76

See paragraph #73 above.

77

See paragraph #73 above.

78

See paragraph #73 above.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 188 of 193 Pg ID 9291

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 187

April 6, 2013

APPENDIX C: Acronyms
The following is a listing of acronyms frequently used in our quarterly reports.

ACRONYM AT BOPC CAM CBS CCR CDDT CEPP CFD CI City CJ CLBR CLFRT CLO CLI CME CMMHSP CO COC CJ CRIB DCCL DDHWP DDMHIL DFD DFF DFO/PDO DDHWP

DEFINITION Audit Team Board of Police Commissioners Command Accountability Meeting Cell Block Supervisor Citizen Complaint Report Curriculum Design and Development Team Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program Critical Firearm Discharge Chief Investigator City of Detroit Consent Judgment Command Level Board of Review Command Level Force Review Team Compliance Liaison Officer Command Level Investigation Confidential Medical Envelope Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening Program Commanding Officer Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment Civil Rights Integrity Bureau Detention Cell Check Log Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Program Daily Detainee Meal and Hygiene Items Log Detroit Fire Department Detainee File Folders Detention Facility Officer Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Promotion

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 189 of 193 Pg ID 9292

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 188

April 6, 2013

DIF DOJ DPD DRH EPP ERP FI FIS FSP FSPP FY GAS HCCC IA IAD IMAS ITS JIST MAS MCOLES MITN OCI OCR OIC PDDSL PDO PEERS PFC PI PSA RFP

Detainee Intake Form Department of Justice Detroit Police Department Detroit Receiving Hospital Emergency Preparedness Program Emergency Response Plan Force Investigations (interchangeable with FIS) Force Investigation Section Fire Safety Program Fire Safety Practices and Policies Fiscal Year Government Auditing Standards Holding Cell Compliance Committee Internal Affairs Internal Affairs Division Interim Management Awareness System Information Technology Services Joint Incident Shooting Team Management Awareness System Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards MCCOLES Information and Tracking System Office of the Chief Investigator Office of Civil Rights Officer in Charge Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Log Police Detention Officer Performance Evaluation and Enhancement Review Session Policy Focus Committee Performance Indicator Public Service Announcement Request for Proposals

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 190 of 193 Pg ID 9293

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 189

April 6, 2013

RMB SIR SME SMT SOP TA UOF CJ UOF USAO WCPO WCJ

Risk Management Bureau Supervisor’s Investigation Report Subject Matter Expert Senior Management Team Standard Operating Procedure(s) Technical Assistance Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention Consent Judgment Use(s) of Force United States Attorney’s Office Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office Wayne County Jail

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 191 of 193 Pg ID 9294

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 190

April 6, 2013

APPENDIX D: Monitoring Team
Robert S. Warshaw, Monitor Chief (Ret.) Charles D. Reynolds, Deputy Monitor

Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) J. Rick Brown
Evaluates compliance with U16-17 and U19, General Use of Force Policy; U22, Use of Firearms Policy; U24, Intermediate Force Device Policy; U25-26, Chemical Spray Policy; U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34-36, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; and U37-41, Review of Critical Firearm Discharges and In-Custody Deaths.

Division Chief (Ret.) Rachel M. Burgess
Evaluates compliance with U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; U61-63, External Complaints; U64-66, Intake and Tracking; and U67-69, External Complaint Investigations; C14-22, Fire Safety Policies; C23-25, Emergency Preparedness Policies; C60-61, General Policies; and C65-72, Management and Supervision.

Commander (Ret.) John M. Girvin
Evaluates compliance with U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U61-63, External Complaints; U64-66, Intake and Tracking; U67-69, External Complaint Investigations; and C5859, External Complaints.

Chief (Ret.) Eduardo Gonzalez
Evaluates compliance with U14-19, General Use of Force Policy; U22, Use of Firearms Policy; U24, Intermediate Force Device Policy; U25-26, Chemical Spray Policy; U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34-36, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; and U70-72 and U74-77, General Policies.

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 192 of 193 Pg ID 9295

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 191

April 6, 2013

John M. Klofas, Ph.D.
Evaluates compliance with U78-90, Risk Management Database; U91, Performance Evaluation System; U92-97, Oversight; and U103-105, Discipline.

Leonard F. Rice, M.E.S., R.S.
Evaluates compliance with C35-38, Prisoner Safety Policies; C39-46, Environmental Health and Safety Policies; C47-48, Policies Concerning Persons with Disabilities; C49-50, Food Service Policies; and C51, Personal Hygiene Policies.

Chief (Ret.) Billy R. Riggs
Evaluates compliance with U42-43, Arrest Policies; U44-45, Investigatory Stop Policies; U4648, Witness Identification and Questioning Policies; U49-51, Prompt Judicial Review Policies; U52-53, Hold Policies; U54-55, Restriction Policies; U56-57, Material Witness Policies; U58, Documentation of Custodial Detention; U59-60, Command Notification; C26-34, Medical and Mental Health Care Policies; and C64, Management and Supervision Policies.

Asst. Director (Ret.) Joseph R. Wolfinger
Evaluates compliance with U20-21 and U23, Use of Firearms Policy; U73, Pre-Service and InService Training for all Detention Officers; U98-99, Oversight; U100-102, Use of Video Cameras; U106-111, Oversight and Development; U112, Use of Force Training; U113, Firearms Training; U114, Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training; U115-117, Custodial Detention Training; U118-120, Supervisory Training; U121-122, Investigator Training; U123, Field Training; C73, Pre-Service and In-Service Detention Training; C74, Retention of Detention Officer Training Records; C75, Detention Officer Emergency Preparedness Training; C76, Detention Officer Medical/Mental Health Training; C77, Detainee Safety Programs and Policies; and Environmental Health and Safety and Hygiene Training.

Robin Busch-Wheaton Editor

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 641-1 Filed 04/08/13 Pg 193 of 193 Pg ID 9296

FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 192

April 6, 2013

APPENDIX E: Detroit Police Department Management Dashboard Data
The table below presents data on measures relevant to the requirements set forth in the Consent Judgments. The data were compiled by the Detroit Police Department, and are displayed for presentation by the Monitoring Team. These data are presented here with the consent of the Police Department and serve simply as a means to provide information relevant to issues raised in the Consent Judgments.

 2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 627 Filed 11/16/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 8892

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case number 03-72258

Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN and the DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

ORDER

This case involves two Consent Judgments, both of which were filed on July 18, 2003, by

the Plaintiff, the United States of Am erica through its Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and the

Defendants, the City ofDetroit, Michigan, and its Police Department (collectively referred to as the

“City”). These Consent Judgm ents arose in res ponse to accusations by the DOJ that the City,

through its Police Department (“DPD”), had engaged in a pattern or practice of (1) using unlawful

levels of force in its arrests and detentions,and (2) providing unconstitutional or otherwise unlawufl

living conditions to prisoners who had been confined in its holding cells.

Over nine years later, the City has made meaningful progress in its efforts to comply with

the two Consent Judgments. However, the Monitor’smost recent Quarterly Report clearly indicates

that the City - after the expira tion of nearly a decade - is in com pliance with only 86% of the

Consent Judgments’ requirements. As a result, theCourt continues to be extremely frustrated when

it realizes that the City remains out of compliance with 24 of the requirements. It should be noted

that these 24 outstanding requirements are not mere technicalities. Each ofthem is vital, in that each

1

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 627 Filed 11/16/12 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 8893
goes to the very heart of the City’s obligation to ensure that its practices and policies are constitutional and enforceable. Furthermore, the Court is extremely disappointed with the failure or the inability of the City to comply with its own self-imposed time frame that it had established for coming into compliance. Although the City recently advised the Court that it woul d reach full compliance with the Consent Judgments not later than July 18, 2012, it is evident that this date has now come and gone. Against this backdrop, the Cour t now finds it necessary t o insert additional procedural measures that, hopef ully, will be su fficient to assist the City into achieving f ull compliance expeditiously.
First, the Chief of the DPD is directed to submit a biweekly repor t to the Monito r (with copies to the Court and the DOJ) which will outline- with reasonable specificity - the actions that have been taken by his Departm ent during this reporting period to fully satisfy its rem aining obligations under the Consent Judgments. These biweekly reports should include any internal audits, changes to procedure, or such other action thamt ay have a reasonable impact upon the City’s efforts to comply with the Consent Judgements. The first report will be due on Friday, December 14, 2012.
Second, the City is directed to designatehtose individuals by name, rank, and governmental position who will be personally responsible for ensuring compliance within the following areas: (1) the use, docum entation, investigation, and review of the use of force; (2) arrest and detention policies and practices; (3) external complaints; (4) management and supervision; (5) training and videos; and (6) conditions of confinement. This designation must be filed under seal with the Court on or before noon on Friday, December 14, 2012.
Third, effective immediately, the Chief shall regularly consult with the Monitor on all major decisions that may have some impact upon the ab ility of the City to co mply with the Consent
2

2:03-cv-72258-JAC Doc # 627 Filed 11/16/12 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 8894

Judgements, including but not limited to (1) changes to policies, special orders, the manual of rules or standard operating procedures, and (2) procur ement of equipment, including software, that is intended for compliance with the Consent Judgments.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: November 16, 2012

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. U.S. District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served uponcounsel of record via the Court's ECF Systemto their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on November 16, 2012.
s/ Kay Doaks Case Manager

3

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case No. 03-72258

Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN and the DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

ORDER

Ten years ago, on July 18, 2003, the City of Detroit (“City”) consented to the entry of two

Consent Judgments with the Department of Justice(“DOJ”) in response to allegations that its Police

Department (“DPD”) had engaged in a pattern or practice of (1) using unlawful levels of force in

achieving arrests and detentions, and (2) provi ding unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful living

conditions to those prisoners who were confined in the DPD’s holding cells.

In the Monitor’s most recent Quarterly Report,he concluded that the City was in compliance

with ninety three percent (93%) of the require ments within the Consent Judgm ents. The Court

recognizes the achievement of the City in reachingthis level of compliance, and, in particular, notes

that it has reached total compliance with the Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment.

However, the City rem ains out of com pliance with twelve per cent ( 12%) of those

requirements within the Use of Force Consent Judgment. As previously noted by this Court, the out

of compliance paragraphs are some of the most critical requirements within the Consent Judgments.

In order to assist the City in reaching full co mpliance with these requi rements, the Monitor is

directed to increase the frequency of its visits to Detroit, as discussed with the Parties at their last

status conference on October 17, 2013. Further, and inaddition to the regularly scheduled quarterly visits to Detroit, the Monitor and his teamare directed to return to this community at such additional times, as may be necessary to expedite their m ission. These increased visitations to Detroi t shall include (1) the identification of specific reasons for the inability or refusal of the City to achieve uf ll compliance with the balance of the Use of Focre Consent Judgment; (2) identifying the reasons why these requirements have fallen out of compliance, as identified in the previous quarterly assessment; (3) establishing a c omprehensive plan for addr essing those issues that have im peded full compliance; (4) working closely with the Civil Righst Integrity Bureau to enhance the effectiveness of the City’s internal auditing process; (5) providing m ore i mmediate feedback on identified problems; and (6) assessing the necessary training needs and operational issues.
Upon the conclusion of each of the m onthly site visits, the Monitor shall confer with the Court regarding the City’s progress on each of the specific initiatives identified above. The Court may, in light of the Monitor’s findings, considerltaernative approaches to the frequency and breadth of future oversight that may become necessary to balance the warranted independence of the DPD and the need for lasting compliance with the Use of Force Consent Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: December 19, 2013

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. U.S. District Judge

Page 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was servedupon counsel of record via the Court's ECFSystem to their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on December 19, 2013.
s/ Kay Doaks Case Manager
Page 3

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case No. 03-72258

Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN and the DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

ORDER

On July 18, 2003, the City of Detroit (“City”) c onsented to the entry of two Consent

Judgments with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in response to allegations by numerous citizens

that its Police Departm ent (“DPD”) had engaged in a continuous pat tern or practice of (1) using

unlawful levels of force in achieving arrests and detentions, and (2) providing unconstitutional or

otherwise unlawful living conditions to those personswho were confined in the DPD’s holding cells.

Currently before the Court is the City’s motion to suspend monitoring of compliant provisions of

the Use of Force Judgment.

I.

Inasmuch as there have been several recentchanges relating to the Monitor’s assessment of

the DPD’s compliance efforts, a short review of these changes is appropriate. For the vast majority

of the life of these two Consent Judgm ents, the Monitor conducted a quarterly assessm ent of the

DPD’s compliance with each of the Consent Judgm ents’ requirements, regardless of whether the

requirements had been previously considered inor out of compliance. Recently, however, the Court

agreed to reduce the total number of in-compliance paragraphs that are audited each quarter. The

end result is that approximately 37 paragraphs - selected at random by the Monitor - are not subject to review. This procedural change has been implemented for two reasons: First, it provides the DPD with a greater level of independence, and second,it allows the Court to assess the DPD’s ability to sustain compliance while not dir ectly under the m icroscope of the Monitor. T he purpose of this procedure - which is to inspire confidence in the DPD’s ability to operate independently over the long t erm - i mplicates the very core of the Consent Judgm ents and is, accordingly, of great importance to the Court. To date, this process has been in place for less than 6 months.
Turning to the “Conditions of Confinement” Consent Judgment, the City has recently taken steps to close all of its holding cells and to tranesrf the detainees therein to the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) at its Mound Road facilyit. As a result, the Monitor concluded in his omst recent Quarterly Report that the City had reached full com pliance with the requirem ents of the “Conditions of Confinement” Consent Judgment. The parties are now in the process of closing out this aspect of their respective obligations under this Consent Judgment.
Finally, the Court again expressed its frustration during its most recent status conference with the City’s continued failure to achieve full compliance with the “Use of Force” Consent Judgment and directed the Monitor to increase the frequency of his visits to the City in order to assist it in reaching full compliance. See Order, December 19, 2013, ECF No. 671.
As a result of these recent changes, the M onitor has now focused his attention on the requirements of the “Use of Force” ConsentJudgment. Although the monitoring of non-compliant paragraphs has been intensified, the monitoring of the compliant paragraphs has been lessened.
II.
2

In its motion, the City requests the Court to suspend its monitoring of the 86 paragraphs of the “Use of Force” Consent Judgment that have been in compliance for two or more consecutive years. The plain term s of the Consent Judgm ent, however, do not contem plate this suggested piecemeal approach to compliance. Indeed, the parties agreed that “the [a]greement shall terminate . . . if the DPD and the City have substantially com plied with each of the provisi ons of t his Agreement and have m aintained substantial com pliance f or at least two years.” Use of Force Consent Judgment, ECF No. 22 at ¶148 (emphasis added). In fact, the City acknowledges that “the Consent Judgment [contemplates] termination of the entire Judgment upon two years of sustained compliance with all paragraphs . . . .” Def’s. Mot. 3, ECF No. 672. Finding no support for relief within the document that has governed this case for over 10 years, the City opts to frame its request as a modification of the Consent Judgment based upon the notion that “adequate safeguards . . . are now in place to ensure that the Citywill maintain its compliance . . . . ”Id. As discussed more fully below, the City has f ailed to suf ficiently set fort h any factual or legal circum stances that would warrant the modification of this “Use of Force” Consent Judgment.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a court may modify a consent judgment when it has been satisfied or “applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). “This rule does not allow modification simply when it is no longerconvenient to live with the term s of a consent decree, but solely when there is a significant change e ither i n factual conditions or in the law.”Northridge Church v. Charter Tp. Of Plymout,h647 F.3d 606, 613 (6th Cir. 2011) (internal quotes omitted) (emphasis added) (quoting Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383-84 (1992)). The party seeking themodification “bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.” Rufo, 502 U.S. at 383.
3

Examples of circumstances when modification of a consent decree may be appropriate include one or more of the following; namely, (1) compliance is made substantially more onerous due to changed factual conditions; (2) the decree proves t o be unworkable due to unforeseen obstacles; or (3) enforcement without modification would be detrimental to the public interest. Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 384 (1992). The Court notes that “‘modification of a consent decree is an extraordinary remedy that should not be undertaken lightly.’”Northridge Church, 647 F.3d at 614 (citing East Brooks Books, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 633 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2011)).
Here, the City contends that the DPD “hacshanged significantly since the Consent Judgment began.” Def. Mot. 5, ECF No. 672. The s uggested change by the City is claim ed to be an improvement in the DPD’s level of compliance with the Consent Judgment rather than some change in the factual conditions. In other words, the City’smotion is little more than a reiteration ofits oftrepeated request for the Court to absolve it of its responsibility to follow through with the original agreement. As the Court has repeatedly told the parties, the goal posts will not be changed m idstream simply because the City has not yet satisfied its level of com pliance mandated under the Consent Judgment. Indeed, the City has failed to direct the Court to any authority that would allow the modification of a consent judgment where the only “significant change in circumstances” is the satisfaction of a greater portion of the party’s original obligation. The Court finds this line of argument to be particul arly unpersuasive where, as here, the Consent Judgm ent im plicates the protection of basic civil rights of the citizens within this community.
Even assum ing, arguendo, that the Court was inclined to grant the City’s request, an examination of the broader context surrounding theDPD’s institutional structure indicates that now is not the appropriate tim e to reduce the role of t he Monitor. The purpose of the two-year
4

sustainability period required under the Consent Judgm ent is to ensure that the DPD has institutionalized the reforms such that they have become ingrained in the culture ofthe Department. An im portant com ponent of this process is the crea tion of a strong m echanism for internal investigation and review to r eplace the external oversight of the Monitor. As the City has acknowledged, “[t]he Consent Judgment provisions addressing documentation, investigation and review of use of force incidents have presented a challenge for the Department.” Def’s. Mot. 6. In fact, almost half of these requirements remain out of compliance as of this day.1 Id. Suffice it to say that the City’s admission does not inspire confidence in the Court that the DPD currently has the capacity to proactively discover and remedy the very abuses which prompted the filing of this case over 10 years ago.
Another vital component of institutionalized reform is the preservation of a stable group of executive level personnel to oversee the transition. Here, too, the circumstances do not suggest that now is the time for the Court to reduce the Monitor’s role. The DPD has been in a state of turmoil for much of the period of the Consent Judgment and once again has entered a new stage of transition at every level of its hierarchy. Previous police chifes were appointed by and answered to the elected mayor, who shared oversight of the DPD wi th the Board of Police Com missioners. The current structure has seen the rem oval of t he mayor a nd the Board from any oversight of the DPD and placement of that authority solelywith the Emergency Manager. At the next level, the current police chief - who represents the fifth chief in five yeasr - has been in office less than seven months. Since
1The City now appears to quibble with the Monitor’s method of assessing the level of compliance with these paragraphs. The Court will remind the City that the burden is on it - not the Monitor - to demonstrate that it is in substantial compliance with each of the Consent Judgment’s paragraphs. Use of Force Consent Judgment ¶ 148, ECF No. 22. Until it does so, the Court will consider these paragraphs to remain out of compliance.
5

his appointment on July 1, 2013, he has ove rhauled his entire com mand staff, including m any

officers who overse e various aspects of com pliance with the “Use of Force” Consent Judgm ent.

Recent organizational change has even filtered downbelow the executive level, where, as evidenced

by the DPD’s 2014 Plan of Acti on, the Chief anticipates a si gnificant degree of “strategic

restructuring” in a number of different internal units. All ofthesechanges occurred after the Monitor

issued its most recent Quarterly Report. As a result, the Court has not recevi ed any indication of the

effect of these changes - if any - on the sustainability of the reforms.

The City asserts that the DPD’s gains in itcsompliance with the identified Consent Judgment

are sustainable. The Court certainly hopes so. But without a strong internal review systemor a stable

group of personnel who will overse e t he r eforms, the Court will neither m odify the Consent

Judgment nor reduce the presence of the Monitor - oneof the few constants over the past few years.

For the reasons that have been discussed above, the City’s motion to suspend monitoring of

compliant provisions of the “Use of Force” Consent Judgment (ECF No. 672) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 16, 2014

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. U.S. District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counesl of record via the Court's ECF System totheir respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on January 16, 2014.
s/ Kay Doaks Case Manager

6

 2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 719 Filed 08/04/14 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 10284

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No: 03-72258

vs.

HON. AVERN COHN

CITY OF DETROIT,
_______________D_ef_e_n_da_n_t_. __________/
ORDER

UfED AUG 0 4 20Vt
CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN MICHIGAN

On August 4, 2014, Robert Warshaw, the Federal Monitor who was appointed by

,~~ the Court on October 5, 2009 to oversee the controversial issues in the above-captioned
'"
matter, submitted a "Motion for Payment of Standard Fee" that covered a period from July

1, 2014 through July 31, 2014, pursuant to this Court's order dated June 4, 2013.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is authorized to remit the sum of eighty seven thousand

eight hundred twenty five dollars ($87,825.00) to Police Performance Solutions, L.L.C.,

located at P.O. Box 396, Dover, New Hampshire, 03821.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 4, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record on this date, August 4, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Sakne Chami Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

 2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 731 Filed 08/25/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 10413

~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURt 0 [L [E

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGA

AUG2 5 2014

i

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CLERK'S OFFICE

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

EASTERN MICHIGAN

Plaintiff
v.
CITY OF DETROIT,

Case No. 03-cv-72258 HON. AVERN COHN

Defendant.

ORDER TERMINATING CONSENT JUDGMENT AND ENTERING TRANSITION AGREEMENT

On July 18, 2003, the Court entered a Consent Judgment negotiated by the

Parties to resolve the United States' claims against the City of Detroit regarding

alleged patterns or practices by the Detroit Police Department ("DPD") that

subjected individuals to uses of excessive force, false arrests and illegal detentions.

The Court also appointed an Independent Monitor to evaluate and report on the

City's compliance with the terms of the Consent Judgment as the DPD worked to

implement the required reforms.

On August 8, 2014, the Parties jointly moved to terminate the Consent

Judgment on the grounds that its intent has been substantially satisfied. The

Parties agree that the original concerns about officer-involved shootings and

witness detentions that led to the Consent Judgment have been remedied. The

Parties also have shown that the operations of the DPD have been fundamentally

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 731 Filed 08/25/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 10414
changed under the Consent Decree and the DPD now has in place appropriate training, supervision, and accountability systems to identify and correct problems on its own.
The Parties also reference in support of their motion the Independent Monitor's finding of90% overall compliance with the Consent Judgment while acknowledging that additional work remains to be done. To that end, the Parties have asked the Court to approve a Transition Agreement under which the Department of Justice will maintain oversight of the DPD's ongoing reform efforts without the direct oversight of the Independent Monitor.
Upon consideration by the Court, the Parties' motion is GRANTED. The Consent Judgment, and independent monitoring thereof, are hereby TERMINATED. The Transition Agreement shall be entered as an ORDER of the Court and shall terminate on March 2, 2016.
SO ORDERED.
AVERN COHN United States District Judge
Date Entered: August 25, 2014

 2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 732 Filed 08/25/14 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 10415

o

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

AUG 25 2014
CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN MICHIGAN

Plaintiff
v.
CITY OF DETROIT,

Case No. 03-cv-72258 HON. AVERN L. COHN

Defendant.

STIPULATED TRANSITION AGREEMENT

On July 18,2003, this Court ordered the outstanding Consent Judgmentl in

the above-captioned matter resolving the United States' complaint against the City

of Detroit ("the City") alleging a pattern or practice of unconstitutional or

otherwise unlawful policing by the Detroit Police Department ("DPD") in violation

of 42 U.S.C. § 14141. While the City Defendants denied the allegations in the

complaint, the United States and the City (hereafter the "Parties") entered into the

Consent Judgment as a way to resolve the United States' lawsuit.

Over the last eleven years, the City and the DPD have successfully implemented the majority of the provisions of the Consent Judgment. As of the Independent Monitor's Nineteenth Quarterly Report, the DPD has achieved

1 On January 27, 2014, the Court dismissed the counterpart to this judgment addressing conditions of confinement in DPD's holding cells upon a showing that the custodial responsibility for DPD's pre-arraignment detainees had been fully transferred to the Michigan Department of Corrections, Detroit Detention Center. DPD was in full compliance with that Judgment at the time of its dismissal.
1

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 732 Filed 08/25/14 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 10416
compliance with 99 of 110 (90%) substantive paragraphs. In addition, the DPD has made significant progress toward implementing the remaining eleven paragraphs. Although short of the Monitor's 94% compliance standard, in practice the DPD's accomplishments under these remaining provisions reflect greater progress and a commitment to reform than can be adequately conveyed in a mere finding of compliance or non-compliance. The fact is that, after more than a decade of reform efforts under the Consent Judgment, the DPD's use of force practices have fundamentally improved and are now consistent with constitutional policing standards.
Therefore, the Parties agree that the Consent Judgment should be terminated and replaced with this Transition Agreement between the Parties to facilitate the transition of the DPD from an agency focused on satisfying the requirements of the Consent Judgment to an agency focused on sustaining effective and constitutional police practices outside the framework of strict third-party oversight. During the period of transition, the United States shall remain engaged with the DPD, to ensure that reform efforts continue and are sustained. Subject to this Court's continuing jurisdiction over the Transition Agreement, the DPD shall conduct regular audits of its Consent Judgment related activities.2
2 The Parties agree that in the event a disagreement is not resolved by the PaJties in accordance with Section III.C below, and Court resolution is necessary, the COUlt's standard for resolution shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of the relevant paragraphs or portions thereof as set forth in the Consent Decree.
2

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 732 Filed 08/25/14 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 10417
I. General Provisions A. The Parties agree that the Consent Judgment entered by this Court on
July 18,2003 and subsequently amended should terminate effective immediately. In consideration of the City's performance of its obligations under this Transition Agreement, the United States agrees to refrain from pursuing civil action against the City Defendants under Civil Case No. 03-CV-72258-AC. This Transition Agreement also constitutes a full and complete settlement of any and all claims the United States may have against the City, and their officers, employees or agents, regarding any alleged pattern or practice of conduct by Detroit police officers in carrying out their law enforcement responsibilities, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections 14141, 2000d, 3789d(c) or any other law under which such an action could have been brought by the United States and within the subject matter covered by the July 18,2003, Consent Judgment, based on incidents that have occurred up to and including August 18, 2014.
B. The Parties agree that this Transition Agreement is neither an admission by the City of any violation of the mandates of the original Consent Judgment or any local, state or federal laws, nor an admission by the United States of the merits of any of the City's potential defenses.
3

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 732 Filed 08/25/14 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 10418
C. This Transition Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to Civil Case No. 03-CV-72258-AC, and no other statement, promise or agreement, either written or oral, made by either party or agents of either party, that is not contained in this Transition Agreement, shall be enforceable.
D. Nothing in this Transition Agreement shall limit the City of Detroit, the Board of Police Commissioners, the Office of the Chief Investigator, and DPD from exercising their powers and satisfying their duties set forth in the City Charter and other applicable law, including conducting additional audits, reviews or evaluations beyond those described herein or beyond the term for each of the subject areas contained in this Transition Agreement.
E. This Transition Agreement is enforceable only by the Parties to the original Consent Judgment, the City and the United States. No person or entity is intended to be a third-party beneficiary of the provisions of this Transition Agreement.
F. For purposes of this Agreement, "in consultation with" shall mean that prior to the commencement of each of the audits specified herein, the DPD will meet with representatives from the United States in person or by phone to discuss the DPD's proposed scope and methodology for each such audit. The DPD
4

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 732 Filed 08/25/14 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 10419
shall make reasonable efforts to incorporate the United State's input concerning the audits. Should the Parties fail to agree on the scope and methodologies for an audit, the Parties shall follow the procedures set forth below in Section III.B, Administrative Provisions, to resolve any disagreements. II. Framework for DPD Auditing and Oversight by the United States
A. In consultation with the United States, the DPD shall continue its practice of conducting department-wide audits of Consent Judgment issues pursuant to its Audit Protocol for 2013-14, and documenting their findings and conclusions in a Consolidated Quarterly Audit Report.
B. The audit process shall be overseen by a DPD officer of a rank no lower than Assistant Chief. The DPD shall designate that individual within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Agreement.
C. DPD shall publish and maintain copies of its Consolidated Quarterly Audit Reports on its website.
C. Prior to publication, the DPD shall make available for review by the United States a draft of the Consolidated Quarterly Audit Report, and the underlying audit materials and source documentation. The first Audit will be due on October 31,2014.
5

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 732 Filed 08/25/14 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 10420
D. The United States shall have 45 days to review the Report and provide comments, seek clarification, object in writing, or propose corrective actions based on the Report's contents.
E. Upon expiration of a 45-day period, or receipt of notice that the United States has no objection, the DPD shall finalize the Quarterly Audit Report. Audit Reports shall be published on the DPD's website for two (2) years. However, in the event of an objection, comment, request for clarification, or proposal for corrective action by the United States, the DPD will work with the United States to resolve the issue.
F. In addition to the continuing audit process, the United States shall have the right to site visits as necessary to conduct in-person inspections of the DPD related to any issue related to the subject of the Consent Judgment.
G. The parties share a commitment to improving community confidence in the DPD and to strengthening the police/community relationships necessary to promote public safety, and will engage in further discussions and actions to enhance community involvement and accountability in the City of Detroit.
6

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 732 Filed 08/25/14 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 10421
III. Administrative Provisions A. In the event of any written objection to a Report by the United States,
or if the Parties are unable to cooperatively resolve any disagreements, either Party may seek appropriate relief from the Court.
B. Upon request, the United States shall have complete access to all documents and information relied upon by the DPD to conduct its audits under this Transition Agreement. The time periods for the United States' written objections shall be tolled pending the United States' receipt of all document and information requests.
C. In the event that a Court determines that any provision of this Agreement is unenforceable, such provision will be severed from this Agreement and all other provisions will remain valid and enforceable, provided, however, that if the severance of any such provision materially alters the rights or obligations of the Parties, they will, through reasonable, good faith negotiations, agree upon such other amendments hereto as may be necessary to restore the Parties as closely as possible to the relative rights and obligations initially intended by them hereunder.
D. The court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter for the duration of this Transition Agreement, which absent a showing of cause by the United States, shall
7

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 732 Filed 08/25/14 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 10422
expire upon completion of six audit review cycles. The Parties contemplate termination to occur on or about March 2, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date entered: Augus t 25, 2014

AVERN L. COHN United States District Judge

For The United States:
MOLLY J. MORAN Acting Assistant Attorney General
JEFFREY R. MURRAY Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington, DC 20530
BARBARAL.McQUADE United States Attorney
SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ Assistant U.S. Attorney 211 W. Fort Street, Ste. 2001 Detroit, MI 48226

For the City of Detroit:
MELVIN B. HOLLOWELL CHARLES RAIMI ALLAN CHARLTON Attorneys for Defendant City of Detroit Law Department 2 Woodward Ave., Ste. 500 Detroit, MI 48226
MICHAEL E. DUGGAN Mayor City of Detroit
KEVYND.ORR Emergency Manager City of Detroit
8

 2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 1 of 190 Pg ID 8223
Tenth Quarterly Report
Independent Monitor
Robert S. Warshaw
Office of the Independent Monitor
Police Performance Solutions, LLC
April 18, 2012

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 2 of 190 Pg ID 8224

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Table of Contents
SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................7
SECTION TWO: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT ..............................................................................................12 III. USE OF FORCE POLICY.................................................................................................................................12
A. General Use of Force Policy ...........................................................................................................................14 CJ Requirement U14 ..........................................................................................................................................14 CJ Requirement U15 ..........................................................................................................................................15 CJ Requirement U16 ..........................................................................................................................................16 CJ Requirement U17 ..........................................................................................................................................17 CJ Requirement U18 ..........................................................................................................................................17 CJ Requirement U19 ..........................................................................................................................................18 CJ Requirement U20 ..........................................................................................................................................18 CJ Requirement U21 ..........................................................................................................................................19
B. Use of Firearms Policy ...................................................................................................................................19 CJ Requirement U22 ..........................................................................................................................................19 CJ Requirement U23 ..........................................................................................................................................20
C. Intermediate Force Device Policy...................................................................................................................20 CJ Requirement U24 ..........................................................................................................................................20
D. Chemical Spray Policy ...................................................................................................................................21 CJ Requirement U25 ..........................................................................................................................................21 CJ Requirement U26 ..........................................................................................................................................22
IV. DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW ...........................................................................24 A. General Investigations of Police Action .........................................................................................................24 CJ Requirement U27 ..........................................................................................................................................24 CJ Requirement U28 ..........................................................................................................................................26 CJ Requirement U29 ..........................................................................................................................................29 CJ Requirement U30 ..........................................................................................................................................32 CJ Requirement U31 ..........................................................................................................................................34 CJ Requirement U32 ..........................................................................................................................................35 CJ Requirement U33 ..........................................................................................................................................40 B. Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations ...............................................................................................42 CJ Requirement U34 ..........................................................................................................................................42 CJ Requirement U35 ..........................................................................................................................................42 CJ Requirement U36 ..........................................................................................................................................44 CJ Requirement U37 ..........................................................................................................................................46 CJ Requirement U38 ..........................................................................................................................................46 CJ Requirement U39 ..........................................................................................................................................48 CJ Requirement U40 ..........................................................................................................................................49 CJ Requirement U41 ..........................................................................................................................................49
V. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES .......................................................................53 A. Arrest Policies...................................................................................................................................................53 CJ Requirement U42 ..........................................................................................................................................53 CJ Requirement U43 ..........................................................................................................................................53 B. Investigatory Stop Policies................................................................................................................................54 CJ Requirement U44 ..........................................................................................................................................54 CJ Requirement U45 ..........................................................................................................................................54 C. Witness Identification and Questioning Policies...............................................................................................56
1

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 3 of 190 Pg ID 8225

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement U46 ..........................................................................................................................................56 CJ Requirement U47 ..........................................................................................................................................57 CJ Requirement U48 ..........................................................................................................................................57 D. Prompt Judicial Review Policies.......................................................................................................................59 CJ Requirement U49 ..........................................................................................................................................59 CJ Requirement U50 ..........................................................................................................................................59 CJ Requirement U51 ..........................................................................................................................................59 E. Hold Policies .....................................................................................................................................................60 CJ Requirement U52 ..........................................................................................................................................60 CJ Requirement U53 ..........................................................................................................................................61 F. Restriction Policies .............................................................................................................................................62 CJ Requirement U54 ..........................................................................................................................................62 CJ Requirement U55 ..........................................................................................................................................62 G. Material Witness Policies..................................................................................................................................63 CJ Requirement U56 ..........................................................................................................................................63 CJ Requirement U57 ..........................................................................................................................................63 H. Documentation of Custodial Detention.............................................................................................................63 CJ Requirement U58 ..........................................................................................................................................64 I. Command Notification .......................................................................................................................................64 CJ Requirement U59 ..........................................................................................................................................64 CJ Requirement U60 ..........................................................................................................................................66
VI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS............................................................................................................................68 CJ Requirement U61 ..........................................................................................................................................69 CJ Requirement U62 ..........................................................................................................................................70 CJ Requirement U63 ..........................................................................................................................................71
A. Intake and Tracking ..........................................................................................................................................72 CJ Requirement U64 ..........................................................................................................................................72 CJ Requirement U65 ..........................................................................................................................................72 CJ Requirement U66 ..........................................................................................................................................73
B. External Complaint Investigations ....................................................................................................................73 CJ Requirement U67 ..........................................................................................................................................73 CJ Requirement U68 ..........................................................................................................................................76 CJ Requirement U69 ..........................................................................................................................................76
VII. GENERAL POLICIES ....................................................................................................................................79 CJ Requirement U70 ..........................................................................................................................................79 CJ Requirement U71 ..........................................................................................................................................79 CJ Requirement U72 ..........................................................................................................................................80 CJ Requirement U73 ..........................................................................................................................................80 CJ Requirement U74 ..........................................................................................................................................81 CJ Requirement U75 ..........................................................................................................................................82 CJ Requirement U76 ..........................................................................................................................................82 CJ Requirement U77 ..........................................................................................................................................82
VIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION.......................................................................................................84 A. Risk Management Database ..........................................................................................................................84 CJ Requirement U77 ..........................................................................................................................................84 CJ Requirement U78 ..........................................................................................................................................84 CJ Requirement U79 ..........................................................................................................................................86 CJ Requirement U80 ..........................................................................................................................................86 CJ Requirement U81 ..........................................................................................................................................89 CJ Requirement U82 ..........................................................................................................................................89 CJ Requirement U83 ..........................................................................................................................................90
2

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 4 of 190 Pg ID 8226

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement U84 ..........................................................................................................................................91 CJ Requirement U85 ..........................................................................................................................................92 CJ Requirement U86 ..........................................................................................................................................93 CJ Requirement U87 ..........................................................................................................................................93 CJ Requirement U88 ..........................................................................................................................................94 CJ Requirement U89 ..........................................................................................................................................96 CJ Requirement U90 ..........................................................................................................................................96 B. Performance Evaluation System .......................................................................................................................97 CJ Requirement U91 ..........................................................................................................................................97 C. Oversight ...........................................................................................................................................................97 CJ Requirement U92 ..........................................................................................................................................97 CJ Requirement U93 ..........................................................................................................................................98 CJ Requirement U94 ..........................................................................................................................................98 CJ Requirement U95 ..........................................................................................................................................99 CJ Requirement U96 ..........................................................................................................................................99 CJ Requirement U97 ........................................................................................................................................100 CJ Requirement U99 ........................................................................................................................................101 D. Use of Video Cameras ....................................................................................................................................102 CJ Requirement U100 ......................................................................................................................................102 CJ Requirement U101 ......................................................................................................................................103 CJ Requirement U102 ......................................................................................................................................104 E. Discipline ........................................................................................................................................................105 CJ Requirement U103 ......................................................................................................................................105 CJ Requirement U104 ......................................................................................................................................106 CJ Requirement U105 ......................................................................................................................................107
IX. TRAINING .....................................................................................................................................................109 A. OVERSIGHT AND DEVELOPMENT ...............................................................................................................109
CJ Requirement U106...........................................................................................................................................109 CJ Requirement U107 ......................................................................................................................................111 CJ Requirement U108 ......................................................................................................................................111 CJ Requirement U109 ......................................................................................................................................112 CJ Requirement U110 ......................................................................................................................................112 CJ Requirement U111 ......................................................................................................................................112
B. USE OF FORCE TRAINING...............................................................................................................................113 CJ Requirement U112 ......................................................................................................................................113
C. FIREARMS TRAINING ......................................................................................................................................114 CJ Requirement U113 ......................................................................................................................................114
D. ARREST AND POLICE-CITIZEN INTERACTION TRAINING ..... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. CJ Requirement U114 ......................................................................................................................................115
E. CUSTODIAL DETENTION TRAINING.............................................................................................................116 CJ Requirement U115 ......................................................................................................................................116 CJ Requirement U116 ......................................................................................................................................116 CJ Requirement U117 ......................................................................................................................................117
F. SUPERVISORY TRAINING................................................................................................................................117 CJ Requirement U118 ......................................................................................................................................117 CJ Requirement U119 ......................................................................................................................................118 CJ Requirement U120 ......................................................................................................................................118
G. INVESTIGATOR TRAINING ........................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. CJ Requirement U121 ......................................................................................................................................119 CJ Requirement U122 ........................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
H. FIELD TRAINING............................................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. CJ Requirement U123 ......................................................................................................................................120
3

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 5 of 190 Pg ID 8227

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

SECTION THREE: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT ........................................................................................................................................123 III. FIRE SAFETY POLICIES .........................................................................................................................124
CJ Requirement C14 ........................................................................................................................................124 CJ Requirement C15 ........................................................................................................................................124 CJ Requirement C16 ........................................................................................................................................125 CJ Requirement C17 ........................................................................................................................................125 CJ Requirement C18 ........................................................................................................................................126 CJ Requirement C19 ........................................................................................................................................126 CJ Requirement C20 ........................................................................................................................................127 CJ Requirement C21 ........................................................................................................................................127 CJ Requirement C22 ........................................................................................................................................128
IV. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES..............................................................................................129 CJ Requirement C23 ........................................................................................................................................129 CJ Requirement C24 ........................................................................................................................................129 CJ Requirement C25 ........................................................................................................................................130
V. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES............................................................................131 CJ Requirement C26 ........................................................................................................................................131 CJ Requirement C27 ........................................................................................................................................132 CJ Requirement C28 ........................................................................................................................................132 CJ Requirement C29 ........................................................................................................................................134 CJ Requirement C30 ........................................................................................................................................135 CJ Requirement C31 ........................................................................................................................................136 CJ Requirement C32 ........................................................................................................................................137 CJ Requirement C33 ........................................................................................................................................139 CJ Requirement C34 ........................................................................................................................................139 CJ Requirement C35 ........................................................................................................................................139 CJ Requirement C36 ........................................................................................................................................140 CJ Requirement C37 ........................................................................................................................................142 CJ Requirement C38 ........................................................................................................................................143
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES.......................................................................144 CJ Requirement C39 ........................................................................................................................................144 CJ Requirement C40 ........................................................................................................................................144 CJ Requirement C41 ........................................................................................................................................145 CJ Requirement C42 ........................................................................................................................................146 CJ Requirement C43 ........................................................................................................................................146 CJ Requirement C44 ........................................................................................................................................147 CJ Requirement C45 ........................................................................................................................................147 CJ Requirement C46 ........................................................................................................................................148
VIII. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES...............................................................148 CJ Requirement C47 ........................................................................................................................................148 CJ Requirement C48 ........................................................................................................................................149
IX. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES .........................................................................................................................149 CJ Requirement C49 ........................................................................................................................................149 CJ Requirement C50 ........................................................................................................................................150
X. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES................................................................................................................151 CJ Requirement C51 ........................................................................................................................................151 CJ Requirement C52 ........................................................................................................................................151
4

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 6 of 190 Pg ID 8228

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement C53 ........................................................................................................................................152 CJ Requirement C54 ........................................................................................................................................153
XII. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW ....................................................154 CJ Requirement C55 ........................................................................................................................................154 CJ Requirement C56 ........................................................................................................................................155 CJ Requirement C57 ........................................................................................................................................156
XIII. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS........................................................................................................................157 CJ Requirement C58 ........................................................................................................................................157 CJ Requirement C59 ........................................................................................................................................158
XIV. GENERAL POLICIES ..................................................................................................................................159 CJ Requirement C60 ........................................................................................................................................159 CJ Requirement C61 ........................................................................................................................................159
XV. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION........................................................................................................159 CJ Requirement C62 ........................................................................................................................................159 CJ Requirement C63 ........................................................................................................................................160 CJ Requirement C64 ........................................................................................................................................161 CJ Requirement C65 ........................................................................................................................................162 CJ Requirement C66 ........................................................................................................................................163 CJ Requirement C67 ........................................................................................................................................163 CJ Requirement C68 ........................................................................................................................................164 CJ Requirement C69 ........................................................................................................................................165 CJ Requirement C70 ........................................................................................................................................166 CJ Requirement C71 ........................................................................................................................................166 CJ Requirement C72........................................................................................................................................167 CJ Requirement C73........................................................................................................................................167 CJ Requirement C74........................................................................................................................................168 CJ Requirement C75........................................................................................................................................169 CJ Requirement C76........................................................................................................................................169 CJ Requirement C77........................................................................................................................................170 CJ Requirement C78........................................................................................................................................170
APPENDIX A: USE OF FORCE - DIRECTIVES/POLICIES ..........................................................................172
APPENDIX B: CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT - DIRECTIVES/POLICIES ........................................178
APPENDIX C: ACRONYMS................................................................................................................................183
APPENDIX D: MONITORING TEAM ...............................................................................................................186
APPENDIX E: DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT DASHBOARD DATA ..................187

5

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 7 of 190 Pg ID 8229

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION
On October 5, 2009, the Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr., United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division (the Court), appointed me to serve as the Independent Monitor of the Use of Force and Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgments in the case United States of America v. City of Detroit, Michigan (the City) and the Detroit Police Department (DPD) No. 03-77758, decided in June 2003. With this appointment and assisted by a team of highly respected professionals, I assumed responsibility for monitoring compliance with the requirements of these Judgments the implementation of a compilation of generally accepted professional police and confinement policies, procedures, and related practices.
Our Team conducted its first quarterly site visit in November 2009 and has conducted subsequent site visits each subsequent calendar quarter. We have observed considerable change within the City and the Detroit Police Department during our engagement.
Similar to previous reports, the issuance of this report follows an onsite visit to assess and guide the Department’s ongoing efforts. This report includes our assessment of the Department’s compliance with each of the requirements contained in Judgments. Our findings are based on the results of discussions and meetings with City and DPD staff, observations of operational activities, inspections of facilities, and our review of documents and data covering the period October, through December 2011.
The body of this report is comprised of our assessments of compliance with the individual requirements of the Consent Judgments. We include introductory narratives for each major section of the Use of Force Judgment and one overall narrative for the Conditions of Confinement Judgment. Following these narratives are their respective requirements and our comments regarding the compliance status for each. After these are summary notations of Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance. A statement of “Critical Issues” follows the reviews of the requirements in each major section of the Judgment. A brief statement of “Next Steps” follows, in which we describe a plan of work for the next visit including a discussion of the data we plan to review. Finally, a table summarizes the compliance finding for that particular section of the Judgment.
Our Team determines compliance through an examination of policies and implementation of practices that support each requirement in the Consent Judgments. Phase 1 compliance is dependent upon the development and adoption of a policy or set of procedures that supports each Consent Judgment requirement.1 Phase 2 compliance is dependent on the effective implementation of the practices necessary to meet the requirements, consistent with the applicable policy. Full compliance is dependent on both Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance. Accordingly, we note our finding of “in compliance” or “not in compliance” for each requirement.
Additionally, in the limited circumstances where substantial work and time is required to achieve implementation of a policy or procedure and the related practices, and where ongoing progress is clearly evident, we recognize that progress with the designation “pending compliance.” Where there are circumstances in which we are unable to fully determine the compliance status of a requirement due to a lack of data or other reasons, we identify that status with the designation “deferred.”
6

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 8 of 190 Pg ID 8230

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Verification of compliance with the many parts of the Consent Judgments requires the analysis of multiple instances of activity, reviewing cases, or observations of the practical application of policies and procedures. In those circumstances, our first option is to conduct an analysis-based on a review of all cases or data. Where that is not appropriate or possible, we rely on statistically valid samples of the population. To reach conclusions based on analyses of cases, a minimal standard must be met. To achieve compliance based on these analyses, we have determined that more than 94% of relevant indicators must conform to the provisions articulated in the Judgments.
The independent monitoring of two Consent Judgments is a complex process involving complex issues. The delivery of police services to a community – and the simultaneous retention of the public trust – are perhaps the most fundamental and sacred roles of government. In the course of our responsibilities, we shall endeavor at all times to fulfill our mandate in a manner consistent with these principles.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is our tenth quarterly report of the Independent Monitor in the case of United States of America v. City of Detroit No. 03-72258. The report is for the period of September 1, through December 31, 2011; and is based on our site visit of January 9, through January 13, 2012; and our subsequent analyses of relevant data from this period. Consistent with the practice we established in our first review, we continue to assess all requirements of both active Judgments for compliance. This includes 110 requirements in the Use of Force Judgment, and an additional 65 requirements in the Conditions of Confinement Judgment. In this executive summary, I will review the levels of compliance found for the reporting period.
With regard to Phase 1 (policy) compliance, for the third consecutive quarter we found the City and the Police Department in compliance with all requirements of both Judgments. Following the practice we established during the last reporting period, all references to supporting policies, directives, and other relevant documents are listed in Appendices A (Use of Force) and B (Conditions of Confinement).
As noted above, the Department is again in Phase 1 compliance with all 110 (100%) of the Use of Force requirements. For the current reporting period, we also found the Department in Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance (full compliance) with 92 (84%) of the 110 Use of Force requirements. This is two more requirements than we found in compliance during the last reporting period. Also during this reporting period, one Use of Force requirement is in pending compliance, and one is deferred.
As noted above, the Department is again in Phase 1 compliance with all 65 (100%) of the Conditions of Confinement requirements. This level has been maintained since the fourth reporting period. We found the Department in Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance (full compliance) with 54 (83%) of the 65 requirements. This is four more than we reported in compliance during the last reporting period. The current figures are presented in the table below. Two Conditions of Confinement requirements are in pending compliance, and two are deferred.

7

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 9 of 190 Pg ID 8231

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Tenth Quarterly Report Summary

Use of Force Cond of Conf

Total

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2

Paragraph Numbers Number of Requirements Pending Compliance Not in Compliance Deferred In Compliance

14-123

110 110

0

1

0

16

0

1

110

92

14-78

65

65

0

2

0

7

0

2

65

54

175 175

0

3

0

23

0

3

175 146

Percent in Compliance

100% 84% 100% 83% 100% 83%

In summary, this is the third consecutive report in which we have found DPD in Phase 1 compliance with all (100%) of the 175 monitored requirements. We found the Department to be in full compliance (that is, both Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance) with 146 (83%) of the 175 monitored requirements of the applicable paragraphs of both Consent Judgments, an increase of six from the last reporting period. The Department’s upward trend is continuing. We also found the Department to be in pending Phase 2 compliance with three requirements, or 2% of the total. An additional three compliance assessments are deferred.
As noted in our last report, the requirements that remain outstanding share some common themes. We continue to be concerned with the quality and comprehensiveness of reviews in several areas, including investigations regarding use of force and citizen complaints. These problems are equally relevant in the Department’s detention settings as they are for officers on the street. In the detention settings, we remained concerned with medical and mental health screening, prisoner observation and related practices, and also with levels of facility lighting.
The chart below illustrates the levels of compliance achieved on both Judgments and across all 10 reporting periods.

8

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 10 of 190 Pg ID 8232

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

As the chart above shows, in each of our quarterly reports, including this one, we have reported increases in the total level of full compliance achieve by DPD. For this, our tenth report, we saw an increase of five requirements in Phase 2 compliance.
The chart below provides the summary data illustrating the increases in compliance over the course of the 10 quarterly reporting periods.

Quarterly Report
Report 1 Report 2 Report 3 Report 4 Report 5 Report 6 Report 7 Report 8 Report 9 Report 10

Use of Force Phase 1 Phase 2
81% 24% 94% 41% 96% 49% 98% 62% 97% 61% 99% 68% 99% 75% 100% 79% 100% 82% 100% 84%

Percent in Compliance

Cond of Conf

Total

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2

83% 37%

82% 29%

92% 51%

93% 44%

95% 54%

96% 51%

100% 51%

99% 58%

100% 60%

98% 61%

100% 58%

99% 65%

100% 68%

99% 72%

100% 75% 100% 78%

100% 77% 100% 80%

100% 83% 100% 83%

For over two years, the work of the Monitoring Team has been directed by the 175 requirements that comprise the Use of Force and Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgments. It is against those requirements that the progress of the Department is measured during each reporting period. And it is the sustained satisfaction of those requirements that will mark the completion of our responsibilities.
There are, however, other impacts and effects of the Department’s compliance effort that are significant. Some of those outcomes may not easily be quantified. They include such elements as the increased capacity of front-line supervisors, and the diligence evident in the processes of command level review of important Department functioning. There are certainly broad benefits to the improvements in technology, officer training, and the accountability and intervention processes associated with the Consent Judgments.
There are also some changes that do lend themselves to measurement. The chart below shows the number of uses of force and the number of complaints divided by the number of arrests made by DPD for each month of 2010 and 2011. This method of calculation standardizes the data to control for fluctuations that may result from such elements as seasonal changes in arrests, differences in crime, or the number of active police officers over time.

9

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 11 of 190 Pg ID 8233

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

The black lines in the chart below show the trends in the data by smoothing out minor fluctuations. The trend lines show that the use of force and complaint rates remained somewhat stable, or rose slightly, through 2010 but declined significantly in 2011. The use of force rate for December 2011 is 12.5% below the January 2010 rate. For citizen complaints, the percentage reduction is 41% over the two years. There are no established target levels for these measures in policing, and comparison data for other departments is not generally available. However, these data do suggest that, under the current Monitorship, and after a lag in time in which implementation moved forward, the reforms that have occurred in DPD based on the Consent Judgment have had a significant measureable impact.1

The broad changes in the Department, and the measureable outcomes noted above, all reflect the seriousness and determination with which the Department has moved forward implementing the requirements of the Consent Judgments. The progress in reform is a reflection of the strong leadership of Chief Ralph Godbee and his executive team. A special recognition should go to the Civil Rights Enforcement Bureau (CRIB) under the leadership of Deputy Chief Tolbert and prior to that, Deputy Chief Butler. Along with the energies of Commanders Jeff Romeo and James White and the City’s special counsel Allan Charlton, they have moved this agenda forward, not by seeking simply to record technical compliance with the requirements of the Agreements – but by understanding the substantive meaning behind those requirements and by embracing the opportunities they present for improving the quality of policing in Detroit. The
1 The complaint data for October 2010, as seen in Appendix E, show large differences from the surrounding months. This anomaly was treated as error in the analysis, and the average of nearby months was substituted for this data point to avoid distortion of the distribution.
10

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 12 of 190 Pg ID 8234

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

support and leadership of Mayor Dave Bing has unquestionably been instrumental in the changes we have begun to see in the Detroit Police Department.
As a cautionary note, we are concerned that the Office of Chief Investigator (OCI) has experienced some setbacks that we are hopeful will not reverse the progress the Department has made in complying with the provisions of both Judgments. We recognize the sincere effort that OCI has been making to rectify these issues, and we intend to monitor its progress closely.
In our last report, we noted that the Department had passed the important milestone of compliance with 80% of the Consent Judgment requirements. That number has increased in this report. Even with this movement forward, however, it is clear that hard work, perhaps the hardest so far, remains ahead. Twenty-nine of the 175 requirements continue to challenge the Department. We look forward to continued efforts to move this Department toward full compliance and to its recognition – not just an improved department, but as a department at the forefront of American policing.

Chief (Ret.) Robert S. Warshaw Monitor
The Monitoring Team: Chief (Ret.) Charles D. Reynolds, Deputy Monitor
Lt. Colonel (Ret.) J. Rick Brown Division Chief (Ret.) Rachel M. Burgess
Commander (Ret.) John M. Girvin Chief (Ret.) Eduardo Gonzalez John M. Klofas, Ph.D. Leonard F. Rice, M.E.S., R.S. Chief (Ret.) Billy R. Riggs
Asst. Director (Ret.) Joseph R. Wolfinger Robin Busch-Wheaton, Editor

11

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 13 of 190 Pg ID 8235

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

SECTION TWO: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT

III. USE OF FORCE POLICY
This section of the Consent Judgment, containing paragraphs U14 through U26, requires that DPD review and revise its general use of force, firearms, and chemical spray policies; select an intermediate impact device and develop guidelines on its use; and provide appropriate training relating to the use of force. To determine compliance with this section’s various requirements, we verify that DPD has both developed the required policy and effectively implemented the policy, including providing any necessary and appropriate training.
DPD has conducted the requisite reviews and revisions of policies, which have been approved by the Department of Justice. The revised policies include a force continuum that identifies lethal and less lethal force options; relates the force options to the types of conduct by the individuals justifying the various force options; and describes de-escalation, disengagement, and other appropriate tactics and responses. The revised firearms policies address qualification requirements, approved firearms and ammunition, and a prohibition on the firing at or from moving vehicles. DPD also selected an intermediate impact device, developed guidelines on its use, and provided the required training. The chemical spray policy requires, when appropriate, a verbal warning prior to the deployment of chemical spray; sets forth requirements for decontamination, medical assistance, and requires supervisory approval if the chemical spray is to be used against a crowd. It prohibits officers from using chemical spray on a handcuffed individual in a police vehicle or keeping a sprayed individual face-down.
To assess implementation of these policies for this and previous reporting periods, we visited police districts, precincts, and other commands; met and discussed operational activities with command, supervisory, and training staff; observed training classes; reviewed arrest, use of force, and related police reports; and reviewed investigations of force, detainee injuries, and allegations of force. Command review of SIR investigations has improved, and we encourage DPD to continue to strengthen this effort. We have previously urged DPD to remain vigilant in this area to meet the requirements regarding thorough and timely use of force investigations, and continue to do so; however, it may well be that DPD needs to also review its case management systems for the use of force reports.
During this reporting period, the Command Level Investigations submitted within the 10-day time limit increased to 75% from the 60% registered last quarter. However, in spite of the continued improvements over the last two reporting periods, we continue to urge DPD to develop a case management system that requires that the command initiate and document appropriate actions that will ensure that they comply with both the 10- and the 30-day time limits.
During the ninth reporting period, DPD issued Training Directive 11-01 (effective August 4, 2011), Reporting/Documenting Acquiring of a Target, which provides instructions to DPD members on the procedures for reporting and documenting any instance in which an officer draws a firearm and only acquires a target. This Training Directive further advises that in cases
12

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 14 of 190 Pg ID 8236

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

where the acquiring of a target is the only force used, a Supervisor Investigation Report (SIR 002a) is no longer required.2 To assess compliance with the requirements relating to the issuance and carrying of authorized weapons and ammunition, we examined the investigations of critical firearm discharges by FI. During this reporting period, we reviewed documentation that included 22 critical firearm discharges.
The DPD selected the PR-24 collapsible baton as its impact device, and has provided training on its use to 1,243 members (49%) through the second quarter of the fiscal year. There were no PR24 strikes to the head noted in use of force reports during this reporting period. There was one incident we reviewed where an officer used a Department-issued firearm to strike a subject on the side of the head, constituting a use of deadly force.
We also reviewed instances of chemical spray deployments during this and previous reporting periods. The Department’s status reports indicate that although some officers are providing appropriate warnings prior to deployment, decontamination, and subsequent medical assistance, they are not consistently doing so. In addition, we find that officers are not consistently adhering to the time requirements on contamination or indicating how the decontamination was accomplished.
During this reporting period, there were seven cases in which chemical spray was utilized; a warning was not articulated prior to its use in three of those cases. Exigent circumstances of the officer being assaulted were not articulated in those three cases.
Once again, there were no reported instances of an officer spraying an unruly crowd nor were there any cases where spray was used on a handcuffed individual in a police car. No individuals were placed/kept in a face-down position after being sprayed. The DPD 33rd Quarter Status Report, issued December 31, 2011, states that the Department has initiated a new program, the Quality Control and Case Management Practices for Command Level Use of Force/Detainee Injury Investigations. It details the operations as follows:
“During this quarter, commencing on November 1, 2011, Force Investigation (FI) implemented a comprehensive review process for all command level investigations of use of force and detainee injuries. FI has served as the final repository for these investigations. FI’s newly established Command Level Use of Force Review Team (CLUOFRT) is responsible for reviewing and tracking all command level use of force and detainee injury investigations that are entered into MAS and forwarded to FI. Any deficiencies identified in any of the investigations shall be returned to the commanding officer of the applicable command for corrective action. The commanding officer is then required to document and implement a corrective action plan (CAP) to address the deficiencies.”
This additional review step, coupled with the transmission of a corrective action plan to the affected command, should have some positive outcomes and improve the quality of the Command Level Investigations.
During this reporting period, DPD continued its practice of issuing Roll Call Information Bulletins that are designed to improve member compliance with DPD policy reflecting the
2 SIR and Command Level Investigations are used interchangeably throughout the report.
13

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 15 of 190 Pg ID 8237

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Consent Judgment requirements. Below are examples of some of the pertinent Bulletins issued from October 14, to December 23, 2011.

Date

Teletype No.

Subject

10/14/2011 10/21/2011 10/28/2011 11/4/2011 11/11/2011 11/18/2011
11/23/2011 11/25/2011 12/2/2011 12/9/2011 12/16/2011 12/23/2011

11-1200 11-1229 11-1252 11-1270 11-1291 11-1351
11-1357 11-1381 11-1392 11-1443 11-1468 11-1497

Holding Cell Cleaning and Sanitation Revisions to Cell Check Log (DPD 659) Firearms/Personal Protective Vests Span of Control-Notifications in SIR Responding Supervisor-Category One Use of Force/Detainee Injury Investigations Standard Required Information for all Command Level Investigations for Use of Force, Detainee Injury and Inquiring a Target Incidents Issuance of Corrective Action Notices for Deficiencies Identified in Use of Force Investigations New Requirements for Acquiring of a Target Incidents-Documentation of In-Car Video Review Implementation of the Detainee Input Sheet to Replace the Arrest Ticket Updated Guidelines Available for Use of Force/Detainee Injury Use of Department In-Car Video Equipment and Body-Mics Procedures for Documenting the Consent to “Frisk” or “Search” from an Investigatory Stop

A. General Use of Force Policy CJ Requirement U14 The DPD shall revise its use of force policies to define force as that term is defined in this Agreement. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. To assess Phase 2 compliance with this requirement, we reviewed completed use of force investigations, met with DPD staff, and observed relevant operational activities. We also determined that DPD generated 362 use of force numbers during the previous reporting period, and 333 during this reporting period (an 8% reduction). For calendar year 2011, there were 1,401 use of force numbers generated, a 5% reduction from the 1,479 that were issued during the previous year. We will continue to monitor these numbers in subsequent visits. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U15 The use of force policy shall incorporate a use of force continuum that:
14

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 16 of 190 Pg ID 8238

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

a. identifies when and in what manner the use of lethal and less than lethal force are permitted;
b. relates the force options available to officers to the types of conduct by individuals that would justify the use of such force; and
c. states that de-escalation, disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units are often the appropriate response to a situation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our previous reviews of use of force reports found that they lacked sufficient documentation or specificity with regards to de-escalation and details of actual disengagement to make a definitive determination regarding Phase 2 compliance.3 In the previous reporting period, we found that 69% of the Command Level Investigations we reviewed contained sufficient explanations of officers’ efforts to de-escalate or implement some of the disengagement responses suggested in U15c.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 87 Command Level Investigations, which also described the conduct of individuals against whom force was used and the corresponding response from the involved officers. In evaluating de-escalation techniques utilized by the officers, we eliminated cases in which there was no opportunity to attempt de-escalation.4 There were 62 cases evaluated; in 28 of them, we found evidence of some efforts at de-escalation (45%). We continue to encourage DPD to emphasize the importance of de-escalation techniques as a means of avoiding violent confrontations between citizens and police, and to emphasize the importance of adequately documenting the steps taken by the officers to minimize the use of force. As we have noted previously, it is possible that there are more efforts being made, and that officers are simply not documenting them; however, absent the documentation, we have no way of establishing the Department’s compliance.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance
CJ Requirement U16
The use of force policy shall reinforce that individuals should be provided an opportunity to submit to arrest before force is used and provide that force may be used only when verbal

3 Report of the Independent Monitor, issued September 23, 2011. 4 Twenty-five cases were eliminated: 14 in September; nine in October; and two in November. Cases included, but were not limited to, the subject fleeing as soon as he sees officers; subjects engaged in assaults as officers arrived; detainee injury; canine apprehensions with no contact, and a subject trying to harm himself.
15

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 17 of 190 Pg ID 8239

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

commands and other techniques that do not require the use of force would be ineffective or present a danger to the officer or others.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 183 use of force reports, of which 167 were applicable to this paragraph. We found that 157 (>94%) of the 167 included verbal commands and an opportunity to submit to arrest prior to the use of force; or provided a reason why the verbal command was not given.5 DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 31 force investigations conducted by DPD. We found that two of the 31 investigations conducted by FI did not include a verbal command or an opportunity for a subject to submit to arrest prior to the use of force. In the first case, three DPD officers used excessive force on a subject who was being taken into custody by striking the subject in the face and head with flashlights while handcuffing and continuing to use force after the subject was handcuffed. The subject received a fracture of the left nasal bone, mild soft tissue swelling, multiple abrasions on his head and face, and a laceration to his upper lip. In the second case, eight DPD officers used excessive force on a suspect in custody who did not resist arrest. The subject received multiple fractured ribs. In both cases, all subject officers are facing formal disciplinary action.
Fifteen cases required a verbal command or an opportunity for a subject to submit to arrest prior to the use of force; we found all 15 incidents in compliance with this requirement. Fourteen cases were not applicable to the provisions of this Consent Judgment requirement. One case involved a vehicle pursuit that ended with the subject exiting the vehicle and fleeing on foot. In another case, the subject slipped on ice and broke his leg, and opportunities for giving verbal commands were not present. Two cases involved DPD officers shooting two vicious dogs, which is an exception to the Department’s use of force policy. In addition, four cases involved off-duty officers, three cases involved accidental firearm discharges, and four cases involved exigent circumstances in which opportunities to give verbal commands were not present. This represents a >94% compliance rate. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Force Investigations portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U17 The use of force policy shall prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.
Comments:
5 The base was reduced from 183 to 167 by 10 canine deployments, four detainee injuries, one accidental discharge, and one insufficient time. Of these, 157 included the verbal commands and other requirements; 10 did not.
16

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 18 of 190 Pg ID 8240

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we reviewed 183 use of force reports and 87 completed Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs). There was one case where a headlock was applied which could have accidentally slipped into a choke hold. There was no indication of a notification to FI. We recommend that cases involving any possibility of a chokehold being applied, accidentally or otherwise, be referred to IAD/Force Investigations for review, and further investigation should be required. The failure to make notification will be further noted in U35, which addresses notifications. Force Investigations: Our review of 31 force investigations for this reporting period revealed no allegations or incidents involving choke holds by DPD officers. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U18 The DPD shall develop a revised use of force policy within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The policy shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the revised use of force policy within three months of the review and approval of the DOJ. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Full Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the effective field implementation of the requirements contained in paragraphs U14-17 and U19. We found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with U14, U16, U17, and U19, but not in compliance with U15; therefore, Phase 2 compliance remains deferred. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Deferred

17

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 19 of 190 Pg ID 8241

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement U19 The use of force policy shall provide that a strike to the head with an instrument constitutes a use of deadly force. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Use of Force Reports: Our review of 183 use of force reports found no instances of any strikes to the head. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for use of force reports in this paragraph. Force Investigations: Our review of 31 investigations completed by Force Investigations revealed one instance where a DPD officer used the Department-issued firearm to strike a subject on the side of the head. The subject was attempting to disarm the officer by grabbing the barrel of the Department-issued shotgun and trying to wrestle the shotgun from the officer’s hands. The FI investigation determined that the force used in this case was justified. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U20 The DPD shall revise its use of firearms policies to provide that officers must successfully qualify with their department-issued firearm and any other firearm they are authorized to use or carry on-duty on a bi-annual basis, as described in paragraph 113. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. DPD policy requires officers to attend and qualify at firearms training sessions in the six-month periods ending on December 31 and on June 30 of each year. During the six-month qualification period that ended on December 31, 2011, 99% of the DPD officers who were available to train attended firearms and qualified. During the current six-month qualification period (July 1, through December 31, 2011), DPD listed 2,540 officers available to train. Of this number, 15 were in a medical or administrative “no-gun” status. Of the remaining 2,525 officers, 2,509 (99%) attended firearms training and qualified. The DPD remains in compliance with this requirement; 99% of the officers available to train qualified during the six-month period. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U21
18

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 20 of 190 Pg ID 8242

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Officers who fail to re-qualify shall be relieved of police powers and relinquish immediately all department-issued firearms. Those officers who fail to re-qualify after remedial training within a reasonable time shall be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. During the most recent six-month firearms qualification period (July 1, through December 31, 2011), 13 members failed to qualify and were placed in “no-gun” status, in which they were relieved of their guns and police powers. Eleven of these 13 officers were placed in “medical no-gun” status after consultation with the DPD physician; two were provided remedial firearms training and subsequently qualified. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
B. Use of Firearms Policy CJ Requirement U22 The firearm policy shall prohibit shooting at or from a moving vehicle except in exceptional circumstances. The policy shall also prohibit officers from intentionally placing themselves in the path of a moving vehicle6. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Use of Force Reports: During this reporting period, we reviewed 183 use of force reports and 87 Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs), and found no incidents involving officers firing at or from moving vehicles. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for use of force reports in this requirement. Force Investigations: Our previous reviews of cases closed by Force Investigations found instances where officers fired at moving vehicles contrary to the prohibition in this paragraph and the above-cited directive; however, the investigations of the events found the existence of exigent circumstances that warranted the discharge of firearms even though prohibited by both policy and the Judgment. Although the firing at or from a moving vehicle is not a recommended police practice, doing so when specified exigent circumstances leave no other alternative available to officers is a generally accepted exception. Accordingly, the DPD and DOJ, with the concurrence of the Monitor, proposed an amendment to this paragraph to allow the firing at or from moving vehicles under specified conditions. The Court approved the proposed amendment on June 1, 2011; it has been incorporated in the requirements of this paragraph (above), and was approved by the BOPC and operationally implemented on November 3, 2011.
6 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011, and approved by the BOPC on November 3, 2011.
19

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 21 of 190 Pg ID 8243

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

During this reporting period, we reviewed 31 FI investigations, and found one incident involving two officers firing from a moving vehicle. DPD determined the firearm discharge to be out of policy. The CLFRT concluded that the officers’ actions and tactics were against Department policy, and that the officers’ decision-making processes were inappropriate. The CLFRT issued a finding of sustained misconduct against both officers for shooting from a moving vehicle. The CLFRT instituted administrative action to address both officers’ policy failure. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U23 The DPD shall identify a limited selection of authorized ammunition and prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition. The DPD shall specify the number of rounds DPD officers shall carry. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. During previous site visits, we found officers to be carrying authorized weapons and ammunition, and that the Department had implemented a procedure requiring the inspection of officers’ weapons and ammunition as part of its required biannual firearms training program which officers are required to attend. During firearms training, officers fire the ammunition they are carrying and are issued a new supply of approved ammunition. Ninety-nine percent of the officers participated in the biannual qualifications, where they shot their old ammunition, which was replaced with authorized ammunition. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
C. Intermediate Force Device Policy CJ Requirement U24 The DPD shall select an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The DPD shall develop a policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
20

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 22 of 190 Pg ID 8244

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Use of Force Reports: During this reporting period, we reviewed 183 use of force reports, and found no strikes to the head with the designated intermediate force device (PR-24). Midway through the Fiscal Year training cycle, a total of 1,244 members (49%) have received PR-24 training. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for use of force reports. Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 31 cases completed by FI, and found no cases where an intermediate force device (PR-24) was used. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
D. Chemical Spray Policy CJ Requirement U25 The DPD shall revise its chemical spray policy to require officers to:
a. provide a verbal warning and time to allow the subject to comply prior to the use of chemical spray, unless such warnings would present a danger to the officer or others;
b. provide an opportunity for decontamination to a sprayed subject within twenty minutes of the application of the spray or apprehension of the subject;
c. obtain appropriate medical assistance for sprayed subjects when they complain of continued effects after having been de-contaminated or they indicate that they have a pre-existing medical condition (e.g., asthma, emphysema, bronchitis or heart ailment) that may be aggravated by chemical spray and if such signs are observed the subject shall be immediately conveyed to a local hospital for professional medical treatment; and
d. obtain the approval of a supervisor any time chemical spray is used against a crowd. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 183 use of force reports and 87 Command Level Investigations. We found seven deployments of chemical spray, with warnings or danger articulated in four (57%) of the cases. This is on par with the percentage registered last quarter, 58%. During our evaluation of decontamination requirements, we found that three (43%) of the seven cases provided details of decontamination within 20 minutes of spraying or capture. This is a significant decrease from the 83% registered last quarter. In all cases, officers noted that windows were rolled down to allow for proper ventilation during the transport of subjects. Medical assistance was offered to four of the subjects requiring it, and all four were transported to a hospital; three of the subjects did not require medical attention. There were no reported instances of an officer spraying an unruly crowd. As we continue to note, the use of chemical spray by DPD officers is very limited; consequently, the Department’s compliance numbers are affected by the failure of one or two officers to
21

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 23 of 190 Pg ID 8245

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

document their actions when using chemical spray. It is critical that supervisors discuss with their subordinates the need to provide a warning – or to articulate the exigent circumstances not permitting the warning – before they deliver the bursts of chemical spray. The documentation of the decontamination times is equally important; and supervisors need to ensure that their subordinates provide the times, preferably in military time, as well as how and where the decontamination was conducted. DPD is not in compliance with this portion of the requirement for this reporting period. Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 31 cases completed by FI, and there were no cases of chemical spray being used during the arrest of a subject. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the reporting of the use of chemical spray in the use of force investigations. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance
CJ Requirement U26 The DPD shall prohibit officers from using chemical spray on a handcuffed individual in a police vehicle. The DPD shall also prohibit officers from keeping any sprayed subject in a face down position, in order to avoid positional asphyxia. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 183 use of force reports, and 87 use of force Command Level Investigations. No handcuffed individuals in a police vehicle were sprayed, and no sprayed individuals were placed face-down. We continue to note that when sprayed individuals are transported in scout cars, officers report the lowering of windows to provide ventilation beneficial to the subject. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of the requirement. Force Investigations: During our review of 31 force investigations, we found no instances of DPD officers using chemical spray. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
Critical Issues: • The issue of how best to determine DPD’s efforts at deescalating and disengaging with respect to use of force situations remains a perplexing issue, and one that affects DPD’s compliance with several of the requirements. During the most recent site visit, members of the Monitoring Team met with members of the DPD District and Precinct Command
22

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 24 of 190 Pg ID 8246

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Staffs to discuss a number of issues, including the de-escalation documentation issue. We believe that all parties left the meeting with a better understanding of how best to document the officer’s actions and there is every reason to believe that the process will improve. This quarterly report notes a falling off in what had previously been an improvement in documentation, and we recommend that DPD continue to emphasize that officers articulate the actions they took before they used force.
• Officers need to be reminded that they can use water from the locations in which they find themselves to flush eyes. This is an issue that can be addressed with specific attention on the part of supervisors, and some re-instruction on their part as to how officers are to document the warning; or in the case of an exigent circumstance, the need to document that circumstance, the spraying, and the flushing time (military time is easiest).
• Training Directive 11-01 (effective August 4, 2011) details the Department’s newly instituted process for reporting cases in which the only force used is the acquiring of a target. We previously noted that this new process requires enhancements by DPD to ensure that adequate documentation is provided; this will allow the Monitoring Team to ascertain that the acquiring of a target was the appropriate level of force to be used. At a minimum, DPD must include reporting mechanisms that describe the availability, use, and review of video and audio recording devices.
Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to monitor the numbers of use of force reports generated during the next quarter; and if discrepancies are found, discuss same with DPD.
• Continue to discuss with DPD the issue of documenting de-escalation of use of force situations in an effort to identify a sound methodology for measuring the effort. Emphasis by DPD on the proper documentation of efforts will not only facilitate the measuring of the Department’s efforts, but continued emphasis should also result in officers employing more of the directed techniques – which may, in turn, result in more compliance by citizens and less uses of force on their part.
• Meet with CRIB personnel to further discuss any additional enhancements the Monitoring Team believes are needed for the reporting of acquiring target incidents.
• Discuss and verify with FI any remaining cases that constitute a backlog that needs addressed.
• Discuss with FI measures to ensure that investigators are requesting in-car video recordings in a timely fashion and properly evaluating their evidentiary value in FI cases.
• Monitor the use of force and PR-24 training to ensure 100% compliance for the training Fiscal Year.
Also, during our previous site visit, we requested the number of use of force case numbers issued for the third quarter of the year (July 1, through September 30, 2011), and were provided a MAS document listing 362 cases. During our most recent site visit, we were provided the fourth
23

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 25 of 190 Pg ID 8247

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

quarter MAS document, and it listed 333 cases. We will continue to monitor the numbers during subsequent visits.

¶ Requirements
14 Revise use of force policies 15 The use of lethal, less lethal force 16 Opportunity to submit to arrest 17 Prohibit choke holds 18 Approval of policy 19 Strike to the head-deadly force 20 Bi-annual firearms qualification 21 Failure to qualify with firearms 22 Prohibit firing at vehicles 23 Selection of ammunition 24 Intermediate force device 25 Chemical spray policy 26 Spraying handcuffed subjects

Phase

1

Policy

In Compliance

In Compliance

In Compliance

In Compliance

In Compliance

In Compliance

In Compliance

In Compliance

In Compliance

In Compliance

In Compliance

In Compliance

In Compliance

– Phase

2

–

Implementation

In Compliance

Not in Compliance

In Compliance

In Compliance

Deferred

In Compliance

In Compliance

In Compliance

In Compliance

In Compliance

In Compliance

Not in Compliance

In Compliance

IV DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW
A. General Investigations of Police Action
CJ Requirement U27
The DPD and the City shall revise their policies regarding the conduct of all investigations to ensure full, thorough, and complete investigations. All investigations shall, to the extent reasonably possible, determine whether the officer’s conduct was justified and the DPD and the City shall prohibit the closing of an investigation being conducted by the DPD and/or the City simply because a subject or complainant is unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate, including a refusal to provide medical records or proof of injury.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with these requirements, we meet on a quarterly basis with Command, Internal Affairs, Force Investigations, OCI and other staff. We also review relevant investigative and other reports, and the DPD 33rd Quarter Status Report, dated December 31,2011, which sets forth some of the corrective measures initiated by DPD to achieve compliance with this paragraph.
24

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 26 of 190 Pg ID 8248

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Command Level Investigations: To assess DPD’s Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for this reporting period, we again met with relevant staff and reviewed 183 use of force reports resulting in 87 SIRs.7 There were no instances where a SIR was closed simply because a subject or complainant was unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate, including a refusal to provide medical records or proof of injury. We also found sufficient justification for officers’ conduct in 84 (97%) of the assessed investigations and SIRs. We found no investigations that were closed prematurely. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level Investigations portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: In our previous reports, we noted that our reviews of FI and JIST investigations – which included critical firearm discharges, pursuits, and allegations of excessive force – found these investigations sufficiently detailed to support the findings relating to the conduct of the officer(s) in each case. In addition, no investigations were closed because the subject or complainant was unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate. Although we noted lack of detail or required specificity in early cases, FI addressed these issues with strengthened supervision and in-service training.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 31 FI cases, and found them in compliance with the requirements. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI cases portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During our previous reviews of completed cases, we noted that while the case files generally contained sufficient facts to support a determination that justified or did not justify an officer’s actions, there were several inconsistencies between investigators, and some cases lacked the necessary information to reach a proper determination. Additionally, we noted cases that were improperly administratively closed, and cases that were significantly overdue, impacting DPD’s ability to reach appropriate conclusions many months after the alleged occurrence.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled cases from the 288 cases that were closed in October, November, and December 2011. (This represents a 4% decrease in closed cases over the previous quarter.) With the exception of five cases that appeared to have been closed prematurely, the investigations established sufficient facts to support a determination that justified or did not justify the actions of the officer(s) or non-sworn member of the Department.8
One case involved allegations of excessive force and rudeness during an arrest at a festival. The investigation focused on officers who transported the complainant from the scene, rather than the reserve officers who had the initial encounter with the complainant and were the apparent subjects of the complaint. In another case, the complainant alleged, among other things, that an officer removed her keys from the ignition of her vehicle during a traffic stop. The officer’s partner, corroborating the complainant’s assertion, indicated that this occurred. The subject officer denied doing this. Not only was this discrepancy not explored, but the officer’s actions –

7 Many of the command-level investigations contained multiple use of force forms. Canine deployments with no contact, acquired target cases, and cases assumed by FI were removed from the numbers reported as SIRs. 8 If an allegation appropriately received a finding of unfounded or not sustained, justification for the conduct was not assessed since, by definition, its occurrence was either refuted or not substantiated.
25

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 27 of 190 Pg ID 8249

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

which he denied took place – were exonerated. Similarly, in another case, officers’ statements conflicted on who applied handcuffs. This discrepancy was never explored or resolved. In yet another case involving an allegation of profanity during a traffic stop, the officers were not interviewed. The investigator relied solely on the Insight video, which is certainly a useful resource, but did not capture the conversation at the moment the alleged rudeness occurred. In the final case – again, profanity alleged during a traffic stop – the officer claimed no recollection of the incident which took place two weeks prior. The interview lasted approximately two minutes, with the majority of the time spent going over the officer’s rights. Not only was the interview substandard, but in her summary, the investigator attributed comments to the subject officer that he did not make. While complainants failed to cooperate in 30% of the cases, their lack of cooperation was not a factor in the closing of these cases. With a 95% compliance rate, the City is in compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph. Internal Affairs Division Investigations: To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, we interviewed IAD supervisors and selected staff, and reviewed the 50 cases that were closed by IAD in October, November, and December 2011. IAD continued to attempt to clear the backlog of overdue cases by reassigning them to different investigators. We assessed the investigations for consistency with the procedures contained in applicable DPD directives and generally accepted law enforcement techniques – specifically relating to procedural fairness, timeliness, confidentiality, and the meticulous reporting of facts and results of an investigation. We found that all of the cases were sufficiently investigated – including those where the complainants and/or witnesses failed to respond to requests to be interviewed. In addition, all cases met the requirements – with the exception of timeliness – of this paragraph. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U28 The DPD and the City shall ensure that investigations are conducted by a supervisor who did not authorize witness or participate in the incident and that all investigations contain:
a. documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene during the incident and a canvas of the scene to identify civilian witnesses;
b. thorough and complete interviews of all witnesses, subject to paragraph 31 below and an effort to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements;
c. photographs of the subject’s(s’) and officer’s(s’) injuries or alleged injuries; and d. documentation of any medical care provided. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
26

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 28 of 190 Pg ID 8250

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Command Level Investigations: During the previous reporting period, we found that thorough and complete interviews were conducted in only 63% of the cases. In addition, of the cases we reviewed that contained material inconsistencies, supervisors attempted to resolve these inconsistencies in only 31%. Photos of officer or subject injuries were ordered in only 82% of the cases where they should have been requested.
During this reporting period, we determined the following:
• There was only one case in which the investigating supervisor authorized, witnessed, or participated in the incident (99% compliance). Eighty (92%) of the cases contained the names of all of the officers involved or on the scene during the incident, a three percent reduction from the 95% registered last quarter.
• In 82 (94%) of the cases, the investigating supervisor conducted a canvass to identify civilian witnesses or explained why a canvass was not conducted. This is a reduction from the 98% reported during the last reporting period. We encourage DPD to continue to focus attention on this requirement, as it is essential to allow for the identification of independent witnesses.
• During this reporting period, we found that thorough and complete interviews were conducted in only 45 of the cases (52%). This is a reduction from the 63% that we found during the last reporting period. Some of the issues associated with this finding include: the one-question interviews, the willingness on the part of investigators to accept general statements from officers, and the failure to ask follow-up questions. In a recent meeting with district/precinct commanders, we discussed the lack of thorough and complete interviews, suggesting that supervisors be provided additional interview technique training. In the meantime, supervisors need to focus on the who, what, where, when, why, and how concept used by journalists and other investigative writers for basic information gathering.
• Fifty of the cases we reviewed contained material inconsistencies; supervisors attempted to resolve the inconsistencies in 17 (34%) of these. We reiterate that it is incumbent on individuals involved in the command-level review to question material inconsistencies that are not addressed and resolved by the investigator, taking the appropriate corrective actions. First-line supervisors must conduct more critical reviews.
• In 45 cases, photos should have been requested for officer or subject injuries. The reports noted that photos were ordered in 39 (87%) of the cases. This is an increase from the 82% previously registered. Fifty-eight cases included documentation of medical care. Not all of the administered medical care was related to police actions. Twenty-five of the cases involved care ranging from psychiatric evaluations to asthma to a need for medications. All subjects who should have received medical attention were provided it.
We continue to encourage the critical review of completed investigations, especially at the first endorser level, which is the first review level. Inspectors and commanders are becoming more involved in the reviews and that is a positive step, but it is important that they ensure that levels below them are also complying with their responsibilities.
The Command Level Investigations are not in Phase 2 compliance with these requirements.

27

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 29 of 190 Pg ID 8251

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Force Investigations: Our previous reviews of force investigations found appropriate documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene of the various incidents. The cases also contained witness interviews (recorded and written). The investigations we reviewed also contained documentation of canvasses for civilian witnesses and any medical care provided. To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 31 force investigations.9 The case files included complete documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene of the various incidents, canvasses for civilian witnesses in all applicable cases, and any medical care that was provided.
The investigations also contained witness interviews, both written and recorded. However, in two investigations, the interviews were deficient and incomplete due to FI’s failure to properly analyze existing evidence. These failures led to material inconsistencies between the officers and witnesses statements.
In our last quarterly report, we discussed an issue of considerable concern. This resulted from a case where a subject officer was involved in an off-duty incident that resulted in a formal complaint by a citizen. The officer was notified of the complaint by the officer’s station coworkers before any investigative action was initiated by DPD Internal Controls. This breach of confidentiality is very troubling. Even more troubling, DPD has no formal policy in place to assure the confidentiality of citizen complaints. Within minutes of a citizen filing a complaint at a DPD station, its contents can be disseminated by uninvolved persons at the station and subject officers can be warned of the pending action. This breach of confidentiality can allow officers involved in misconduct to alter or destroy evidence, concoct stories, and in general interfere with the investigatory process.
We have previously recommended that the Department issue a policy that protects the confidentiality of all complaints, and metes out severe discipline for DPD officers or employees who are made aware of a complaint and “tip off” subject personnel. The failure to assure the confidentiality of all complaints weakens officer accountability, compromises the integrity of the investigation, and contributes to poor risk management. To date, DPD still has not taken any formal policy and implementation action on this recommendation; and this issue remains an important concern. We will continue to monitor this issue closely.
Our review also identified two investigations that contained no photographs of the officer’s or subject’s injuries as required by DPD policy. The compliance rate for this section is 87%.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled OCI investigations. All of the cases were investigated by investigators who did not authorize, witness, or participate in the incidents being investigated. In 17 cases, involved officers were not identified by both name and badge number. Five cases were transferred to Force Investigation based on the allegations and before steps were taken to identify the officers involved. In all but one of the remaining cases, diligent steps were taken to identify involved personnel. The remaining case was determined to be a civil matter involving an off-duty work
9 These investigations included 22 critical firearm discharge events, and one vehicle pursuit.
28

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 30 of 190 Pg ID 8252

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

arrangement (construction) that did not concern the exercise of police powers. Canvasses were generally deficient, as outlined in CJ requirement U32. We did not note any cases in which investigators failed to attempt to contact potential witnesses. Many refused to cooperate, but investigators documented their steps to try to obtain statements.
In the cases alleging excessive force that were retained by OCI (10 cases were transferred to Force Investigation), photographs were referenced where appropriate. In most of the cases, force could not be substantiated and use of force documentation, including photographs, did not exist. In three cases, it was appropriate to reference medical care, and such documentation was included in the investigative packages.
With greater than 94% compliance with the paragraph requirements, the City is in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: We reviewed all 50 IAD cases that were completed by IAD during this reporting period. The investigations consistently included the names and badge numbers of all officers who were involved in or on the scene during an incident. IAD expended particular efforts in identifying officers when allegations of criminal misconduct were reported and the officer(s) was unknown to the complainant. IAD conducted canvasses to identify witnesses or obtain any video recordings that might be available from businesses near the location. IAD now has the capacity to access recordings from in-car video storage from the division’s desktop computers. If any related evidence has been recorded, it can be requested from the Technical Services Unit within a 90-day period. We also found in the cases that we reviewed that witnesses were interviewed or gave written statements, and that the investigators made an effort to resolve inconsistencies between witness statements. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance
CJ Requirement U29
The DPD and the City shall revise their procedures for all investigatory interviews to require:
a. officers who witness or are involved in an incident to provide a timely statement regarding the incident (subject to paragraph 31 below);
b. whenever practicable and appropriate, interviews of complainants and witnesses be conducted at sites and times convenient for them, including at their residences or places of business; and
c. that all IAD, OCI and Critical Firearm Discharge Investigations shall also include inperson video or audio tape-recorded interviews of all complainants, witnesses, and involved DPD officers and prohibit group interviews. In cases where complainants/witnesses refuse in-person video or audio tape recorded interviews, written statements shall be taken and signed by the complainant/witness along with a signed refusal statement by the complainant/witness.
29

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 31 of 190 Pg ID 8253

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: During the last reporting period, we found that in 89% of the cases we reviewed, timely statements were taken from officers who were involved or who witnessed the incident. We also found that the interviews of complainants and witnesses were conducted at sites and times convenient for them in 99% of the cases we reviewed.
During this reporting period, we determined that in 77 (89%) of the 87 cases we reviewed, timely statements were taken from officers who were involved in or witnessed the incident. This percentage is consistent with the 89% noted in our last report. The interviews of complainants and witnesses were conducted at sites and times convenient for them in all (100%) of the 87 cases we reviewed.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance for use of force reports.
Force Investigations: In previous reporting periods, we noted that statements were generally taken at sites and times convenient for the person(s) being interviewed. However, we expressed concerns that statements from witness officers were unnecessarily delayed, or that investigators instead relied on officers’ Crisnet reports. We noted that there were significant delays in taking Garrity statements due to the practice of awaiting prosecution declinations from the District Attorney. We also noted our concerns regarding the variance in practice between FI and Homicide members of the Joint Incident Shooting Team (JIST) when interviewing witnesses and taking statements. Specifically, we were concerned with the practice adopted by Homicide members of JIST to take written, rather than recorded, statements. This is a longstanding issue that the Department has not yet addressed.
To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 31 closed FI cases, and continued to find much the same as described above. Statements were generally taken at sites and times convenient for the person(s) being interviewed. Statements of non-police witnesses were generally taken in a timely manner, usually within minutes or hours of the event; however, in five cases, statements that were taken from involved and witness officers under the provisions of Garrity were unnecessarily delayed.
Delays with the Garrity interviews of the involved officers in these cases decreased from the previous reporting period, but remained at an unacceptable level of 62 to 326 days from the date of the incident. Garrity interviews of witness officers ranged from 26 to 326 days from the date of the event, which is a decrease from the previous reporting, but also problematic. We have discussed with FI our concern regarding interview delays for a host of reasons – not the least of which is credibility. As we have previously noted, officers’ recollections of the facts, weeks and months after an event, particularly one involving the use of deadly force, are externally and perhaps significantly affected by news accounts and their interactions with friends, family, and colleagues, and thus, often altered. The practice of delaying interviews, for whatever reason, mitigates the accuracy and credibility of the information provided by officers. In addition, aside from investigative reasoning regarding the delaying of interviews of involved officers, we find no legitimate basis to delay interviews of witness officers; quite the contrary, there is a compelling need to interview all witnesses – including witness officers – in an expeditious manner.

30

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 32 of 190 Pg ID 8254

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

As indicated, oftentimes the delays discussed above reportedly result from the desire to await a declination decision from the District Attorney. Accordingly, we re-examined 65 cases closed by FI during 2011, and found 14 where a prosecutorial decision from the Wayne County District Attorney’s Office was sought with the following results:
• Nine of the 14 cases involved critical firearm discharge events.
• Seven of the 14 cases included Garrity interviews conducted by FI prior to the prosecutorial decision by the District Attorney.
• Three of the 14 cases included prosecutorial decisions that were received ranging from 114 days to 388 days from the date of the event. In these cases, the Garrity interviews of the involved officers were delayed by FI.
• Two of the 14 cases included Garrity interviews that were completed within 30 days from the date the prosecutorial decision was rendered, or completion of the criminal prosecution as required by paragraph U38.
• Four of the 14 cases included Garrity interviews that were not completed within 30 days after the prosecutorial decision was rendered, or completion of the criminal prosecution as required by paragraph U38.
There are few situations requiring more diligence or professional police response than an allegation or a perceived use of excessive force – especially when involving a critical firearm discharge. All warrant a priority, thorough response and expeditious conclusion. We encourage the DPD, with the cooperation of the District Attorney, to resolve these issues.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph with a compliance rate of 84%.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During previous reporting periods, we noted ongoing issues with untimely interviews, particularly of officers. Interviews of sworn personnel frequently take place many months after the incident complained of. Often, no reason is given for the delay other than the difficulty in scheduling the interviews. We noted that complainant/witness and officer interviews were, with limited exceptions, properly recorded.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled investigations. Timely interviews of involved parties, particularly officers, continue to be an issue. In 37 of the cases we reviewed, employee interviews were untimely. In several cases, investigators cited difficulty in scheduling employee interviews as a reason for requesting an extension. However, a review of the Significant Event Logs often revealed that attempts to schedule interviews were not made until well into the 90-day timeframe allowed for investigations, and sometimes after the 90-day mark had passed. In one case, the first officer interview took place 167 days after the complaint was filed.
Complainants were identified as uncooperative in 30 of the investigations we reviewed. OCI investigators relied on the synopsis contained in the Citizen Complaint Report in these cases. When complainants and witnesses were available for interviews, they were recorded, either over the telephone or in person. Timeliness issues notwithstanding, when interviews were conducted, they were administered and recorded in accordance with requirements. We did not note any instances of complainants or witnesses refusing recorded statements when participating in the investigation.
31

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 33 of 190 Pg ID 8255

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph. Internal Affairs Division Investigations: During earlier reporting periods, we found that the DPD directive requiring timely statements from officers was inconsistently applied. Interviews of involved witness officers were often delayed with little justification other than unavailability. There were exceptions involving pending criminal proceedings against officers in some cases. This continues to be unresolved for DPD; we will monitor this issue closely. During this reporting period, timely interviews were appropriately conducted in all but four of the 50 cases that we reviewed. In two of the cases, the investigators did not schedule timely interviews, even after gathering sufficient evidence. In the other cases, the subject officers apparently eluded Garrity interviews by being non-responsive to investigators’ calls and taking off on medical. One officer resigned during the course of the investigation, and the other officer’s case was sustained. When the Internal Affairs Alert Teams, who are available or on-call 24 hours a day, respond to a complaint or allegation of criminal activity or serious misconduct by a Department member, preliminary interviews are conducted immediately and according to DPD directives. In all of the investigations, complainants and witnesses were interviewed at times and sites convenient for them. DPD is not in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph with a 92% compliance rate. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance
CJ Requirement U30 The DPD and the City procedures for all investigatory interviews shall prohibit:
a. the use of leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s(s’) actions when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques; and
b. the use of interviews via written questions when it is contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Command-Level Investigations: During the last reporting period, we found 82 cases (98%) in which the question-and-answer format was used to document officer interviews in the SIR; in two (2%), investigators had asked improper leading questions.10 During this reporting period, we found that in 76 of 80 cases (95%) the question-and-answer format, without the use of leading questions, was used to document officer interviews in the
10 Thirteen of the cases did not utilize a question-and-answer format, reducing the base to 82 cases.
32

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 34 of 190 Pg ID 8256

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

SIR.11 In four (5%) of these cases, the investigator utilized leading questions. There were no interviews via written questions contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level portion of this requirement.
Force Investigations: Our previous review of FI cases for compliance with these requirements found instances where leading questions were contained in written statements. Additionally, when listening to randomly selected recorded interviews conducted by various investigators, we noted that investigators asked leading questions in 80% of the interviews. Previously, we noted that the interviews varied in thoroughness and were generally brief.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we listened to seven randomly selected recorded statements taken from police officers. We found that two interviews involved the occasional use of leading questions, which is an improvement from the whole interview being based on leading questions. However, we continue to be concerned with the prevalent prefacing of questions with the phrase “Do you remember,” or “If you remember,” or “Do you have any remembrance of,” or “Do you recall.” Such phrasing prompt answers of “No,” or “I do not remember,” or “I do not recall.” We recognize that it can be difficult for interviewing investigators to refrain from asking questions that suggest answers, and we recognize the efforts of DPD to address this issue through supervision and training. However, we urge that DPD continue these efforts, and include a careful review and critique of all interviews in order to improve performance in this important area.
We also note that investigators sometimes refrain from confronting officers with conflicting information that they provide during investigations. Routinely, investigators fail to ask appropriate follow-up questions. The interviews often revolve around reporting – not investigating.
Information that is readily available is not being reviewed or considered in preparation for officer interviews. Investigators need to prepare for interviews by reviewing all evidence, documentation, and interviews that have already been completed before conducting detailed and thorough Garrity and other interviews.
Despite these concerns, DPD and the City are in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this requirement.
Office of the Chief Investigator: OCI supplied digitally recorded interviews for both sworn and civilian interviewees for a randomly selected subset of our review sample. During this reporting period, we listened to 102 interviews (79 employees, 23 citizens) associated with 25 cases. Generally, investigators are employing proper interviewing techniques, using open-ended rather than leading questions. Some OCI investigators still overuse the introduction, “Do you recall,” rather than simply directly asking a question. This allows the interviewee – usually an officer – to answer on his/her recollection, rather than on what actually occurred. While the results of the interview may not change, OCI investigators must eliminate this poor interviewing technique.
During this reporting period, we noted six cases in which leading questions were used. Some investigators will also begin the interview by reading the complaint form (often poorly, depending on how they are written) to complainants and witnesses. This practice may insure that
11 Seven of the cases did not utilize a question and answer format, reducing the base to 80 cases.
33

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 35 of 190 Pg ID 8257

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

complainants’ concerns are accurately captured, but may also serve to suggest answers. We continue to recommend that, if done, this be reserved for the end of the interview. Written questions were included in two cases, although it is probable that they are used to structure interviews in many more cases. In each case, the questions we reviewed were appropriate and not contrary to accepted law enforcement practices.
We note a wide disparity in the interviewing skills of OCI’s investigators, and we have suggested that supervising investigators either sit in on the interviews conducted by OCI’s investigators or listen to the recordings, in order to identify training needs and provide appropriate, individualized corrective measures. We advised OCI supervisors and the Acting Chief Investigator – both during a site visit and in follow-up written communications – that we would inquire as to whether our suggestion was implemented. We were disappointed to learn that only one of the four supervising investigators listened to 13 interviews during the quarter.
Despite these concerns with interviewing skills, the City is in compliance with the OCI portion of this requirement.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: Since the first reporting period, we have found no evidence of the use of leading questions during IAD interviews. During this reporting period, we reviewed all 50 investigations that were completed by IAD, and again, did not find any indication that investigators conducted interviews via the use of leading questions. In all cases, we looked for evidence in the case summary that the investigators had asked particular questions to clarify complainants’ and witnesses statements, and or physical evidence.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U31
The DPD and the City shall develop a protocol for when statements should (and should not) be compelled pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The directive provides criminal and administrative guidelines for investigators and supervisors regarding when statements should and should not be compelled from officers during internal investigations. In addition, it requires that all officers sign a Certificate of Notification of Constitutional Rights - Departmental Investigations prior to any interview.
The protocol also requires that all officers sign a Certificate of Notification of Constitutional Rights - Departmental Investigations prior to any interview.
Our reviews of SIR, IAD, FI, and OCI investigations found supervisors and investigators compliant with applicable Garrity requirements. In all of the cases involving officer interviews, proper protocols pursuant to Garrity were followed. Each case contained documentation that officers were advised of their rights, and all of the officer interviews we listened to begin with an on–the-record acknowledgement of Garrity rights. However, we have noted unnecessary delays
34

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 36 of 190 Pg ID 8258

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

of interviews with witness officers due to a misconception that these interviews must be delayed pending the completion of a criminal review. This practice mitigates the credibility of both the interviews and the investigations.
Despite this, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

35

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 37 of 190 Pg ID 8259

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U32 The DPD shall revise its policies regarding all investigatory reports and evaluations to require:
a. a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident, including a detailed account of the subject’s(s’) or complainant’s(s’) and officer’s(s’) actions and an evaluation of the initial stop or seizure;
b. a review of all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence; c. that the fact that a subject or complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense
shall it justify discontinuing the investigation; d. reasonable credibility determinations, with no automatic preference given to an officer's
statement over a non-officer's statement or discounting of a witness's statement merely because the witness has some connection to the subject or complainant e. an evaluation of whether an officer complied with DPD policy; f. an evaluation of all uses of force, including the officer’s tactics, and any allegations or evidence of misconduct uncovered during the course of the investigation; g. all administrative investigations to be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard; h. written documentation of the basis for extending the deadline of a report and evaluation and provide that the circumstances justifying an extension do not include an investigator’s vacation or furlough and that problems with investigator vacations or workload should result in the matter being reassigned; and i. any recommended non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action be documented in writing.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Our assessment of compliance with the Phase 2 requirements of this paragraph included interviews with relevant staff; and a review of closed command-level, FI, IAD, and OCI cases. Command Level Investigations: During the current reporting period, we found the following:
• The data reflects a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident, including a detailed account of the subject(s) or complainants and officer(s) actions in 49 (56%) of the investigations, a reduction from the 73% registered during the last reporting period. Issues that have previously been identified continue to hamper compliance in this area: interviews appear almost verbatim from officer to officer; investigators do not ask follow-up questions; investigators fail to address discrepancies between officer

36

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 38 of 190 Pg ID 8260

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

statements; investigators fail to interview complainants/victims.12 In 87 of the cases (100%), an evaluation of the initial stop or seizure was conducted.
• In 43 (54%) of the 79 cases all of the relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, was reviewed.13 This is a reduction from the 73% we found during the last reporting period. As we have previously mentioned, we are placing greater emphasis on the review of available video and audio recordings in the evaluation of this requirement. We continue to assert that the review of both video and audio recordings of citizen contacts with DPD members is essential to use of force investigations and consequently we continue to recommend, in the strongest of terms, that DPD initiate all of the corrective actions necessary to ensure that encounters are captured in both video and audio recordings. We recommend that DPD develop a process that directs that in investigations in which recordings have to be requested from Technical Support are requested and received prior to the submission of the preliminary report. The failure to have these reviews conducted prior to the submission of the final report is an unacceptable practice requiring immediate remediation.
• None of the 87 cases we reviewed disclosed any evidence that the fact that a subject or complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense was considered as evidence of whether a DPD officer engaged in misconduct. There was also no evidence that this information was used to justify discontinuing the investigation.
• Eighty-three (95%) of the investigations contained evidence that reasonable credibility determinations, with no automatic preference given to an officer’s statement over a nonofficer’s statement, were made to reach conclusions regarding the investigations. This is a slight increase from the 93% we found during the last reporting period. Three investigations, three percent of the cases, contained evidence that a witness’s statement may have been discounted merely because the witness had some connection to the subject or complainants Ninety-seven percent did not.
• Sixty-four (74%) of the investigations contained an evaluation of whether or not an officer complied with DPD policy. This is a slight reduction from the 75% we found during the last reporting period. The primary issues impacting on compliance with this requirement continue to include the failure to document officers not recording the shift (no audio recordings of citizen contacts), the officers failing to make force notifications from the scene, officers not utilizing the zone dispatcher to notify of the use of force, and officers not completing their 002 forms in a timely fashion or supervisors not approving them on a timely basis. This failure to deal with policy violations could be corrected through more critical reviews of the investigative work product, getting the issues corrected before submission to MAS. Seventy-eight of the 82 (95%) cases that we reviewed contained an evaluation of the use of force.14 This is a slight reduction from the 98% we found during the last reporting period. Officers’ tactics were evaluated in 76
12 This is not an all-inclusive list.
13 Eight of the units had no equipment installed.
14 Five cases were eliminated, as they were detainee injuries, with no use of force.
37

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 39 of 190 Pg ID 8261

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

(93%) of the 82 cases; during the last reporting period, we found this number to be 92%. There were three cases (3%) of misconduct identified; 97% had no misconduct identified.
• Eighty-five (98%) of the 87 cases were evaluated on a preponderance of the evidence standard. This is a slight increase from the 96% we found during the last reporting period. We also found that 60 (91%) of the 66 cases requiring extensions of deadlines documented the need for the extension – either by a formal extension request or by notations in the file reflecting submission dates, return for corrections dates, and final submission dates. We continue to urge DPD to provide guidance to the various commands regarding the importance of properly documenting the extensions and the returns of reports for corrections routinely documented in the Timeline section of the SIRs. Documents returned for corrections should reflect the new due dates. There were 50 SIRs in which corrective action might have been taken and corrective actions were documented in 45 of the investigations (90%). Inclusive in the corrective actions were misconduct investigations, negative administrative counseling registers, re-instructs, retraining, and verbal counseling.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level Investigations portion of this requirement.
Force Investigations: Our review of completed FI cases for previous reporting periods found them to be in overall compliance, but noted cases wherein there was no evaluation of the initial stop and/or seizure; no reference to the presence or absence of circumstantial evidence; and a lack of reference to the conducting of credibility determinations.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we examined 31 completed case files and noted the continued inclusion of a detailed account of the facts of the event.15 Investigators evaluated the initial stop/contact in each case and but need to do a much better job of evaluating available direct, circumstantial, and physical evidence. Investigators need to review related police reports; medical documentation for injured subjects; and autopsy reports, for example, with existing information available at the time of the incident. Investigators are missing opportunities to complete thorough and factual investigations when evidence is obtained and not properly analyzed. There were no instances where a subject’s court-related appearances had any effect on the outcome of investigations. The files documented some reasonable credibility determinations, but demonstrated the need for FI to continue to provide training on this issue.
We found that investigations contained reviews of tactics and identified officers’ unrelated conduct violations. Findings were based mostly on a preponderance of evidence standard, and recommended referrals for disciplinary intervention were documented.
We note that requested extensions of deadlines for reports were documented; and when they were approved, but new due dates were not clearly established and documented. The new due date should also be entered into the case management database. The practice of granting multiple extensions remains problematic and tends to circumvent the intent of this requirement. Twenty-eight of the investigations we reviewed were untimely. Multiple extensions were requested for eight of the 28 investigations that were late. Multiple extensions were authorized
15 These investigations included 22 critical firearm discharge events and one vehicle pursuit.
38

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 40 of 190 Pg ID 8262

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

in these cases ranging from three to 11 separate requests; despite their approval, the completed work products were late.
We recognize the challenges inherent with effective case management, and recognize the continued efforts of DPD, particularly IAD and FI staff, to address them. Regardless, it is difficult to justify the approval of deadline extensions to conduct interviews, obtain an officer’s discipline history, obtain videotapes relating to an event, or locate complainants or subjects weeks or months after an incident.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: We noted in our previous reports that OCI investigations were most often not completed within the prescribed 90-day timeframe. Requests for extensions were frequently submitted well after the case was overdue, and adequate justification of the need for the extension was rarely provided. The delay in securing timely interviews has been a recurring problem that has impacted the quality of the investigations. However, OCI investigations have generally been factual and complete, and more often than not the preponderance of evidence standard is used in reaching determinations.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected cases. All of the complaints were lodged in 2011, with half of them being received before July 1, 2011. In all of the cases, there was a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident complained of. However, we noted two cases in which additional allegations were raised during interviews, and not documented or addressed. In one, a citizen complained that officers planted drugs to increase the aggregate weight of marijuana they confiscated during a search warrant (and thus inflate the charge). In the other, a complainant alleged that he was offered cash by officers to “forget the whole thing”, referring to alleged force used on the complainant.
In two cases, relevant evidence was not considered. In one, a complaint involving an alleged improper search and damage to a vehicle, the Citizen Complaint Report (CCR) indicated that the complainant had photos of the damage. However, it did not appear that the investigator followed up on this. In the other, an investigator based her finding in a demeanor complaint on a review of the vehicle Insight video, despite an indication that the video did not record the salient portion of the police/citizen encounter.
We note that investigators generally explore the availability of video evidence in cases where it is appropriate. In 36 cases, investigators appropriately inquired as to the availability of video. In 28 of these cases, or 78%, video evidence was not available. This is concerning, given the large monetary and resource investment that DPD has made in this technology. We continue to recommend that investigators inquire about video as early in the investigation as possible, as retention times for both DPD and private sources can result in the deletion of the video before it can be acquired. We learned during our most recent site visit that OCI investigators now have the ability to access the Insight Video system directly (“read only” access – they cannot alter or modify the database) and research the existence of possible video evidence, rather than relying on a written inquiry to Technical Services.
We found no evidence where a complainant’s conviction or guilty plea had a bearing on the investigation. However, credibility assessments were lacking for both officers and complainants/witnesses.

39

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 41 of 190 Pg ID 8263

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

In all of the cases we reviewed, we noted appropriate evaluation of whether officers complied with DPD policy.16 In four cases, misconduct was discovered during the course of the investigation and ultimately sustained. In one, Insight video revealed that officers drove by the location of a possible burglary in progress, and charges of falsifying their activity logs were subsequently sustained. In another, officers admitted to using force and not documenting it. While an allegation of excessive force was not sustained, the failure to document the force used resulted in a sustained finding. In another case, an officer was sustained for failing to take a report, and in the last case, an officer failed to properly complete his activity sheet by listing assisting units. These officers – who were never identified – were the subject of a force complaint.
In two cases, potential misconduct was not discovered. In one, reserve officers apparently used force but did not document it. In another, an officer admitted to using force – and the force was deemed justified – but the investigator failed to note that the officer did not document the force per policy.
In 11 cases, the preponderance of evidence standard was not used. This is based on our determination that not all potential evidence was considered, or different findings were warranted based on the documentation provided for our review. For example, allegations that were unfounded or exonerated by investigators would more appropriately be classified as not sustained based on the information in the case file.
Sixty-seven of the cases we reviewed were not completed within the prescribed 90-day time period. Given that the timeliness of investigations has been the focus of the Court and the Monitoring Team, this continues a disappointing trend. At the end of the reporting period (December 31, 2011), over 57% of OCI’s active caseload had already passed the 90-day mark. Written requests for extension were submitted in 56 of these 67 cases, frequently after the investigations were already overdue. Three requests mentioned workload as a reason for the extension in contradiction of policy and this paragraph. As a rule, the extension requests do not adequately identify why the extensions are required, nor do they explain long periods of investigative inactivity leading up to the requests. In at least three cases, the reason given for the extension did not match the facts of the case. One extension request mentioned the need to conduct “additional interviews,” when in fact the first interview associated with the case took place a month after the request. Similarly, another cited difficulty in scheduling interviews but the first attempt to contact officers occurred eight days after the request. Another mentioned additional information to follow-up on “after interviewing the complainant.” The complainant, however, was uncooperative in this case and never submitted to an interview. We cannot help but conclude that extension requests are routinely approved with little or no verification of their content.
There were no cases in which corrective action or disciplinary action was recommended as a result of the investigation. All sustained cases were referred to the Office of the Chief of Police.
We reviewed several cases in which the canvasses were either deficient or performed so long after the alleged occurrence as to have no investigative value.
16 If an allegation appropriately received a finding of unfounded or not sustained, evaluation of policy compliance was not assessed since, by definition, its occurrence was either refuted or not substantiated.
40

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 42 of 190 Pg ID 8264

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

In summary, although appropriate directives are in place, our analysis of OCI investigations does not support a Phase 2 compliance finding with this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: Our review during this reporting period found that the IAD investigative packages continue to be well organized, and elements of the investigation are easy to locate. We found that the IAD investigations were conducted in a professional manner. IAD command staff continue to accept constructive criticism after the Monitoring Team discusses concerns with them. The supervisor meets with the investigators every two weeks to discuss the case progress and grant extensions when necessary. During this review of 50 completed IAD investigations, we found that there were precise descriptions of the incidents and reviews of all relevant evidence. In two of the investigations, the supervisor did not authorize extensions and the cases ultimately exceeded the 90-day requirement. Both of the investigators have retired. Appropriate credibility determinations were made in all of the cases. Case Trax, IAD’s case management system, where investigative activity is logged, is also used by the supervisor who inserts directions and explanations for extension requests.
DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance
CJ Requirement U33 The DPD shall revise its policies regarding the review of all investigations to require:
a. investigations to be reviewed by the chain of command above the investigator;
b. the reviewing supervisors to identify any deficiencies in those investigations and require the investigator to correct any deficiencies within seven days of the submission of the report and evaluation to the reviewing supervisor;
c. the reviewing supervisors to recommend and the final reviewing authority to refer any incident with training, policy or procedural implications to the appropriate DPD unit;
d. appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action when an investigator fails to conduct or reviewing supervisor fails to evaluate an investigation appropriately; and
e. a written explanation by any supervisor, including the Chief of Police, who disagrees with a finding or departs from a recommended non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action, including the basis for the departure.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our assessment of compliance with the Phase 2 requirements of this paragraph included interviews with staff; and a review of closed command-level, FI, IAD, and OCI cases.
Command Level Investigations: Our assessment for this current reporting period found that in all of the 87 SIRs reviewed (100%) there was a chain of command review above the investigator.
41

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 43 of 190 Pg ID 8265

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

DPD identified deficiencies in 69 (79%) of the 87 cases, with 27 requiring corrections within seven days of submission. In eight of the cases, DPD made recommendations that training, policy, or procedural issues be referred to the appropriate DPD unit. In four instances, the final reviewing authority referred the matter to an appropriate DPD unit. There were 12 instances of corrective action being taken for investigations that were not conducted properly, to include reinstruction, training, and the issuance of corrective memos. There were four instances where appropriate actions were taken for investigations not evaluated appropriately by the reviewing supervisor, to include re-instructions and Negative Administrative Counseling Registers. In two instances, instructions were provided to entire platoons based on issues identified in particular SIR investigations.
As we have previously mentioned, the review of SIRs by the command level remains the most critical step in the conduct of these investigations. It is incumbent on that level to correct deficiencies in the investigations and to ensure that the appropriate units are consulted if any procedural or tactical issues are identified.
DPD is not in compliance for the Command Level Investigations.
Force Investigations: In our previous reviews of FI cases for compliance with these requirements, we noted that the case files included chain of command reviews and recommended referrals to training. The investigations also included references to supervisors’ requests for additional information or investigative work.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 31 completed FI cases. Although we are sufficiently satisfied, based on our discussions with FI staff, that supervisory reviews and evaluations are occurring, we were unable to find some supporting documentation referred by FI as Case Review Sheets. We recommend that these reviews be more thoroughly documented. Considering the fact that 28 of the cases we reviewed were very late, correcting deficiencies within seven days in these investigations is insignificant for the purpose of compliance with this paragraph. Only 10% of the cases we reviewed were timely. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: In our previous reports, we noted our inability to determine what appropriate supervisory intervention has taken place when investigations are deficient. While there has been evidence of supervisory review in most cases, when investigations are returned, specific issues and corrective measures were usually not documented. Glaring deficiencies such as chronic timeliness issues, which would warrant counseling and/or discipline, were not addressed in writing.
For the current reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 100 closed investigations. During this reporting period, 86 cases were returned for deficiencies. Most of these were for spelling, grammar, and formatting. In 21 of the cases, based on a review of the Significant Event Logs, the deficiencies were not corrected within seven days. We noted only one case in which an Administrative Counseling Record was issued to an investigator for the quality and timeliness of an investigation. We indicated in our last report that in early August, four OCI investigators were terminated based on the quality and timeliness of their investigations. A total of 177 cases assigned to these investigators had to be reassigned. OCI established a “Special Assignment Squad” from existing investigators to handle these cases. At least 17 of these cases were part of our review sample. Most of these cases had serious deficiencies, such as large gaps of inactivity, prior to their transfer.
42

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 44 of 190 Pg ID 8266

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

We did not review any cases in which a reviewer disagreed with the recommended findings of the investigator. The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of the paragraph. Internal Affairs Division Investigations: During this reporting period, the IAD supervisor used the case management system, Case Trax, to record any deficiencies and instructions in the investigator’s progress notes. As noted in U32, two of the 50 cases that we reviewed this period were overdue and were not authorized for extensions. The case files noted that reprimands had been issued to the investigators. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance
B. Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations CJ Requirement U34 The DPD shall revise its reporting policies to require officers to document on a single auditable form any prisoner injury, use of force, allegation of use of force, and instance in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. In the previous reporting period, we reviewed 204 auditable forms (UF002) and found that 146 of the forms (72%) were prepared correctly and documented the prisoner injuries, uses of force, and allegations of force. The forms include seven cases that were referred to FI/IAD. During this reporting period, we reviewed 183 auditable forms, and found that 118 of the forms (64%) were prepared correctly and documented the prisoner injuries, uses of force, and allegations of force. The forms include 10 cases that were referred to FI/IAD. The DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance
CJ Requirement U35 The DPD shall revise its policies regarding use of force and prisoner injury notifications to require:
a. officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or prisoner injury; b. that upon such notice, a supervisor shall respond to the scene of all uses of force that
involve a firearm discharge, a visible injury or a complaint of injury. A supervisor shall respond to all other uses of force on a priority basis. Upon arrival at the scene, the
43

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 45 of 190 Pg ID 8267

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

supervisor shall interview the subject(s), examine the subject(s) for injury, and ensure that the subject(s) receive needed medical attention;
c. the supervisor responding to the scene to notify IAD of all serious uses of force, uses of force that result in visible injury, uses of force that a reasonable officer should have known were likely to result in injury, uses of force where there is prisoner injury; and
d. IAD to respond to the scene of, and investigate, all incidents where a prisoner dies, suffers serious bodily injury or requires hospital admission, or involves a serious use of force, and to permit IAD to delegate all other use of force or prisoner injury investigations to the supervisor for a command investigation17
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: During the previous reporting period, we found that in 94% of the cases we reviewed, a supervisor was notified following a use of force or a prisoner injury. Supervisors responded to 86% of cases in which the use of force involved a firearms discharge, a visible injury or a complaint of injury. Supervisors responded to other uses of force on a priority basis in 86% of cases. In combination, a supervisor responded to 91% of the cases reviewed. Eighty-nine percent of the cases reflected supervisory efforts to interview the subject, at the scene or at the district. In 84% of the cases, the supervisor examined the subject on the scene or at the district/precinct for injuries, and ensured that the subjects received the needed medical attention. IAD was notified in six cases, and assumed responsibility for those cases.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 87 cases and found that in 84 (96%) cases, a supervisor was notified following a use of force or a prisoner injury. There were 16 cases in which the use of force involved a firearms discharge, a visible injury, or a complaint of injury; and a supervisor responded to 15 of them (94%). Supervisors responded to other uses of force on a priority basis in 65 (93%) of the remaining 70 cases. In combination, a supervisor responded to 81 (93%) of the 87 cases reviewed, a slight improvement over the 91% registered in our last report.
In 78 of the 87 cases (90%), a supervisor interviewed the subject at the scene, at the District/Pct, or at DRH.18 In 74 (85%) of the 87 cases, a supervisor examined the subject for injury and ensured that the subject received needed medical attention.19 Force Investigations (FI) was notified in 10 of the cases. There was one possible choke hold which was not reported to FI.
Force Investigations: Our review of 31 FI cases relevant to this requirement shows that, taken together, the majority of these reports did not meet these requirements. Though DPD is still not in compliance with these requirements, it is making progress in some of the areas, with some of the components of this requirement exceeding the 90% level.

17 Consent Judgment amendment, September 15, 2008. 18 In some instances, a subject is moved to the District/Precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject. 19 In some instances, a subject is moved to the District/Precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject.
44

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 46 of 190 Pg ID 8268

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance
CJ Requirement U36
The DPD shall revise its use of force and prisoner injury investigation policies to require:
a. command use of force preliminary investigations to be completed within 10 days of the incident. These investigations shall include a synopsis of the incident, photographs of any injuries, witness statements, a canvas of the area, and a profile of the officer’s prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct, and a first-line supervisory evaluation. The final command use of force investigation shall be completed within 30 days of the incident;
b. IAD investigations to be completed within 90 days of the incident; and
c. copies of all reports and command investigations to be sent to IAD within 7 days of completion of the investigation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: In the previous reporting period, we found that 60% of the Command Level Investigations were completed within 10 days of the event. All investigations contained the required synopsis of the event; however, there were no photographs of injuries in the files.
In 95% of the cases, the canvass and witness information was included in the file. Officers’ prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct were included in 97% of the cases. All of the cases reflected first-line supervisor evaluations. The final command use of force investigations were completed within 30 days in 83% of the cases. Copies of completed Command Level Investigations were transmitted to IAD within seven days of completion of the investigations in 79% of the cases.
During this reporting period, we found that 65 (75%) of the preliminary investigations were completed within 10 days of the event, a continued improvement over previous quarters but still short of the >94% required to achieve compliance. Eighty-six of the 87 reports (99%) included a synopsis of the incident. There were still no photographs of injuries in the files.
In 84 (97%) of the cases, the canvass and witness information was included in the file, officers’ prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct were included in 86 of the 87 cases (99%). All of the cases reflected first-line supervisor evaluations. The final command use of force investigations were completed within 30 days in 71 (82%) of the cases. Copies of completed Command Level Investigations were transmitted to IAD within seven days of completion of the investigations in 70 (80%) of the 87 cases.
We continue to recommend that DPD develop a more sophisticated system of tracking these cases. Cases failing to meet the 30-day requirement ranged from 34 to 57 days after the incident, with most not offering an explanation for the delay. We recognize that some cases may be quite
45

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 47 of 190 Pg ID 8269

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

complex, but our review of the delayed cases didn’t find them to be particularly complex. DPD has not achieved Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for the Command Level Investigations.
Force Investigations: We previously reviewed completed FI cases for compliance with these requirements. The investigations included synopses of the events and witness statements, and demonstrated in each successive report, a marked improvement in thoroughness and documentation of canvasses for civilian witnesses; although we noted that the investigations lacked prior use of force, complaint, and misconduct history that could assist investigators when conducting interviews, making credibility determinations, or developing recommendations regarding training or supervisory intervention. To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 31 completed FI cases.20 Each included officers’ prior histories/profiles and a synopsis of the event and applicable witness statements; however, two files contained no photographs of officer or subject injuries taken by DPD as required. Twenty-eight of the 31 cases we reviewed were untimely. Notably, of the 28 cases, three cases were from 2009, 14 were from 2010, and the remaining cases were from 2011. Our review of the 28 untimely cases revealed a troubling pattern involving the vast majority of investigative legwork being completed by FI investigators in the early stages of an event and then the investigators taking several months to more than two years to complete the investigative report. There was no articulated reason or justification in the documentation reviewed for investigators to require several months or even years to complete a report long after the investigative work has been completed.
We also noted in a case that the evidence technician assigned to download the video involving a critical firearm discharge event took over one year to complete the request and provide the evidence to FI. We are troubled by the evidence technician’s remarks that dual assignments make it nearly impossible to provide the video evidence in a timely fashion. There was further indication that FI’s request was a low priority compared to other requests from other entities. The evidence technician was disciplined for not performing duties; however, the importance of events that involve the application of deadly force must be a priority for all DPD personnel especially those that are required to investigate and process the related incident scene(s).
We continue to recommend that DPD closely evaluate case management and related issues, including staffing, and more closely monitoring the FI investigator’s time management and report preparation to identify the means to more expeditiously complete these investigations. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

20 These investigations included 22 critical firearm discharges.
46

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 48 of 190 Pg ID 8270

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement U37 The DPD has created a Shooting Team, composed of officers from the Homicide Section and IAD. The Shooting Team shall respond to the scene and investigate all critical firearms discharges and in-custody deaths.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Previously, we found that the JIST did not appropriately respond to critical firearm discharge events; accordingly, we found DPD not in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. There were 22 critical firearm discharge investigations completed during this reporting period. JIST did not appropriately respond in one critical firearm discharge event.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U38 The DPD shall develop a protocol for conducting investigations of critical firearm discharges that, in addition to the requirements of paragraphs 27-36, requires
a. the investigation to account for all shots fired, all shell casings, and the locations of all officers at the time the officer discharged the firearm;
b. the investigator to conduct and preserve in the investigative file all appropriate ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests; and
c. the investigation to be completed within 30 days of the incident. If a Garrity statement is necessary, then that portion of the investigation may be deferred until 30 days from the declination or conclusion of the criminal prosecution.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our review of critical firearm discharge investigations for previous reports noted a number of significant issues relating to the requirements of this paragraph. We found that although investigators inventoried the officers’ ammunition to assist with determining the number of shots fired, and collected shell casings at the scene, there were instances where the number of shots believed to have been fired did not match the inventory of officers’ ammunition and/or the number of retrieved shell casings. We emphasized the importance of accounting for all rounds that are fired, and where there appears to be a discrepancy due to the described magazine problems, documenting it in the case reports. The DPD attributed this to an ongoing problem with the ammunition magazines that sometimes prevented officers from loading them to capacity and indicated its intent to correct the problem with the issuance of replacement equipment.
In addition, we noted that while the locations of officers were generally described, diagrams depicting their positions were not consistently included in the case files. We also expressed concern regarding the absence of gunshot residue and DNA collection and analysis. The DPD
47

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 49 of 190 Pg ID 8271

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

advised that gunshot residue analysis is no longer available; that DNA analysis is limited and that there are significant delays in ballistics analyses, which are conducted by the State Crime Lab. These have been – and remain – issues mitigating the ability of FI to conduct complete and timely critical firearm discharge investigations. And finally, we have repeatedly expressed concern with the failure to complete these investigations within the prescribed 30-day time limit.
To assess compliance with requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 22 completed critical firearm discharge investigations, one of which was fatal. Three cases contained discrepancies between the number of rounds (ammunition) officers were carrying at the time of the event and the number of rounds they are required to carry by policy. These discrepancies were resolved due to other evidence; however, they do illustrate the need for investigators to document DPD policy violations relating to the carrying of a specified amount of ammunition and the need for DPD to take corrective action.
The investigations that we reviewed described the locations of the officers; however, the diagrams that were included did not always specifically indicate them. The locations of shell casings were noted. Additional evidentiary issues of concern pertinent to the requirements of this paragraph include: the failure of FI to reconcile the number of shots believed to have been fired with autopsy findings; the failure of FI to use the Department metal detector to search for shell casings in grassy or vacant lots; and the failure of FI to collect and submit DPD firearms for ballistic testing, and conduct gunshot residue tests.
We also are concerned that ballistic testing and analysis was not conducted on recovered spent shell casings due to the procedures and protocols of the State Lab; we are further concerned that certain firearms evidence was not submitted to the State Lab for testing due to the DPD practice of only submitting evidence for ballistic testing/analysis when there is an injury due to gunfire and/or unless the Prosecutor’s Office requested it.
All 22 of the critical firearm discharge investigations we reviewed were untimely. These cases were closed in a timeframe of five to 28 months, clearly outside of the 30-day requirement. All of the cases included Garrity interviews; however, none required delays due to DA declinations, which were not an issue in these cases.
These above-cited ongoing issues are significant and continue to mitigate the quality and thoroughness of these investigations, and therefore require expeditious resolution.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance
CJ Requirement U39
The DPD shall require a Command-level Force Review Team to evaluate all critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths. The team shall be chaired by the Deputy Chief who directly supervises IAD. The DPD shall establish criteria for selecting the other member of the team.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
48

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 50 of 190 Pg ID 8272

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

The Team is chaired by the Commander, Internal Affairs/Force Investigations, and includes Deputy Chiefs, the Training Commander, and a specified Chief of Police designee. During this reporting period, the CLFRT convened and reviewed 21 critical firearm discharge investigations completed for review.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U40 The DPD policy that defines the Command-level Force Review Team’s role shall require the team to:
a. complete its review of critical firearm discharges that result in injury and in-custody deaths within 90 days of the resolution of any criminal review and/or proceedings and all other critical firearm discharges within 60 days and require the Chief of Police to complete his or her review of the team’s report within 14 days;
b. comply with the revised review of investigations policies and procedures;
c. interview the principal investigators; and d. prepare a report to the Chief of Police in compliance with the revised investigatory
report and evaluation protocol.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. During this reporting period, FI submitted 22 critical firearm discharge investigations for our review; however, one critical firearm discharge investigation was – contrary to policy – referred back to the Command Level for disposition, and it was never presented to the CLFRT for review as required.
The 21 critical firearm discharge investigations that were completed and submitted to the CLFRT for review during this reporting period were not completed in a timely manner. The CLFRT indicated that, to address the issue, FI has recently implemented a new case management system that will increase the productivity and efficiency of the unit. The CLFRT also acknowledges its own delay in reviewing investigations. The CLFRT indicated that team members have been mandated to convene twice each month and adjust their schedules accordingly.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.

49

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 51 of 190 Pg ID 8273

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance
CJ Requirement U41
The Chair of the Command Level Force Review Team shall annually review critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths in aggregate to detect patterns and/or problems and report his or her findings and recommendations, including additional investigative protocols and standards for all critical firearm discharge and in-custody death investigations, to the Chief of Police.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The CLFRT Chair previously prepared an annual report and critique of critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths and was found in compliance with this paragraph. These reports are due by May of the year following the year under review.21
We received the CLFRT annual report by May 31, 2011, as required. The report, prepared by Force Investigations, included a description of investigative processes; case summaries; and various analyses of fatal and non-fatal firearm discharges, in-custody deaths, and pursuits. As we noted, the report indicated a downward trend in critical firearm discharges during the latest five-year period. After peaking at 59 in 2006, DPD recorded 33 critical firearm discharges in 2010. There were seven fatal shootings in 2010, after peaking at nine in 2006. The most common encounter involved armed subjects; however, two subjects were unarmed.
Although the report was comprehensive, it did not include an analysis of the data to detect additional patterns or problems, or the absence thereof. Nevertheless, we found DPD in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, pending receipt of a supplemental report containing the above-described analysis.
We received the supplemental report during July – September 2011 reporting period. The report addressed the DPD’s efforts to ensure that officers are carrying approved ammunition, and that 90 firearm inspections at the precincts are being conducted by Ordinance Control Officers, as required. The Department has authorized certain types of hollow point ammunition for use by its members. These two actions should reduce or eliminate officers carrying unauthorized ammunition. In addition, the report addressed the issue of unintentional/accidental discharges by officers. There were four total listed in the report – two of which occurred off-duty. The accidental discharge information has been communicated to the CLFRT for further evaluation. In the interim, all officers involved in the accidental discharges were found negligent and have been formally disciplined and directed to Firearms Training for additional instruction on proper weapon handling and firearm safety.
The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

21 On January 28, 2009, the Court amended this paragraph to require the DPD to provide the Monitor with a copy of the annual review and critique of critical firearm discharges within five months after the end of the year reported on.
50

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 52 of 190 Pg ID 8274

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
Critical Issues:
• The failure to conduct quality investigations within prescribed timelines remains a critical issue. We have noted some improvement in the submission of both the preliminary and final reports, but we believe that a more sophisticated management program would prove beneficial. We again emphasize the need to provide formal documentation of reasons for delays in the completion of investigations. Many cases indicate that they are returned for corrections, but do not explain what is needed to be corrected, nor what new time limits have been established for re-submission.
• The timeliness of OCI’s investigations has been steadily slipping since March. OCI continues to operate without a permanent Chief Investigator, and the leadership vacuum – coupled with the lack of a comprehensive plan to address the growing backlog of cases – is of great concern. We will continue to monitor OCI’s adherence to timelines closely.
• A vital component of the Command Level investigative process is the critical review of the work product by supervisory personnel, beginning with the first-line supervisors. DPD needs to give more attention to the quality of interviews; many are one-question interviews, with no follow-up questions; other lack details regarding the incident and how the officers on the scene responded to the incident. Video and audio recordings must be reviewed as part of the investigative process. Supervisors need to ensure that activity logs are properly completed with respect to the video and audio capabilities; and when equipment is inoperative, the proper documentation should be prepared and commented on in the investigation.
• The DPD does not have a formalized practice of forwarding complex investigations to the Training Division and/or the Policy Section for review to ensure that both units are aware of the situations officers are confronting in the streets. The review of these cases by those specialized units could result in enhanced training curricula or improved DPD policies.
• Our reviews of auditable forms found that, in some instances, officers erroneously believe there is no need to notify supervisors of a use of force absent excessive force or injury. The DPD must clarify for both officers and supervisors the requirement to notify supervisors when force is used, as well as the requirement that supervisors must respond when notified, absent a more pressing priority.
Next Steps: During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to assess compliance, paying particular attention to meeting the specific detailed elements prescribed in these requirements. Of particular concern to us are the
51

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 53 of 190 Pg ID 8275

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

thoroughness and completeness of investigations, their review by supervisors, and compliance with the timelines.
• Discuss with DPD Commanders the importance of video and audio evidence, the need for improved documentation of the use of force de-escalation methods, and the need for appropriate due diligence in contacting complainants and witnesses in force investigations.
• Review the impact of the Chief Investigator’s systemic and structural changes within OCI.
• Continue to review progress on OCI and FI’s case management systems and the results of current field-testing. Conduct a random audit of FI’s open or pending investigations.
• Discuss specific OCI cases from this reporting period with the Chief Investigator and OCI supervising investigators.
• Discuss with IAD managers case management methods, adherence to IAD Standard Operating Procedures, and investigative interviewing techniques.
• Discuss specific FI cases from this reporting period with the FI Commander and randomly selected investigators.
• Discuss ballistics collection and analysis with FI.

¶ Requirements 27 Revise investigative policies 28 Investigation by uninvolved supervisor 29 Procedures for investigative interviews 30 Leading questions prohibited, etc. 31 Garrity Protocol required 32 Revise investigatory report policies 33 Chain of command reviews 34 Auditable form required 35 Notification of supervisors, etc. 36 Completion of command investigations 37 Joint Incident Shooting Team 38 Protocol for critical discharge investigations 39 Command Level Force Review Team 40 Review critical firearm discharges 41 Command-level force review requirements

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

52

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance Not Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 54 of 190 Pg ID 8276

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

V. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES
The arrest and detention policies and practice requirements are a critical component of this Agreement. The policies prohibit an officer from making an arrest without probable cause, and the existing policy requires supervisory review within 12 hours of the arrest. It further requires that for an arrest that is unsupported by probable cause, or a warrant that is not sought, an auditable form must document the circumstances within 12 hours of the event.
The DPD revised its investigatory stop-and-frisk policies to appropriately define investigatory stops and reasonable suspicion and supported this effort by frequent roll call training and two Administrative Messages issued in January and April 2011. DPD also revised its witness identification policies to comply with the revised arrest and investigatory policies. Policy establishes that a material witness can only be taken into custody by obtaining a Court order prior to such taking.
The revised policies and procedures in this area require significant documentation and reviews by supervisors. Command notification is required in all instances where there exists a reported violation of DPD arrest, holds/warrants, investigatory stop-and-frisk, witness identification and questioning policies, and all reports in which an arraignment warrant is not sought. Compliance review in this area thus draws heavily on the detailed records required in this section.
DPD has made significant progress in documenting Investigatory Stops, Detainee Registration and following their internal Witness Identification policies during the previous three reporting periods. For the first time, DPD has come into compliance with its investigatory policies and the preparation of auditable forms when reasonable suspicion was not properly articulated for the stop.
The Department’s ability to document and timely prepare warrant submittals to the prosecutor had been problematic, in that the failure to do so caused other violations of policy. (See U50, U51, and U53.) We have found that in a few instances, the failure to prepare the required auditable form or timely review by a commanding officer has kept DPD out of compliance with certain paragraphs. Supervisory and command review continues to be lacking in some areas, and that documentation of violations should be a Departmental priority.
In the fifth reporting period, DPD assigned a commanding officer (lieutenant) to coordinate the efforts of the different districts/precincts and other investigative operational units in their reviews of witness identification and questioning policies. This strategy has been successful and has continued, as we have now found the applicable CJ paragraph in compliance for five consecutive reporting periods.
A. Arrest Policies
CJ Requirement U42
The DPD shall revise its arrest policies to define arrest and probable cause as those terms are defined in this Agreement and prohibit the arrest of an individual with less than probable cause.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
53

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 55 of 190 Pg ID 8277

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Phase 2 compliance is linked to and dependent upon the implementation of U43.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U43
The DPD shall review all arrests for probable cause at the time the arrestee is presented at the precinct or specialized unit. This review shall be memorialized in writing within 12 hours of the arrest. For any arrest unsupported by probable cause or in which an arraignment warrant was not sought, the DPD shall document the circumstances of the arrest and/or the reasons the arraignment warrant was not sought on an auditable form within 12 hours of the event.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 107 arrest case files. The review included Crisnet reports, Detainee Input Sheets, DPD Warrant Verification Logs, officers’ Daily Activity Logs, Arraignment Verification Logs, and detainee file folders. In all cases but one, sufficient probable cause for the arrest was present and an auditable form (DPD UF-001, Review of Arrest Exception) was not completed. In two cases, supervisory approval occurred more than 12 hours after the arrest.
When an officer is not seeking an arraignment warrant, the Department is required to complete Auditable Form U004, Warrant Tracking Hold Form (effective September 2009). Of the 107 arrest cases we reviewed, the Department did not seek a warrant in 20. In all cases except one, the required auditable form was completed. In the exception, the detainee was held for more than 48 hours and the auditable form submitted was marked as “warrant denied” when, in fact, the warrant submittal documents had not been prepared or forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office. We spoke with the commander of the unit involved, and he indicated that there was some initial confusion with this case and that the Department now understands the correct procedure to follow. There was an auditable form completed for this case after the fact.
In one case, although the auditable form was completed, the officer who completed the form submitted it 28 days after the event. In another instance, the time of supervisory approval of the probable cause did not appear on the Crisnet report, and the supervisor in the holding facility failed to indicate the approval time on the Detainee Input Sheet. There was a Corrective Action Notice issued in this instance. DPD policy requires that an auditable form be completed within 12 hours of the event.
We also note that corrective action notices were prepared for three of the instances mentioned above. DPD’s compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon probable cause to arrest and timeliness in preparing the required auditable forms.
DPD’s compliance rate for this reporting period is 96%, a slight decrease from the previous quarter’s 98%, for the three separate and distinct requirements of this paragraph. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
54

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 56 of 190 Pg ID 8278

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
B. Investigatory Stop Policies CJ Requirement U44 The DPD shall revise its investigatory stop and frisk policies to define investigatory stop and reasonable suspicion as those terms are defined in this Agreement. The policy shall specify that a frisk is authorized only when the officer has reasonable suspicion to fear for his or her safety and that the scope of the frisk must be narrowly tailored to those specific reasons. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of U45; accordingly, our compliance finding is deferred. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U45 The DPD shall require written documentation of all investigatory stops and frisks by the end of the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD shall review all investigatory stops and frisks and document on an auditable form those unsupported by reasonable suspicion within 24 hours of receiving the officer’s report. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. In all of our previous reports, we determined that DPD was not in compliance with the provisions of this paragraph. DPD has come into compliance with traffic and investigatory stops, and is making some progress with Terry stops (frisks). In the last reporting period, DPD’s compliance rate for frisks was 90%. Our reviews showed that officers did not articulate reasonable suspicion with frisks, and that supervisors did not properly check the officers’ Daily Activity Log entries. During the current reporting period, we found that DPD personnel have made significant progress in documenting investigatory stops. We also found that some supervisors, when reviewing officers’ Daily Activity Logs, checked off each frisk on their subordinate’s logs or completed an auditable form when the frisk was not articulated. This sound accountability practice by DPD supervisory personnel should be continued. To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 460 officers’ Daily Activity Logs completed on three randomly selected dates.22 Each district/precinct provided the logs
22 For this review, we randomly selected Daily Activity Logs completed on October 28, November 14, and December 1, 2011.
55

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 57 of 190 Pg ID 8279

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

requested, which included traffic stops and other situations where officers made investigatory stops of individuals who were not in vehicles or in vehicles stopped in places where a police inquiry was warranted.
Our review yielded 58 investigatory stops, of which 56 indicated a lawful purpose and one failed to receive supervisory approval within 24 hours of receiving the officers’ Daily Activity Logs. An auditable form was not completed for the two instances that did not articulate a purpose for the stop. In all instances except one, supervisors reviewed all stops within the required timeframe. DPD’s compliance rate for investigatory stops only (excluding frisks, traffic stops, and required auditable forms) this reporting period is 95%, a slight decrease from the previous quarter’s 98%.
The logs included 248 traffic stops, and our review indicated that eight did not contain sufficient information to justify the stop, which is a basic requirement. For example, there were situations where the officer issued a summons for driving without a license or proper insurance without providing any additional information describing what violation occurred or what investigatory purpose was necessary for the initial stop. Supervisors reviewed 242 traffic stops in a timely fashion, marking their signatures, and dates and times of review. In one case, the supervisor signed, dated, and timed the log more than 24 hours after submission by the officer; and in another, there was no supervisory review. We observed that in four instances, the supervisor used a signature stamp to indicate his/her review of the document when a signature is required. DPD’s compliance rate for traffic stops decreases from 96% in the previous reporting period to 95%.
During this reporting period, we also reviewed the 20 frisks appearing on officers’ Daily Activity Logs. We found that 15 of the frisks met the requirement. In two instances, the officer failed to describe the rationale for the frisk; and in three, the officer asked for consent to frisk. In each of these five cases, the auditable form (DPD UF003, Investigatory Stop and/or Frisk Exception Form) was completed. Requesting consent from an individual to frisk (Terry Stop) by DPD does not meet the intent of the Consent Judgment. On July 28, 2011, DPD issued an Administrative Message (Teletype #11-0925) to be read at 10 consecutive roll calls instructing supervisors how to address consent frisks by officers.
Officers are required to fill in the “Recap of Activity” portion of the log to indicate their total daily activities and also mark the “Frisk” box in the narrative portion of the report. This is a tool for the supervisor to locate and review the frisks that occur by their subordinates. However, this tool has not been used by supervisors. In past reports, we occasionally noted frisks listed under “Recap of Activity,” but could not locate them in the narratives. We also found instances where the officer properly conducts a frisk but does not mark either of the appropriate boxes and the supervisors are failing to discover the omissions.
During a previous site visit, the Parties held a meeting to discuss DPD’s request that consent searches (frisks) met the legal requirements of the Consent Judgment. We have observed no change resulting from that meeting.
During this reporting period, we found that all frisks were documented by the end of the officers’ shifts. Although we noted one late supervisory review, there is evidence of much progress as it relates to supervisors completing auditable forms for the violations, the Department’s compliance rate for frisks during this reporting period increased from 90% to 95%.
56

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 58 of 190 Pg ID 8280

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

In previous audits, the Audit Team recommended a number of steps to ensure compliance with the Department’s stop-and-frisk policies that include retraining officers and reviewing all stopand-frisk situations by supervisors and command personnel in a timely fashion. A review of incar video of frisks by the training staff and commanders may be helpful in ensuring legal authority exists for the frisks. It does not appear that commanding officers review the investigatory stops, as we have not reviewed an officer’s activity log with any comments by command personnel, or reviewed any documents that indicate that command personnel have questioned the lack of auditable forms generated by supervisors.
During the last reporting period, we reviewed auditable forms (Stop and/or Frisk Exception form, DPD UF-003, effective October 31, 2009) from supervisors indicating that they had challenged an improper investigatory stop-and-frisk. As noted above, Administrative Message 11-0151, issued on January 28, 2011; Administrative Message 11-0477, issued on April 22, 2011; and a subsequent Administrative Message 11-1497, issued on December 22, 2011; emphasizes recording of investigatory stops/frisks by officers and supervisory review. We note that the Department has taken corrective action as a response to previous audits, including an audit for June 2011, indicating those supervisors and command officers need to complete an auditable form or take action when the violations occur.
DPD compliance rate for investigatory stops is 95%.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
C. Witness Identification and Questioning Policies
CJ Requirement U46
The DPD shall revise its witness identification and questioning policies to comply with the revised arrest and investigatory stop policies. The DPD shall prohibit the seizure of an individual without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual and require that the scope and duration of any seizure be narrowly tailored to the reasons supporting the police action. The DPD shall prohibit the conveyance of any individual to another location without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U48; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

57

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 59 of 190 Pg ID 8281

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement U47 The DPD shall develop the revised witness identification and questioning policies within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The revised policies shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the revised witness identification and questioning policies within three months of the review and approval of the DOJ. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U48; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U48 The DPD shall document the content and circumstances of all interviews, interrogations and conveyances during the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD shall review in writing all interviews, interrogations and conveyances and document on an auditable form those in violation of DPD policy within 24 hours of the interview, interrogation or conveyance.23 Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. During the previous reporting period, we reviewed interviews and interrogations from the Eastern District, the Sixth Precinct, the Southwestern District and the Northeastern District, and found them in Phase 2 compliance with these requirements. On June 1, 2011, the Court issued an order relevant to a DOJ letter dated May 1, 2010, where an agreement was accepted for timelines required for the review of all interviews, interrogations and conveyances. The Court order permits that the review period for supervisors can occur within 24 hours, compared to the 12 hours previously mandated by the paragraph. To assess compliance with the requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed the Homicide Command, the Sixth Precinct, Narcotics and Sex Crimes. We reviewed Homicide Command’s investigative files and reviewed a random sample of 140 witness/interrogation interviews. A total of 132 met the requirement, and contained the proper documentation and supervisory review within prescribed timeframes. In five cases, supervisory review did not occur; and in three instances, the interviewing investigator failed to indicate the ending time of the interview; none had the required auditable form attached. All commands have made adjustments during previous reporting periods to address the lack of timeliness in
23 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011.
58

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 60 of 190 Pg ID 8282

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

supervisory review, and progress is evident. During this reporting period, Homicide Command achieved a compliance rate of 95% with this paragraph.
We reviewed a random sample of 47 cases for the current reporting period from the Sixth Precinct, for a total of 68 interviews/interrogations. Sixty-six of the cases met the requirement. In two cases where the interview was not compliant, there was supervisory review; however, the reviewing supervisor failed to indicate the time of the review on the form. The Sixth Precinct’s compliance rate for this quarter is 97% which is an increase from the previous quarter’s 89%.
We also reviewed a random sample of 24 Sex Crimes case files containing 46 interviews/interrogations conducted on the proper form. All 46 were compliant. Sex Crimes’ compliance rate for the reporting period is 100%.
We reviewed a random sample of 29 Narcotics Unit case files that resulted in 30 interview/interrogation forms being completed. In one case, the supervisory review occurred seven days after the interview and an auditable form was not completed. The Narcotics Unit’s compliance rate is 97%. We have reviewed all of DPD’s Investigative Operational Units, many of them several times during previous site visits. None of them, with the exception of the Homicide Command, were in compliance at the end of 2009. Much progress has been made and should be sustained. The combined compliance rate for Interviews/Interrogations for the four Investigative Operational Units during this reporting period is 96%, an increase from 95% from the previous reporting period.
We reviewed all instances of conveyances to DPD facilities for the purposes of interviews during the current quarter. There were five such conveyances, and all were in full compliance with the requirements of the paragraph. DPD’s compliance rate for conveyances is 100%.
Since our first (2009) review of interviews, interrogations, and conveyances, we have observed remarkable progress in the documentation of required forms. This is attributable to the leadership and initiative on the part of supervisors and employees in those commands.
DPD has sustained the progress it has made in this area; the Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
D. Prompt Judicial Review Policies
CJ Requirement U49 The DPD shall revise its policies to require prompt judicial review, as defined in this Agreement, for every person arrested by the DPD. The DPD shall develop a timely and systematic process for all arrestees to be presented for prompt judicial review or to be released.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U50; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
59

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 61 of 190 Pg ID 8283

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U50 The DPD shall require that, for each arrestee, a warrant request for arraignment on the charges underlying the arrest is submitted to the prosecutor’s office within 48 hours of the arrest. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Due to a few case reports involving traffic, probation violations, and warrant arrests that are handled by other means, or where the arrestee is taken directly to court, we reviewed 84 case reports that eventually were submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office for arraignment. The documentation supporting this review included Crisnet reports, Warrant Verification Logs, Arraignment Sheets, Detainee Input Sheets, and Warrant Tracking Hold Forms. Of the 84 cases we reviewed where an arraignment warrant was submitted, all but three met the 48-hour requirement. One of the cases contained the required auditable form. DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement is 98%, the same rate as the previous quarter. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U51 The DPD shall document on an auditable form all instances in which the request for an arraignment warrant is submitted more than 48 hours after the arrest. The DPD shall also document on an auditable form all instances in which it is not in compliance with the prompt judicial review policy and in which extraordinary circumstances delayed the arraignment. The documentation shall occur by the end of the shift in which there was: 1) a failure to request an arraignment within 48 hours, 2) a failure to comply with the prompt judicial review policy, or 3) an arraignment delayed by extraordinary circumstances. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. To assess Phase 2 compliance with these requirements, we reviewed the same documents referenced in U50. Of the 107 arrest case reports we reviewed, there were 56 that began at the initial arrest and concluded in arraignment. We excluded cases that involved warrant arrests, juvenile arrests, some traffic cases, and situations where the offender was able to post bond or taken directly to court. We found one case where a warrant request submitted to the prosecutor was denied, and the arrestee was held in DPD custody for 63 hours before being released. An auditable form was not generated for this detainee.
60

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 62 of 190 Pg ID 8284

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

There were 33 cases where the arraignment occurred after 48 hours from the time of the initial arrest. In all cases, an auditable form was completed timely. As in our previous quarterly report, there were three instances where the warrant submittal to the prosecutor was late, only one auditable form was completed by the OIC. When the commanding officer reviews the auditable form, s/he must inspect the document to ensure that the OIC is dating or placing the time the event was recognized. On January 11, 2011, we reviewed a Departmental Message that indicated UF-004/007 had been combined and entered into MAS. The new form has a designated box for the OIC to place the date and time the form is generated. We have observed that the new form is being utilized properly and the before mentioned issues have been resolved.
DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement for the current reporting period is 97%, an increase from the previous quarter’s 95%. In our previous reports, we determined that Department personnel occasionally delay completing the warrant submittal unnecessarily (although it is within the 48-hour timeframe), and thus arraignments are often delayed. We looked at the date and time of arrest for the three late warrant submittals and determined that occasionally a full work day (Monday through Friday) elapses prior to those documents being processed and forwarded to the prosecutor. Although we are seeing fewer unnecessary delays overall, DPD must strive to submit the documentation to the prosecutor in a more timely fashion. As we noted previously, the elimination of evening arraignments by the 36th District Court of the State of Michigan will continue to be problematic for DPD in its ability to arraign detainees in a timely fashion.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
E. Hold Policies
CJ Requirement U52
The DPD shall revise its hold policies to define a hold as that term is defined in this Agreement and require that all holds be documented. This policy shall establish a timely and systematic process for persons in DPD custody who have holds issued by a City of Detroit court to have those holds cleared by presenting the arrestee to the court from which the warrant was issued or the setting and posting of bond where applicable. The fact that an arrestee has not been arraigned or charged in the current arrest shall not delay this process.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U53; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
61

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 63 of 190 Pg ID 8285

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement U53
The DPD shall document all holds, including the time each hold was identified and the time each hold was cleared. The DPD shall document on an auditable form each instance in which a hold is not cleared within 48 hours of the arrest. The documentation shall occur within 24 hours of each instance of a hold not being cleared.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In previous reporting periods, DPD was not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, due to holds/warrants not being cleared and the auditable form not being prepared. In the last reporting period, the Department’s compliance rate with this requirement was 96%.
To assess compliance with the requirements, we reviewed 107 Detainee Input Sheets, and found a total of 53 holds/warrants listed on the forms. As in our previous report, in all but two cases, an auditable form had been completed for those holds exceeding 48 hours and not being cleared. Form (DPD UF004-007, revised June 2009) was created and contains appropriate indications for officers to identify more than one violation of the Prompt Judicial Review Policies. DPD personnel must be aware that if an arraignment occurs more than 48 hours after an arrest and the detainee has an outstanding hold/warrant, there is a likelihood that the warrant may not be cleared within the requirement and both boxes should be checked. There can also be an issue if the warrant submittal for the outstanding arrest is denied by the prosecutor and there is a hold on the detainee. In these cases, DPD has an expectation that the hold(s) will be addressed at the arraignment on the current charge; and if the warrant is denied, the detainee may be presented to the judge at the next available arraignment opportunity.
There are two separate and distinct parts to this particular requirement. With few exceptions, the majority of the Detainee Input Sheets indicated a “date cleared” in the appropriate location (box), although the actual time of release (hold/warrant cleared) is indicated in Section (3), the Final Charging, and Disposition and Release portions of the form, which indicates when the detainee is released from custody. As we have noted previously, the lack of DPD personnel properly indicating the date and time that holds/warrants are identified/cleared and generating the required auditable forms for violations continues to be problematic for the Department. If personnel would properly complete the required information contained on the Detainee Input Sheet, the existing problems would be resolved. DPD’s compliance rate for this requirement remains at 97%.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

62

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 64 of 190 Pg ID 8286

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

F. RESTRICTION POLICIES CJ Requirement U54 The DPD shall develop a policy regarding restricting detainee’s access to telephone calls and visitors that permits individuals in DPD custody access to attorneys and reasonable access to telephone calls and visitors. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U55; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U55 The DPD shall require that such restrictions be documented and reviewed at the time the restriction is issued and reevaluated each day in which the restriction remains in effect. The DPD shall document on an auditable form any violation of the restriction policy by the end of the shift in which the violation occurred. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. To assess Phase 2 compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 107 arrest case files and did not identify any restrictions. DPD personnel advise us that restricting a detainee’s access to visitors, attorneys, and the use of telephone privileges rarely occurs. Personnel may impose a telephone restriction when a detainee makes threatening or harassing calls to individuals outside the facility. There are payphones in each holding facility for the detainees’ use. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
G. Material Witness Policies CJ Requirement U56 The DPD shall revise its material witness policies to define material witness as that term is defined in this Agreement and remove the term “police witness” from DPD policies and procedures. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

63

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 65 of 190 Pg ID 8287

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent on the implementation of U57; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U57 The DPD shall obtain a court order prior to taking a material witness into DPD custody. The DPD shall document on an auditable form the detention of each material witness and attach a copy of the court order authorizing the detention. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, we reviewed all of DPD’s requests to the Court for taking a material witness into custody for the period of October 1, through December 31, 2011. The auditable form, approved by a supervisor, was attached to the Court order in all five cases presented to the Court. The Court order was issued by a Judge in the 36th District Court of the State of Michigan prior to the witnesses’ detention. DPD’s compliance rate with this paragraph for the current reporting period is 100%. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
H. Documentation of Custodial Detention CJ Requirement U58 The DPD shall revise its arrest and detention documentation to require, for all arrests, a record or file to contain accurate and auditable documentation of:
a. the individual’s personal information; b. the crime(s) charged; c. the time and date of arrest and release; d. the time and date the arraignment was submitted; e. the name and badge number of the officer who submitted the arraignment; f. the time and date of arraignment; was lodged and cleared, if applicable; g. the time each warrant was lodged and cleared, if applicable; and h. the individual’s custodial status, e.g., new arrest, material witness or extradition. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
64

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 66 of 190 Pg ID 8288

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

DPD has been in compliance with this paragraph in all of the previous reporting periods. To assess Phase 2 compliance during this reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 107 arrest case files where a Detainee Input Sheet was completed that contained personal information about the detainee, charges, holds/warrants, and other supporting data. We used the 56 cases where an arraignment occurred to determine compliance due to all eight elements of this paragraph being included. The contained documents included Detainee Input Sheets, Warrant Verification Logs, Arraignment Logs, and Livescan forms. In the majority of instances, the: (a) individual’s personal information; (b) crime[s] charged; (c) date and time of arrest and release; (d) time and date the arraignment was submitted; (f) time and date of arraignment, if applicable; (g) time and date each warrant was lodged and cleared; and (h) individual’s custodial status; were listed on one of the applicable forms.
In two cases, the officers failed to include their badge numbers on the Daily Warrant Verification Log. In one instance, relevant detainee personal information under U58a was not properly completed. All other required information was properly documented. We examined each case for compliance with the eight individual requirements, and found an overall compliance rate of 99%.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
I. Command Notification
CJ Requirement U59
The DPD shall require the commander of the precinct and, if applicable, of the specialized unit, to review in writing all reported violations of DPD arrest, investigatory stop and frisk, witness identification and questioning policies and all reports of arrests in which an arraignment warrant was not sought. The commander’s review shall be completed within 7 days of receiving the document reporting the event. The commander’s review shall include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In our previous reports, we did not find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement, noting the lack of auditable forms, the lack of documented reasonable suspicion for frisks, and an inadequate supervisory review of Officer’s Daily Activity Logs.
In our review of 107 arrests during this reporting period, we determined that all the arrests, with the exception of one, properly documented probable cause. An auditable form was not generated in this case. In those situations where a warrant is not sought or a warrant is denied on an arrestee, supervisors should scrutinize the arrest packets to ensure that the elements required for a valid arrest are documented.

65

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 67 of 190 Pg ID 8289

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

We reviewed 20 frisks, and determined that 15 articulated reasonable suspicion. In the previous reporting period, DPD generated auditable forms for violations of this paragraph relating to frisks. In the five instances where a violation occurred; two lacked reasonable suspicion for the frisk and three were in cases where the officer asked for consent to frisk. An auditable form had been prepared for each violation. In two cases, the commanding officer reviewed the form after the required timeframe.
In order to be lawful, a stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion and narrowly tailored in scope and duration to the reasons supporting the seizure. During a limited seizure, the officer may conduct a frisk if s/he has reasonable suspicion to believe that the suspect may have the means to do harm. While supervisors do review the officers’ Daily Activity Logs, they should also be challenging officers to articulate the reason for the stops/frisks. The officers, in some cases, are only noting the stops.
Our review of traffic stops determined that officers’ abilities to accurately describe the actions that led to the stop are compliant; however, there were no auditable forms generated for the eight traffic stops in which a form was required to be completed. Commanders are not receiving the forms because supervisors are not completing them.
There were 58 investigatory stops (excluding frisks and traffic stops), of which 56 were based on a documented investigatory purpose. The two stops did not articulate reasonable suspicion. We were unable to locate any auditable forms. There were no auditable forms generated for the commander to review.
There were 20 cases where documentation was completed that indicated an arraignment warrant was not sought and an auditable form completed. In all cases, a commanding officer approved the form and attached his/her signature including the date of review. We have observed DPD’s progress with commanders’ oversight as it relates to warrants not served.
We reviewed 284 witness/interrogation interviews from Homicide, the Sixth Precinct, Sex Crimes and Narcotics investigative functions. There were 11 instances where the reviewing supervisors should have generated an auditable form (DPD 103), due to the officers not completing – or omitting information from – the Interview/Interrogation document. It is the commander’s responsibility to ensure that these forms are completed.
Although the Department has made progress with commanders’ reviews of warrants not sought and witness identification and questioning policies, DPD is not in compliance with investigatory stops due to the timeliness of the commander’s review. We reviewed 25 auditable forms (warrants not served and investigatory stops) under this paragraph that were sent to the commander for review. All reviews were timely with the exception of one of the frisks. Until DPD personnel comply with the requirement of completing auditable forms and forwarding them to commanders for timely review, the Department will continue to have difficulty achieving compliance in this area. DPD’s compliance rate for this reporting period is 96%.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

66

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 68 of 190 Pg ID 8290

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement U60 The DPD shall require the commander of the precinct, and, if applicable, of the specialized unit, to review in writing all violations of DPD prompt judicial review, holds, restrictions and material witness policies on a daily basis. The commander’s review shall include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 107 arrest case reports, of which 84 were submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office and 56 went to arraignment. There were 33 cases where the arraignment occurred more than 48 hours after the arrest.
In all but three cases, the request for the warrant was submitted in a timely fashion. In one instance an auditable form was completed and command review occurred. There was no command review in the other two cases, as the auditable form had not been completed.
In the 56 cases that went to arraignment, 33 of these were arraigned more than 48 hours after arrest, and auditable forms were completed. In two instances, the commander’s review was late. We have noted previously that the Department sent Corrective Action Notices to commanders who failed to review the auditable forms within the allotted time constraints. DPD’s compliance rate for this portion of the requirement is 98%.
Of the 53 hold/warrants we identified, there were 17 holds that were not cleared within the required 48 hours. An auditable form was generated for each of these holds. In one instance, the commander’s review was not timely. It is the commander’s responsibility to ensure that the required auditable forms are generated for personnel under his/her command.
Under this paragraph there were a total of 51 auditable forms reviewed by the commander; two of the reviews were late.
DPD’s overall compliance rate for this paragraph is 96%, an increase over the 92% that we found in the previous reporting period.
There were no restrictions placed on detainees during this reporting period.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
Critical Issues:
• The delay of warrant request to the Prosecutor’s Office often delays the arraignment for more than 48 hours; and thus, if there is a hold attached to the warrant, both the arraignment and the hold require an auditable form creating additional work for DPD personnel and the opportunity for failure.
• The DPD Administrative Message (Teletype 10-04118) dated November 22, 2010 noted that several districts/precincts were delaying the faxing of prisoner information to Court
67

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 69 of 190 Pg ID 8291

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Liaison just before the cutoff time, thus creating delays in arraignment. This issue remains problematic for DPD.
• Our review of investigative stops found that officers often fail to articulate “reasonable suspicion” In accordance with DPD policy requiring written documentation of all investigatory stops and frisks. The supervisory monitoring of stops and frisks has been an ongoing issue since the beginning of the Consent Judgments, although we have observed marked improvement during this and the previous reporting period. During the previous two reporting periods, we received auditable forms for violations of the investigatory stop policies. Supervisors must carefully review officers’ Daily Activity Logs and complete auditable forms when they are required.
• Commanders must ensure auditable forms are completed and forwarded promptly for their review.
Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Meet with DPD’s Civil Rights Integrity Bureau (CRIB) to discuss our stop-and-frisk concerns and the timeliness of commanders’ reviews as it relates to auditable forms. Completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of all reports and auditable forms continue to affect field units and the quality of administrative review.
• Review other investigative units to determine their compliance with interrogations, interviews, conveyances, and material witness policies. DPD is centralizing its general investigative units; and as the Department progresses in this endeavor, we will determine how best to review documentation as it relates to witness identification and questioning policies.
• Observe the personnel who are responsible for the detainee booking process; and interview them regarding procedures for detailing when holds/warrants are identified and cleared; and how they can assist in the probable cause review as a back-up for the probable cause verification normally completed on the Crisnet report.
• Meet with the commanders of each district and precinct to discuss issues relating to auditable forms and their role in ensuring compliance.
• Inquire with DPD if any additional processes have been enacted to address the dilemma that occurs when a hold has been previously placed on an arrestee, and the warrant request to the Prosecutor’s Office on the current charge has been denied. The concern for DPD in these instances creates a delay in presenting the hold for arraignment within 48 hours only on the basis of the hold. In our reviews, this issue has been and remains a problematic, in that holding cell personnel tend to utilize the time of release on clearing a hold – rather than simply writing in the date and time in the space provided on the form. In a few cases, we are finding that when an arraignment occurs more than 48 hours after the arrest and the OIC is completing the auditable form for the late arraignment, the OIC is failing to mark the box on the same form for a hold not being cleared. During this reporting period, we continued to find instances where the warrant tracking/hold form is not marked when a hold exceeds 48 hours.
68

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 70 of 190 Pg ID 8292

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Requirements

Phase 1 Policy

42

Define and prohibit arrest without probable cause

In Compliance

43 Review all arrests for probable cause

In Compliance

44 Revise investigatory stop-and-frisk policy

In Compliance

45 Written account of stops and frisks

In Compliance

46 Revise witness policies

In Compliance

47 Revise above in three months

In Compliance

48 Document content, etc. of interviews, etc.

In Compliance

49 Arrests receive prompt judicial review

In Compliance

50 Charges to Prosecutor within 48 hours

In Compliance

51 Document of late warrant requests

In Compliance

52 Revise hold policies

In Compliance

53 Documentation of all holds

In Compliance

54 Policy for restricting telephone access

In Compliance

55 Document and review such restrictions

In Compliance

56 Define material witness

In Compliance

57 Custody of material witnesses-court order

In Compliance

58 Arrests and detention record requirements

In Compliance

59 Required written review of violations

In Compliance

60 Required written review of violations

In Compliance

Phase 2 Implementation
In Compliance
In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS
The stated mission of the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) is to assure the public's trust and confidence in DPD by conducting thorough and impartial investigations into allegations of criminality and serious misconduct lodged against members of the Department, as well as other City of Detroit employees. IAD is charged with the prevention, discovery, and investigation of criminal allegations and allegations of serious misconduct against Department members and City employees who are assigned within the DPD; IAD is responsible for all external complaints alleging possible criminal misconduct.
Consistent with this obligation, IAD accepts information from any source; and requires that all officers and employees document all complaints filed in writing, verbally, in person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile, or by electronic mail.
69

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 71 of 190 Pg ID 8293

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

During our most recent site visit, we examined the investigative procedures employed by IAD for consistency in the application of procedural fairness, timeliness, confidentiality, and the meticulous reporting of facts and results of an investigation. The IAD Standard Operating Procedures were revised in January 2011 to include Section 5-8, Case Tracking.
The Office of the Chief Investigator (OCI) is the investigative arm of the Board of Police Commissioners (BOPC). OCI is responsible for investigating non-criminal external complaints. The Board has plenary authority over citizen complaints. OCI operates independently of the Detroit Police Department and is led by a civilian Chief Investigator who is appointed by the BOPC. OCI is staffed with a combination of civilian and sworn investigators who assist in the investigation of citizen complaints. OCI’s mission is to provide meaningful and objective investigations of citizen complaints of police misconduct.
OCI investigates non-criminal allegations of misconduct against Detroit Police Department personnel for the following: Arrest; Demeanor; Entry; Harassment; Force; Procedure; Property; and Search and Seizure. OCI employees are required to accept complaints from any source and by any method of communication including in writing, verbally, in person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile, or by electronic mail. Members of the public may also file complaints at the BOPC office or at BOPC meetings.
During our most recent site visit, we met with the supervising investigators assigned to OCI. We discussed the status of overdue investigations in general, which is unfortunately trending downward. The number of overdue investigations has steadily increased since the Backlog Squad, referenced in previous reports, was disbanded. The Chief Investigator was terminated on August 16, 2011, and has not been replaced as of this writing.
CJ Requirement U61
The DPD and City shall revise their external complaint policy to clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of OCI and the DPD regarding the receipt, investigation and review of external complaints. At a minimum, the plan shall specify each agency’s responsibility for receiving, recording, investigating and tracking complaints; each agency’s responsibility for conducting community outreach and education regarding complaints; how, when and in what fashion the agencies shall exchange information, including complaint referrals and information about sustained complaints.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The established policies and procedures set forth the jurisdictional responsibility of the DPD IAD and OCI.
IAD is charged with the prevention, discovery, and investigation of criminal allegations and allegations of serious misconduct against Department members and City employees who are assigned within the DPD. IAD is responsible for all external complaints alleging possible criminal misconduct.
OCI investigates non-criminal allegations of misconduct against DPD personnel in the following categories: arrest; demeanor; entry; harassment; force, as it relates to threats; property; search;
70

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 72 of 190 Pg ID 8294

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

and service. The established policies and procedures also provide guidance for receiving, recording, tracking, referring, and investigating complaints.
Both IAD and OCI track each open, pending, and closed case by the unique case identifier that is placed on all relevant documentation regarding the specific external complaint and provided to each citizen upon lodging a complaint. Each entity uses a computerized database to record data that is developed concerning external citizen complaints. OCI and IAD continue to enhance the databases; investigators and supervisors now have the ability to make case notes directly into the database. OCI is required to compile a summary of its investigations annually. These summaries are distributed throughout the DPD, to the Board of Police Commissioners, and to the public. In addition, the City displays informational posters in the public areas of all police facilities and public libraries. The City sponsors community meetings and runs public service announcements concerning how to file a citizen's complaint against the police. Through OCI, the Board of Police Commissioners maintains a community outreach coordinator, who attends meetings and makes presentations at the request of community organizations or public forums. The Board of Police Commissioners website provides access to an OCI fact sheet on external police complaints. The BOPC website also allows the public to file complaints online.
The DPD and the City are in compliance with these requirements.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U62
The DPD and the City shall develop and implement an informational campaign regarding external complaints, including:
a. informing persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any DPD employee;
b. distributing complaint forms, fact sheets and informational posters at City Hall, OCI, all DPD precincts, libraries, on the internet and, upon request, to community groups and community centers;
c. broadcasting public service announcements that describe the complaint process; and
d. posting permanently a placard describing the complaint process, with relevant phone numbers, in the lobby of each DPD precinct
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During previous site visits, we inspected Police Headquarters, the Office of the Chief Investigator, police facilities, libraries, and Neighborhood City Halls for compliance with this paragraph. All locations displayed, in a prominent location, permanent placards that described the complaint process. All desk personnel in the police facilities were able to produce citizen complaint brochures immediately, and were aware that they should not discourage citizens from filing a complaint.
During our most recent site visit, we inspected the Office of the Chief Investigator, the Central, Northeastern, Southwestern, and Eastern Districts; and the Sixth, Eighth, and Twelfth Precincts.
71

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 73 of 190 Pg ID 8295

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

We found the appropriate citizen complaint posters, forms, and brochures in place. We contacted desk officers and field officers at each site, and they were able to provide citizen complaint forms and brochures.
We also inspected the Grand River Neighborhood City Hall and two libraries – Henry Chaney and Campbell. We found the appropriate posters on display. One location did not have a supply of complaint forms or brochures, and we advised the employees to call for replacements.
Both DPD and OCI conduct community outreach programs designed to inform citizens of the complaint process and the procedures for filing complaints. The Board of Police Commissioners website allows the public to file complaints against the police online. The City of Detroit broadcasts public service announcements that describe the complaint process. DPD provided us with the broadcast schedule for the week of our site visit.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U63
The DPD shall require all officers to carry informational brochures and contact forms in their vehicles at all times while on-duty. The DPD shall develop a contact form within 60 days of the effective date of this Agreement. The contact form shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the contact form within 60 days of the review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall require all officers to inform an individual of his or her right to make a complaint, if an individual objects to an officer’s conduct. The DPD shall prohibit officers from discouraging any person from making a complaint or refusing to take a complaint.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During previous site visits, we reviewed the audits conducted by the DPD Office of Civil Rights regarding citizen complaint informational brochures and contact forms carried in police vehicles, and we randomly selected officers during our field visits to police facilities and asked them to provide the brochures and forms for review. Each officer who we contacted provided the documents upon our request, and was aware of the requirements of the DPD policy concerning citizen complaints.
During this reporting period, we randomly selected both desk officers and patrol officers in the Central, Northeastern, Southwestern, and Eastern Districts; and the Sixth, Eighth, and Twelfth Precincts, and asked them to produce complaint forms and brochures. They were able to do so in each case. We also inspected the complaint logbooks in each location. In one location, we found an original voided Citizen Complaint Report (CCR) from November. By policy, these are to be sent to OCI, and the report was forwarded during our visit. In two other locations, the information from completed CCRs was missing from the logbooks. Supervisors located the district copies of the CCRs, and the missing information was recorded. While all inspected facilities keep handwritten records, there is a disparity in the information captured among sites. We recommend that DPD standardize the recordkeeping.
72

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 74 of 190 Pg ID 8296

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
A. Intake and Tracking CJ Requirement U64 The DPD and the City shall revise their policies regarding the intake and tracking of external complaints to define complaint and misconduct as those terms are defined in this Agreement and require all officers and OCI employees to accept and document all complaints filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Our past reviews of IAD and OCI external complaint investigations determined that the complaints were filed using all of the communication facilities identified in this paragraph. Our review of 50 IAD and 100 OCI investigations for this reporting period again found that complaints were filed using all of the communication methods identified in this requirement. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U65 The DPD and the City shall permit the intake officer or employee to include a factual account and/or description of a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but not an opinion regarding the complainant’s mental competency or veracity. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. In our previous reviews, we found no instances where personnel accepting complaints reported any opinions regarding the mental capacity or veracity of the complainant. We reviewed 50 IAD and 100 OCI cases for this reporting period. We again found no instances where personnel accepting complaints reported any opinions regarding the mental capacity or veracity of the complainant. DPD and the City are in compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
73

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 75 of 190 Pg ID 8297

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement U66 The DPD and the City shall assign all complaints a unique identifier, which shall be provided to the complainant, and a description of the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy or improper search). Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. During previous reporting periods, we reviewed closed IAD and OCI external complaint investigations, and found that each investigative file contained a City of Detroit Citizen Complaint Report (CCR), and a letter acknowledging the receipt of the complaint with the name of the assigned investigator and the office contact number. For this reporting period, we reviewed 50 IAD and 100 OCI investigations. All investigations contained the required information. The letters also provided case-specific identifiers for the complainant to reference when contacting either IAD or OCI. DPD and the City are in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
B. External Complaint Investigations CJ Requirement U67 The DPD and the City shall revise its policies regarding external complaint investigations to:
a. provide that all complaints shall be referred for investigation and resolution by OCI or, if the complaint alleges potentially criminal conduct by an officer, by IAD;
b. permit the informal resolution of complaints alleging only inadequate service or the complainant’s innocence of a charge and require the investigation and formal resolution of all other complaints;
c. refer all complaints to the appropriate agency within five business days of their receipt; d. require that the complainant shall be periodically kept informed regarding the status of
the investigation; e. develop written criteria for IAD and OCI investigator applicants, including the
applicant’s complaint and disciplinary history and investigative experience; f. implement mandatory pre-service and in-service training for all IAD and OCI
investigators, including intake, investigations, interviews and resolutions of external complaints; g. require IAD and OCI to complete all investigations within 90 days of receiving the complaint and h. require that: (1) upon completion of the investigation by a command other than OCI, the complainant shall be notified of its outcome and, if the complaint is sustained, whether disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action has been recommended; and (2) upon
74

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 76 of 190 Pg ID 8298

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

completion of an investigation by OCI the complainant shall be notified of its outcome and, if the complaint is sustained, its referral to the Chief of Police for appropriate disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.24
Comments:
Office of the Chief Investigator: For this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected OCI cases. One case was transferred to IAD and 10 cases were transferred to Force Investigation. The IAD case alleged inappropriate touching during an arrest. The Force Investigation cases all alleged excessive force. Four of the force cases were not transferred in a timely manner. Three cases were transferred in 14, 37, and 45 days respectively. In the last case, an investigator finally reviewed video evidence 153 days after the complaint was lodged. She immediately came to the conclusion that it corroborated the complainant’s claims, and the case was transferred to Force Investigation the next day.
Seven cases were resolved informally. Two of the seven cases did not meet the criteria for an Informal Complaint Resolution (ICR) as they did not involve complaints of inadequate service or innocence of the charge. One involved the confiscation of a concealed carry permit (procedure) and the other involved an off-duty work arrangement. Despite the streamlined approach allowed by an ICR, five of the seven cases were not closed within 90 days.
Thirty-six cases in our sample were administratively closed, including those informally resolved and those transferred to other investigative units. We determined that three were inappropriately closed via this process. One was the concealed carry case mentioned above. In another case involving a firearm confiscation, the investigator wrote it up as an administrative closure because she believed it lacked merit. The OCI SOP allows this “if the complainant is unavailable and/or unwilling to contribute to the furtherance of the investigation.” Since OCI had a cooperative complainant, the appropriate route would have been to complete the investigation with an unfounded finding. In the third case, an allegation of excessive force, the case was closed without interviewing the officer. While the complainant refused to cooperate, the allegation did not lack specificity and should have been investigated with the CCR serving as the complainant’s statement, an approach OCI took with at least 30 other cases in our sample.
Only 33 of the 100 cases we reviewed were completed within 90 days. As in previous reports, we noted many had long gaps of time in which no apparent activity took place. As noted earlier, three investigators and one senior investigator were terminated from OCI in August 2011. A total of 177 cases, many of them overdue, were reassigned to other investigators. While this undoubtedly contributed to the decline in timely cases during this reporting period, OCI has been steadily backsliding in the percentage of cases completed on time since March, when OCI briefly achieved compliance. They do not have a definitive plan to reverse this trend.
Four of the 100 cases we reviewed were not referred to OCI within five business days as required by DPD policy, although most were transferred within one to three days.
In all but six cases, we noted efforts to keep the complainant informed of case progress. Often, this correspondence involved attempts to encourage uncooperative complainants to participate in their investigations. In all applicable cases, the complainants were notified of the disposition of
24 Consent Judgment amendment, September 15, 2008.
75

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 77 of 190 Pg ID 8299

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

their cases, and if any allegations were sustained, they were advised that the case was referred to the Chief of Police for appropriate corrective action.
During our previous site visits, we verified ongoing in-service training for OCI personnel. Much of this training occurs in conjunction with other DPD employees. While we do not discourage this practice, we continue to encourage OCI to explore training specific to OCI’s responsibilities, in order to address knowledge and skill gaps that impact the quality of its investigations. Additionally, a new investigator assigned to OCI during the review period received appropriate pre-service training from a tenured senior investigator.
The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: IAD Standard Operating Procedures do not specifically permit or encourage informal resolution due the nature of their investigative jurisdiction of alleged criminality and/or serious misconduct lodged against Department personnel. Accordingly, IAD investigates and makes findings in each case.
IAD Standard Operating Procedures and OCI policy require that all complaints be referred to the appropriate agency within five business days of their receipt. Historically, we discovered significant delays in transferring appropriate cases from OCI to IAD. During the current reporting period, we reviewed 50 IAD cases, and determined that two had been referred by OCI. One arrived at IAD 11 days after receipt, and the second arrived at IAD within the required fiveday period.
The IAD Standard Operating Procedures contains criteria for investigator applicants and training. Two IAD investigators attended a three-day in-service training, Discipline and Internal Investigations, in December 2011 that was provided by an outside training agency. Upon their return, the attendees prepared a presentation for dissemination to the remaining investigators.
In cases of prolonged investigations, IAD must provide an updated case status to complainants, and upon closure, notify them of the closure, finding(s), and action(s) taken, where appropriate.
Our review determined that IAD is in compliance with the notifications to complainants upon both the opening and the closure of all investigations.
During our current review of 50 investigations, 16 exceeded the 90-day time limit. Of those, the reviewer determined that seven were delayed due to awaiting the Prosecutor’s decision or prosecution. Two were delayed due to extensive document research and multiple witnesses. Two were delayed because of investigations by other police agencies and five were delayed because investigators did not secure officers for Garrity interviews or failed to manage the cases appropriately.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

76

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 78 of 190 Pg ID 8300

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement U68 The DPD and the City shall review and evaluate the external complaint review process to require:
a. the Chief Investigator or his/her designee to complete review of OCI investigations within 7 days of completion of the supervisor’s review;
b. the Board of Police Commissioners to complete review of OCI investigations within 45 days of completion of the Chief Investigator’s review;25 and
c. the Chief of Police or his or her designee to complete his or her review of external complaints within 7 days of completion of the BOPC’s review.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. During our past two reviews, we noted that the external complaint review process was not completed within the appropriate timeframes. During the last reporting period, we identified 40 cases in which the Chief Investigator did not complete his/her review within the required sevenday time period. During this review, we noted eight such cases. While this is a notable improvement, OCI remains out of compliance with this requirement. All Board of Police Commissioner reviews in our sample were completed in a timely manner. During our most recent site visit, we also reviewed correspondence between OCI and the Chief’s Office showing timely transfer of cases once the Board approves them.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance
CJ Requirement U69 In addition to the investigatory report and evaluation requirements, each allegation in an administrative external complaint investigation shall be resolved by making one of the following dispositions:
a. “Unfounded,” where the investigation revealed no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred;
b. “Sustained,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur and the actions of the officer violated DPD policies, procedures or training;
c. “Not Sustained,” where there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and
d. “Exonerated,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate DPD policies, procedures or training.

25 Consent Judgment amendment July 18, 2003.
77

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 79 of 190 Pg ID 8301

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected OCI cases. For purposes of this paragraph, we evaluated the determination of finding based on the information in each case file. We found two cases in which allegations did not receive appropriate dispositions. In both cases, we learned of the additional allegations by listening to the complainants’ interviews, as they were not mentioned on the original CCR. The allegations were not identified or addressed in the case summaries. As noted in our last two reports, we are concerned with the frequency of this, as we listen only to a small subset of interviews. Based on our raising this issue in our previous reports and during our site visits, we are disappointed that the Acting Chief Investigator did not follow through on our suggestion to require supervising investigators to either sit in on or listen to the interviews of their investigators. (Only one supervising investigator audited a relatively small number of interviews during this reporting period.)
We do not concur with the findings assigned to one or more allegations in 10 cases. Two cases involved unknown officers. In one, an allegation of an improper field stop in a park, the investigator inappropriately reached an unfounded finding. She did not reach a conclusion, using the preponderance of the evidence standard, that some contact with DPD officers did not occur. In the other case, a citizen complained of an improper field stop and the unknown officers’ actions were exonerated. The investigator could not substantiate that the complainant had contact with DPD officers, much less determine that their actions were justified.
In a force case, an investigator unfounded an allegation of excessive force even though she wrote that she was “unable to support or refute the complainant’s allegations.” This is the classic definition of not sustained. In still another case, the investigator exonerated a harassment allegation, basically inferring that the harassment occurred but was justified. At best, the investigation supported a not sustained finding, but if the investigation were to clear the officer, the finding would have been unfounded. “Harassment” cannot be justified.
OCI must not only make one of the findings specified above, but the finding must be consistent with the defined requirements. Accordingly, the City is not in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
In addition, we reviewed all 50 IAD cases that were completed during this reporting period, including internal and external complaints. All contained the required dispositions. IAD is in compliance with this requirement.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance
Critical Issues:
We examined 50 closed IAD cases and 100 closed OCI cases for the period of October 1, through December 31, 2011. Our review disclosed that the following issues continue to require attention:
78

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 80 of 190 Pg ID 8302

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

• IAD Case Tracking: During the first quarter of 2011, IAD adopted a computer program to aid in tracking its cases. While the system does not alert the users to deadlines, it does allow for communication between the investigator and supervisor. The supervisor recently incorporated a computerized calendar into the process, which notifies her when an assignment date has been reached. Also, cases that are submitted to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Office are tracked, and updates are requested on a regular basis.
• Timeliness of Investigations: The timeliness of OCI’s investigations has been steadily slipping since March. OCI continues to operate without a permanent Chief Investigator, and the leadership vacuum coupled with the lack of a comprehensive plan to address the growing backlog of cases is of great concern. We will continue to monitor OCI’s adherence to timelines closely.
• OCI Case Management: OCI continues to make incremental progress on a reliable casetracking system. The system still lacks alerts for time-sensitive dates, which would help both the investigators and their supervisors better manage multiple investigations. We continue to remind OCI staff that a case management system can never be a substitute for regular supervisor/investigator interaction.
Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Review a sample of the cases closed by OCI and IAD for the months of January, February, and March 2012.
• Verify the length and content of new investigator and in-service training offered to OCI and IAD personnel.
• Review any enhancements to OCI’s case management system.
• Confirm whether or not OCI supervisors are closely monitoring the conduct of investigator interviews as suggested.

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 - Policy Phase 2 – Implementation

61 Revise external complaint policies

In Compliance In Compliance

62 Information campaign re complaints

In Compliance In Compliance

63 Officers carry information/contact forms

In Compliance In Compliance

64 Policy to define complaint intake/track

In Compliance In Compliance

65 Permit factual account, no opinion

In Compliance In Compliance

66 Unique identifier for complaints

In Compliance In Compliance

67 Revision of complaint investigations

In Compliance Not in Compliance

68 Time limits for review of investigations/complaints In Compliance Not in Compliance

69 Required finding categories specified

In Compliance Not in Compliance

79

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 81 of 190 Pg ID 8303

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

VII. GENERAL POLICIES
This section of the Consent Judgment addresses a variety of issues in general terms. It seeks to ensure that when the DPD develops policies, all the terms used are clearly defined, and that prior to making policy revisions, the DPD posts the proposals on the DPD website to inform the community of the proposed revisions. It requires DPD to advise all of its officers that taking police actions in violation of DPD policies shall subject them to a variety of possible actions, to include disciplinary, criminal prosecution, or civil liability. This section also requires officers to report acts of misconduct by other officers, whether on or off duty. Additionally, this section required DPD to revise its policy regarding police actions by off-duty officers; and to revise the policies on how DPD handles prisoners, to include summoning first aid as necessary, summoning assistance if required, and prohibiting the accompanying of prisoners to the holding cell area. This section also required DPD to develop a foot pursuit policy and to plan for adequate distribution of manpower. DPD has developed the appropriate policies and has achieved implementation.
CJ Requirement U70 In developing and revising the policies discussed in this Agreement, the DPD shall ensure that all terms are clearly defined.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The DPD CRIB Planning Unit is responsible for reviewing and updating all current policies and for ensuring that revisions are consistent with the requirements of the Consent Judgment. With the effective dissemination of Directive 404.1, Definitions, it has ensured that all terms are clearly defined. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U71 The DPD shall continue to make available proposed policy revisions to the community, for their review, comment and education. Such policy revisions shall also be published on the DPD’s website to allow comments to be provided directly to the DPD.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The DPD 33rd Quarter Status Report, issued December 31, 2011, notes that during this reporting period, Directive 304.1, Firearms, was approved by the BOPC on November 3, 2011, and redisseminated via MAS during the reporting quarter. Also, the Detainee Personal Property Directive, 305.3, and Custodial Questioning Directive, 203.9, were revised by the OCR on November 17, 2011, and were re-disseminated via MAS. Policy revisions are posted on the DPD
80

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 82 of 190 Pg ID 8304

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

dedicated email address on the City of Detroit’s website. DPD reports that, to date, no citizen comments have been received for any of the postings. We note DPD’s continued adherence to the process and to its integration of special orders into the directive system, allowing for citizen input to the process. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U72 The DPD shall advise all officers, including supervisors, that taking police action in violation of DPD policy shall subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for the first half of FY 11-12. As of December 31, 2011, 1,243 members (49%) have received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with this requirement. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U73 The DPD and the City shall develop a plan for ensuring regular field deployment of an adequate number of supervisors of patrol units and specialized units that deploy in the field to implement the provisions of this agreement. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. During the previous reporting period, we found that 97% of the randomly selected platoons and specialized units were in compliance with the required 1:10 ratio of supervisors to officers in patrol and specialized units on the dates surveyed. During this reporting period, we again surveyed Daily Details for three days selected at random (Sunday, October 16; Monday, November 21; and Friday, December 2, 2011). We found that of the 115 platoons deployed on the three days, 113 (98%) were in compliance with the required 1:10 span of control ratio. The supervision of a total of 1,699 (98%) of the 1739 POs working in those platoons on the three sample days was in compliance with required span of control. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
81

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 83 of 190 Pg ID 8305

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U74 The DPD shall enforce its policies requiring all DPD officers to report any misconduct committed by another DPD officer, whether committed on-duty or off-duty. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for the first half of FY 11-12. As of December 31, 2011, 1,243 members (49%) have received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with this requirement. During this reporting period, there were no cases identified where officers reported misconduct of other officers. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U75 The DPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to:
a. provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty DPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem;
b. prohibit off-duty officers from carrying or using firearms or taking police action in situations where an officer’s performance may be impaired or the officer’s ability to take objective action may be compromised; and
c. provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The DPD 31st Quarter Report notes that the letter to the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police (MACO), requesting that member agencies notify DPD IAD of any off-duty action involving DPD members, was sent January 19, 2011. We will request a copy of the new letter as part of the document request during our next site visit. To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for the first half of FY 11-12. As of December 31, 2011, 1,243 members (49%) have received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with this requirement.
82

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 84 of 190 Pg ID 8306

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

During this reporting period, there were no cases at the SIR investigative level in which an offduty officer was involved in an incident in DPD’s jurisdiction. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U76 The DPD shall revise its policies regarding prisoners to:
a. require officers to summon emergency medical services to transport prisoners when the restraints employed indicate the need for medical monitoring;
b. require officers to utilize appropriate precautions when interacting with a prisoner who demonstrates he or she is recalcitrant or resistant, including summoning additional officers, summoning a supervisor and using appropriate restraints; and
c. prohibit arresting and transporting officers from accompanying prisoners into the holding cell area.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for the first half of Fiscal Year 2011-12. As of December 31, 2011, 1,243 members (49%) have received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with the enumerated requirements. We also reviewed all 87 Command Level Investigations completed during this reporting period. None of the cases reviewed were in violation of these requirements. DPD remains in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U77 The DPD shall develop a foot pursuit policy to:
a. require officers to consider particular factors in determining whether a foot pursuit is appropriate, including the offense committed by the subject, whether the subject is armed, the location (e.g., lighting and officer familiarity), whether more than one officer is available to engage in the pursuit, the proximity of reinforcements, and the ability to apprehend the subject at a later date;
b. emphasize alternatives to foot pursuits, including area containment, surveillance, and obtaining reinforcements;
c. emphasize the danger of pursuing and engaging a subject with a firearm in hand; and
83

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 85 of 190 Pg ID 8307

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

d. require officers to document all foot pursuits that involve a use of force on a separate, auditable form, such as the use of force report.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. During this reporting period, we reviewed the training data for the first half of FY 2011-12. As of December 31, 2011, 1,243 members (49%) have received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with the enumerated requirements. We reviewed 14 foot pursuits during this reporting period. There were three cases in which alternatives to foot pursuits were considered. Three of the cases involved foot pursuits on individuals who had been armed, though each of the subjects discarded their weapons during the pursuit. All 14 pursuits were documented on the appropriate Use of Force 002 Form. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
Critical Issues: DPD remains in full compliance in this area, and we have observed no major issues that suggest concerns about the Department’s continuing that status.
Next Steps: During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to monitor relevant policy changes, including efforts to address the public’s interest in policy.
• Continue to heed the training requirements inherent in policy development in this area. • Review correspondence with the Michigan Chiefs.

84

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 86 of 190 Pg ID 8308

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

¶ Requirements
70 Clear definitions in policies 71 Proposed policy changes open to comm. 72 Advise officers policy violations disciplined 73 Adequate officer/supervisor ratio 74 Enforce misconduct reporting requirements 75 Revise policies regarding off-duty officers 76 Revise prisoner-related policies 77 Develop foot pursuit policy

Phase 1 - Policy
In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
This portion of the Use of Force Consent Judgment addresses several key management areas including the development of a risk management system, audit requirements, including in-car cameras, personnel evaluations, and the reduction of a backload of disciplinary cases. Thirteen of the 28 requirements in this section address the development and use of a comprehensive risk management system.
The DPD has made progress in instituting a workable mobile video system that supports both its important police mission and the management and oversight of its operations. In the past two years, it has repaired and deployed over 300 in-car MVS systems and begun to remedy deficiencies that that threaten its successful implementation. The wireless system, the most serious problem that prevents comprehensive upload of data, is now being upgraded. DPD has also begun to acquire new MVS units that are expected to provide both significantly improved reliability and enhanced management capabilities. DPD has moved forward significantly in this area, but there is still more to do to ensure success. Training the officers and supervisors who will work with the new equipment in the procedures and directives that pertain to its operation will be critical to success. The Department needs to devote the resources, both in personnel and equipment, necessary to complete the work on this important project.
A. Risk Management Database
CJ Requirement U78 The DPD shall devise a comprehensive risk management plan, including:
a. a risk management database (discussed in paragraphs 79-90);
b. a performance evaluation system (discussed in paragraph 91);
c. an auditing protocol (discussed in paragraphs 92-99);
d. regular and periodic review of all DPD policies; and
85

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 87 of 190 Pg ID 8309

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

e. regular meetings of DPD management to share information and evaluate patterns of conduct by DPD that potentially increase the DPD’s liability.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
This paragraph provides an overview of the requirements for the development and implementation of the risk management system, which is described in detail in paragraphs U7999; and the other requirements relating to management and supervision. Progress in particular areas reflected in those requirements is noted in the separate assessments below. In our previous report, a finding of pending compliance for this paragraph was associated with two issues discussed below.
In our last report, we noted that data regarding an incident that led to a civil suit could not be located in MAS following a request from the Monitoring Team. DPD determined that the report documenting the allegation of the use of force had not been completed by the Office of the Chief Investigator (OCI). To prevent this problem in the future, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has reported that it will: 1) review MAS on a weekly basis to assure the appropriate of documents on known incidents. It has also: 2) implemented a policy requiring completion of documentation by the end of shift and forwarding of information to supervisors; and 3) it is working with OCI to ensure that its Standard Operating Procedures reflect the policy requirement. Finally, 4) OCR has subscribed to an electronic alert service which will notify them of DPD-related news coverage of activities that may have required documentation, such as completion of use of force forms. These changes will also be reflected in an SOP covering MAS oversight and risk management-related tasks. We will review that SOP during our next site visit. The changes noted above reflect a sound problem-solving process and fully address the concerns raised in our previous report.
The second concern noted in our last report was related to the process of norming MAS indicators by arrests so that outliers could be identified while taking into effect levels of officer activity. This step will add an important dimension to a management process intended to reduce risk by addressing the most unusual activity patterns. It will also contribute to the sustainability of the system by limiting the focus on officers whose activities are not problematic. Our understanding is that DPD is making progress on this issue and will be prepared to present the results of its analysis during our next site visit.
This requirement establishes the general parameters of the risk management system. DPD has moved steadily toward compliance with it over the past reports as it has met the more technical requirements of the related paragraphs. We fully expect compliance with this paragraph, and therefore all of the risk management requirements, when the use of normed data is incorporated into the risk management process. As this is the only remaining issue at this time, we will take the unusual step of continuing a finding of pending compliance until the issue is assessed during our next site visit.

86

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 88 of 190 Pg ID 8310

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Pending Compliance
CJ Requirement U79 The DPD shall enhance and expand its risk management system to include a new computerized relational database for maintaining, integrating and retrieving data necessary for supervision and management of the DPD. Priority shall be given to the DPD obtaining an established program and database. The DPD shall ensure that the risk management database it designs or acquires is adequate to evaluate the performance of DPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts; to manage risk and liability; and to promote civil rights and best police practices. The DPD shall regularly use this data for such review and monitoring. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance with this requirement was recognized following extensive testing of MAS, from which we concluded that the system was capable of meeting the risk management requirements as specified in the Consent Judgment. The Department has continued to make progress on system development, training, and implementation. In this reporting period, we reviewed the monthly command reviews documenting the use of MAS. We have also examined the results of Peers reviews and the material currently used in training on the risk management system. For the current reporting period, we again examined the use of the system, including the input of data, the use of that data, and the identification and review of officers exceeding thresholds established in the system. Some issues with those aspects of the system are noted in individual compliance assessments, including concerns with progress in norming the data that will allow for more systematic comparisons across officers, as noted above. Based on our review of the continued development and use of this system, we again recognize the achievement of Phase 2 compliance with this requirement but we also note the caveat that we anticipate observing further refinements and progress in the system as we move forward. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U80 The new risk management database shall collect and record the following information:
a. all use of force reports and use of force investigations; b. all canine deployments; c. all canine apprehensions; d. all canine bites; e. all canisters of chemical spray issued to officers;
87

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 89 of 190 Pg ID 8311

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

f. all injured prisoner reports and injured prisoner investigations;
g. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct” or “interfering with a city employee;”
h. all firearm discharge reports and firearm discharge investigations;
i. all incidents in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target;
j. all complaints and complaint investigations, entered at the time the complaint is filed and updated to record the finding;
k. all preliminary investigations and investigations of alleged criminal conduct;
l. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the City, or its officers, or agents, resulting from DPD operations or the actions of DPD personnel, entered at the time proceedings are initiated and updated to record disposition;
m. all vehicle and foot pursuits and traffic collisions;
n. all reports regarding arrests without probable cause or where the individual was discharged from custody without formal charges being sought;
o. all reports regarding investigatory stops and/or frisks unsupported by reasonable suspicion;
p. all reports regarding interviews, interrogations or conveyances in violation of DPD policy;
q. the time between arrest and arraignment for all arrests;
r. all reports regarding a violation of DPD prompt judicial review policy;
s. all reports regarding a violation of DPD hold policy;
t. all restrictions on phone calls or visitors imposed by officers;
u. all instances in which the DPD is informed by a prosecuting authority that a declination to prosecute any crime was based, in whole or in part, upon concerns about the credibility of a DPD officer or that a motion to suppress evidence was granted on the grounds of a constitutional violation by a DPD officer;
v. all disciplinary action taken against officers;
w. all non-disciplinary corrective action required of officers, excluding administrative counseling records;
x. all awards and commendations received by officers;
y. the assignment, rank, and training history of officers; and
z. firearms qualification information of officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our analyses continue to find that the expected information is present for all the mandated data categories. As anticipated in our last report, the totals for data entered for all relevant subtasks are presented below. Reporting this each quarter will allow us to consider the stability and
88

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 90 of 190 Pg ID 8312

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

completeness of the data collection processes over time. Our review of MAS reports also supports the fact that these data are consulted and used in the risk management process. We continue to recognize the importance of sound data entry and retention practices and we anticipate further review of specific data elements each reporting period.
The data below show that there is a general consistency in the numbers across most categories for the two time periods shown. The exceptions to that include a significant reduction in stop and frisk exception forms reported across the reporting periods, and in investigations of criminal conduct by officers. The information on complaint investigations was corrected during this reporting period to reflect the practice in which the notice of complaint but not the investigation is maintained in MAS. Two other items on which we will seek additional information on or next visit include the seemingly low number of times in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target, and the number of reports of violations of prompt judicial review.

U80 Data Requirements – Quarterly Department Totals

Subtask Te xt

a

use of force reports

a

use of force investigation

b

canine deployments

c

canine apprehension

d

canine bites

f

injured prisoner reports

g

injured prisoner investigations

g

force and arrests for resisting arrest

g

force and arrests for assault on an officer

g

force and arrests for disorderly conduct

g

force and arrests for interfering with city employee

h

firearm discharge reports

h

firearm discharge investigations

i

officer draws a firearm & acquires target

j

Co mp lain t s

j

complaint investigations

k

investigations of criminal misconduct by officers

l.

criminal proceedings against members

l.

all civil lawsuits

m

vehicle pursuits

m

foot pursuits

m

traffic collisions

n

reports of arrests w/o probable cause

n

individuals discharged from custody w/o charges

o

investigatory stops and frisks w/o reasonable suspicion

p

reports of interviews, interrogation, or conveyances in viol of policy

r

reports of violations of prompt judicial review

s

reports of violation of DPD hold policy

t

reports of restrictions on phone calls or visits

u

report of declination to prosecute due to police conduct or suppressed evidence

v

disciplinary action taken against officers

w

non-disciplinary corrective action

7/1-9/30, 2011 278

10/1-12/31, 2011 254

132

100

15

15

6

4

0

0

13

18

13

18

116

99

58

36

42

27

32

11

7

6

7

4

18

12

307

264

307

N/A*

15

0

0

2

8

34

42

81

14

14

34

35

2

10

5 Frisks=146 St o p s=5 4

10 Frisks=63 St o p s=1 0

In t erv iews=3 3 , In t erro gat io n =1 5 Conveyances=4

In t erv iews=1 8 , In t erro gat io n =1 0 , Conveyances=0

891

841

134

97

27

1

0

0

37

42

188

299

The quarterly review of these data provides a means by which the Department can assess DPD activity and also examine the quality of information entered into MAS. It also provides a useful
89

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 91 of 190 Pg ID 8313

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

tool for the Monitor, and is shared with all Team members as they consider and assess their own specialty areas. This analysis continues to indicate that the appropriate data are collected and entered into the risk management system. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U81 The new risk management database shall include, for each incident, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (including name, pension number, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (including race, ethnicity or national origin, sex, and age). Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. As noted in our past two reports, DPD has resolved issues around reporting information regarding citizens connected with reported incidents. That data continues to be entered into MAS appropriately. The data on officers also continues to be reliably entered and maintained. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U82 The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management database and addressing data storage. The Data Input Plan shall:
a. detail the specific fields of information to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise);
b. specify the unit responsible for inputting data, the deadlines for inputting the data in a timely, accurate, and complete manner;
c. specify the historical time periods for which information is to be input and the deadlines for inputting the data in an accurate and timely fashion; and
d. requires that the data be maintained in a secure and confidential manner. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The Department’s revised Data Input Plan was approved by the Department of Justice in a letter dated June 9, 2011. Our observations and interviews with DPD continue to support the

90

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 92 of 190 Pg ID 8314

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

conclusion that the provisions of the Data Input Plan are reflected in the practices of the Department. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U83 The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Report Protocol for the risk management database that details the types of routine reports the DPD shall generate and pattern identifications the DPD shall conduct. The Report Protocol shall:
a. require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria: i. number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; ii. average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and
iii. identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
b. establish thresholds for the numbers and types of incidents requiring a review by an officer’s supervisor of whether the officer or group of officers is engaging in at-risk behavior (in addition to the regular reviews required by paragraph 84); and
c. require the database to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The Department’s revised Report Protocol was also approved by the Department of Justice in a letter dated June 9, 2011. Our observations and interviews with DPD continue to support the conclusion that the provisions of the Report Protocol are reflected in the practices of the Department. To consider this, we also examined command monthly reviews in MAS, and confirmed both the availability and use of the MAS data at the command level. During our most recent site visit, members of the Monitoring Team also attended the Command Compliance Review Meeting and observed the use of information from MAS. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U84 The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Review Protocol for using the risk management database that addresses data analysis, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and auditing. The Review Protocol shall require:
91

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 93 of 190 Pg ID 8315

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

a. that when an officer or group of officers pass a threshold established in the Report Protocol the officer’s(s’) supervisor shall review all information in the risk management database regarding the officer(s), together with other relevant information;
b. the reviewing supervisor to document whether he or she took non-disciplinary corrective action or recommended disciplinary action, the basis for this decision, and what corrective action was taken, if any;
c. supervisors to review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, database reports, together with other relevant information, to evaluate individual officer and unit activity for at-risk behavior;
d. precinct and unit commanders to review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, database reports, together with other relevant information, to evaluate individual supervisor’s assessment and analysis of information in the risk management database and the corrective action taken by supervisors;
e. appropriate DPD supervisors to review and evaluate, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, police performance citywide, using all relevant information from the risk management database and other relevant information and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all DPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents;
f. commanders and supervisors conducting such periodic reviews to take non-disciplinary corrective action when appropriate for individual officers, supervisors or units and document any such action in writing;
g. that the information in the database be accessible to commanders, supervisors and the BPC;
h. that the information in the database is considered when evaluating a DPD employee for transfer or promotion;
i. commanders and supervisors to promptly review records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units;
j. commanders and supervisors to be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management database to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk;
k. that a designated DPD unit be responsible for managing and administering the database, including conducting quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above; and
l. that aggregated information from the risk management database be shared on a regular and periodic basis with training and policy planning staff.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The Review Protocol was revised, submitted for review and approved by DOJ on June 9, 2011. Interviews with staff assigned to MAS continue to support the conclusion that the review process is being implemented consistent with policy. To further assess that, we examined all Personnel Evaluation and Enhancement Review Sessions (PEERS) completed and signed off in the

92

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 94 of 190 Pg ID 8316

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

reporting period for the relevant quarter. The data comparing this reporting period to the previous reporting period are presented below.

PEERS and Their Outcomes

July-Sept Oct-Dec

Total PEERS

93

77

No Action Needed 65 (70%) 67 (87%)

Monitoring

10 (11%) 7 (9%)

Other

18 (19%) 4 (5%)

In 77 PEERS, supervisors and command staff found no need for action in 67 (87%) of cases. They assigned officers to be monitored in seven (9%) of cases and they took informal action (training recommendations, additional review) in four (5%) of cases. Compared with the last reporting period, these reviews resulted in higher numbers of findings of “no action required” and lower numbers of informal action taken. Findings for monitoring were the result of approximately the same percentage of reviews across the two reporting periods.
The figures above make it clear that MAS is being utilized. Supervisors appear to be thorough in their reviews and command staff appears to scrutinize PEERS decisions appropriately. However, the volume of cases reviewed and the high proportion of cases where no intervention is needed again raises the question of efficiency of the system at identifying officers engaged in high-risk behavior. That, in turn raises the question of sustainability if the system is judged as needlessly cumbersome. The current use of three performance indicators to trigger a PEERS is inefficient for that purpose, and risks damaging perceived program legitimacy by identifying too many officer who do not need intervention or monitoring. The Department is working on methods of norming the measures of officer behavior to allow them to focus on outlier cases – that is, cases that fall in the top 5% or 10% of officers. Since this approach is still being developed in the Department, there is no impact on compliance assessment at this time.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U85
The DPD shall seek to ensure that the risk management database is created as expeditiously as possible. As part of this effort, the DPD, in consultation with the DOJ, shall organize the risk management database into modules in developing the Data Input Plan, the Report Protocol, the Review Protocol and the Request for Proposals and in negotiating with contractors, such that difficulties with one aspect of the risk management database do not delay implementation of other modules.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
93

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 95 of 190 Pg ID 8317

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

During current reporting period, there have been no changes that would affect the compliance status with this requirement. The Department continues its processes of development and improvement of the risk management system in a manner consistent with expectations. It produces regular reports of the system status and any revisions or improvements that have been made. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U86 Where information about a single incident is entered into the risk management database from more than one document (e.g., from a complaint form and a use of force report), the risk management database shall use a common control number or other equally effective means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. DPD has addressed the need for a common control number or other equally effective means of connecting information across reports of a single incident by developing an algorithm to link documents in the database. The system now links documents using as many as nine variables. These include such elements as identifying information on officers and civilians involved in the incident, the date of the event, and the Crisnet number. DPD also incorporated a box to check to retrieve “related documents” directly on the appropriate MAS computer screens. This has proven a successful solution to this technical problem. DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U87 The City shall maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management database during the officer’s employment with the DPD and for at least five years after separation. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in the risk management database. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The Phase 2 compliance finding for this requirement remains unchanged. The required data are accessible through MAS, and the five-year retention policy on personal information is in place. Compliance Status:
94

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 96 of 190 Pg ID 8318

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U88 The new risk management database shall be developed and implemented according to the following schedule:
a. By January 24, 2008, the City shall have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management database consisting of: 1) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the City and DPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary database software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the information system completed, including historic data. The DOJ and the Monitor shall have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using new and historical data and test data created specifically for the purposes of checking the risk management database.
b. The risk management database shall be operational and fully implemented by July 24, 2008.
c. The parties and the independent monitor shall meet on a monthly basis to discuss what actions have been taken during the previous month toward development of the new risk management database.
d. The defendant shall present to the plaintiff and the independent monitor, on a monthly basis, evidence of satisfactory progress sufficient to justify a conclusion that completion of the new risk management database by August 11, 2008 remains feasible. If at any time the plaintiff concludes that successful completion of the project within the timeframes described in this paragraph is unlikely, the plaintiff shall so notify the Court and the defendant. Within sixty days after receipt of such notice, the defendant shall issue an RFP to develop or complete development of the new risk management database as was required by 88c. of this Consent Judgment before it was amended. In that event, the requirements of paragraphs 88.d., 88.e., 88.f., and 88.g. of this Consent Judgment before it was amended shall be enforced, with dates adjusted as follows: the Review Protocol (paragraph 88.d.) shall be issued within five months after issuance of the RFP; the defendant shall select the contractor (paragraph 88.e) within seven months after issuance of the RFP; the beta version (paragraph 88.f) shall be ready for testing within fifteen months after issuance of the RFP; and the risk management database shall be operational (paragraph 88.g) within twenty-six months after issuance of the RFP.26
e. By May 31, 2004, the DPD shall select the contractor to create the risk management database.
f. By June 30, 2005, the City shall have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management database consisting of: i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the City and DPD’s existing automated systems; ii)
26 Consent Judgment amendments, November 9, 2007, and July 22, 2008.
95

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 97 of 190 Pg ID 8319

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

necessary database software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the information system completed, including historic data. The DOJ and the Monitor shall have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using new and historical data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management database.
g. The risk management database shall be operational and fully implemented by December 31, 2005.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
All of the timeframes and dates specified in the original Consent Judgment and later extended by the Court have expired. Currently, DPD files MAS update reports on a monthly basis. These reports document continued progress in the development and implementation of the risk management system. The schedule set by this requirement is recognized as obsolete and its original intention has been met and is monitored through the monthly MAS reports produced by the Department.
Accordingly, DPD is, again, in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U89 Prior to implementation of the new risk management database, the DPD shall develop an interim system to identify patterns of conduct by DPD officers or groups of officers. The interim system shall require periodic reviews of relevant information, but no less than monthly, and evaluations of whether an officer or group of officers is engaging in at-risk behavior. This interim system shall collect and analyze the following information: citizen complaint reports and investigations; use of force investigations; shootings; vehicle chases; injured prisoner investigations; traffic collisions; canisters of chemical spray issued to officers; firearms qualifications; training; prompt judicial review; disciplinary action; arrest without probable cause; all reports regarding investigatory stops and/or frisks unsupported by reasonable suspicion; and all reports regarding interviews, interrogations or conveyances in violation of DPD policy in a format that facilitates entry into the final risk management database, to the fullest extent possible.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In accordance with the Consent Judgment, DPD developed and used the Interim Management Awareness System (IMAS) prior to development of MAS. With progress on the current system, the need for IMAS has been superseded. Therefore, DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
96

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 98 of 190 Pg ID 8320

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U90 Following the initial implementation of the risk management database, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the DPD may propose to subtract or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and subtract or modify standardized reports and queries. The DPD shall submit all such proposals for review and approval by the DOJ before implementation. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The Department has revised the key documents required for the risk management system. It submitted the revised Data Input Plan, Review Protocol, and Report Protocol to the Department of Justice and the changes were approved as noted in a letter from DOJ dated June 9, 2011. With that, the Department demonstrated compliance. We will continue to monitor the risk management system to ensure that any other significant changes are handled in a manner consistent with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
B. Performance Evaluation System CJ Requirement U91 DPD shall ensure that performance evaluations for all DPD employees below the rank of Deputy Chief occur at least annually and include, but are not limited to, consideration of the following:27
a. civil rights integrity; b. adherence to law, including performing duties in a manner consistent with the
requirements of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution and the Civil Rights laws of the United States; and c. supervisor’s performance in identifying and addressing at-risk behavior in subordinates, including their supervision and review of use of force, arrests, care of prisoners, prisoner processing, and performance bearing upon honesty and integrity.28 Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

27 Consent Judgment amendment, October 4, 2004. The Court issued an order on October 4, 2004 adopting a proposed modification by the Parties making these requirements applicable to DPD employees below the rank of Deputy Chief.
97

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 99 of 190 Pg ID 8321

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for the past eight reporting periods. To verify continued compliance for the current reporting period, we again examined a random sample of 109 evaluations drawn from all a list of all personnel. Our review verified that more than 94% of reviews were current and properly completed with original narratives, references to “no change in status,” or references to material in MAS. Eight evaluations were excluded since they were not competed due to the probationary status of the employees or extended leave. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
C. Oversight CJ Requirement U92 The DPD shall develop a protocol for conducting annual audits to be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol shall establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all DPD units and commands. The annual audit period for conducting the audits required by paragraphs 93 to 97 for the first year shall end on August 31, 2004. The subsequent annual periods shall end on July 17, 2005, and every year thereafter.29 Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance is dependent on compliance with the requirements of U93-97. The audit protocol is in place following revision in July and all audits are scheduled. Accordingly, the DPD continues in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U93 The DPD shall issue a report to the Chief of Police on the result of each audit and examine whether there is consistency throughout the DPD. The DPD shall also provide the reports to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

29 Consent Judgment amendment, October 4, 2004.
98

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 100 of 190 Pg ID 8322

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. All audits contain the appropriate sign-offs by unit commanders. We verified the review by the Chief through examination of the summary audit briefing signoff dated October 4, 2011. New audits and resulting corrective action reports were completed according to the Audit Protocol schedule. Annual audits are once again scheduled for July. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U94 The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits, covering all DPD units and commands that investigate uses of force, prisoner injuries, and allegations of misconduct. The audits shall include reviewing a statistically valid sample of command, IAD, and Homicide Section investigations; evaluating whether the actions of the officer and the subject were captured correctly in the investigative report; and evaluating the preservation and analysis of the evidence and the appropriateness of the investigator’s conclusions.30
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Audits on use of force, prisoner injuries, and allegation of misconduct were completed in July and were followed by corrective action reports. As part of the audit protocol, new audits are scheduled for July 2012.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U95 The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits covering all precincts and specialized units that review a statistically valid sample of findings of probable cause, stop and frisk reports and witness identification and questioning documentation. The audits shall include evaluating the scope, duration, content, and voluntariness, if appropriate, of the police interaction. The audits shall include a comparison of the number of arrests to requests for warrants and a comparison of the number of arrests for which warrants were sought to judicial findings of probable cause.31
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

30 Consent Judgment amendment, October 4, 2004. 31 Consent Judgment amendment, October 4, 2004.
99

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 101 of 190 Pg ID 8323

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. Stop and frisk audits were completed in July, and corrective action reports were completed. New audits are schedule for completion on an annual basis. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U96 The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits covering all precincts and specialized units that examine custodial detention practices. The audits shall include reviewing the length of detention between arrest and arraignment and the time to adjudicate holds.32 Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. Custodial detention audits of all relevant facilities were completed on schedule in July Corrective action reports were and new audits are scheduled for next July. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U97 The Chief Investigator of OCI shall designate an individual or entity to conduct regularly scheduled annual audits that examine external complaints and complaint investigations. The audit shall include reviewing a statistically valid sample of complaints that were resolved informally, reviewing a sample of OCI investigations of complaints, and contacting the complainants to evaluate whether the actions and views of the complainant were captured correctly in the complaint report and/or investigation. The Chief Investigator shall review all audit reports regarding officers under OCI command and, if appropriate, shall take nondisciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.33 Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The city has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. All audits were completed, on schedule, in the fall. Corrective action reports were completed
32 Consent Judgment amendment, October 4, 2004. 33 Consent Judgment amendment, October 4, 2004.
100

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 102 of 190 Pg ID 8324

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

based on the audits. This is consistent with the active audit schedule incorporated in the audit protocol and managed through the Civil Rights Integrity Bureau (CRIB).
The Department remains in compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U98 The DPD shall conduct and document periodic random reviews of scout car camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes. In addition, the DPD shall require periodic random surveys of scout car video recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The Department now has approximately 300 scout cars equipped with MVS. During the current reporting period, we interviewed the Deputy Chief for Technology and reviewed the MAS records. Directive 303.3 requires that supervisors randomly review video segments for training and integrity purposes and document the results on activity logs. From October 1, through December 15, 2011, DPD supervisors reviewed a total of 4,437 videos.
We sampled three platoons on two different dates (Sunday, October 16, 2011; Monday, November 21, 2011; Friday, December 2, 2011) in three precincts (Northeast District, Northwest District, and Southwest District) to determine how many cars with operational video units had actually been deployed and how many had random reviews conducted. We found that 116 equipped units were deployed in the three districts on the three days in our survey. Since reports were also made on some cars that were not equipped with operational MVS systems, more random reviews were conducted and recorded than required. In only one instance (October 16, 2011, in the Southwest District) were fewer videos reviewed than the number of deployed and equipped vehicles. The following chart reflects the results of our survey.

101

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 103 of 190 Pg ID 8325

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

NORTHEAST

NORTHWEST

SOUTHWEST

Date

Deployed Equipped Video Review Deployed Equipped Video Review Deployed Equipped Video Review

Sunday, October 16, 2011

31

20

29

38

37

39

28

25

23

Monday, November 21, 2011

24

19

24

36

32

36

8

6

6

Friday, December 2, 2011

25

24

25

38

32

36

25

22

22

Reviews where a supervisor simply randomly selects and views an event that has been recorded are helpful in confirming that the equipment is operational and that, to some extent, it is being used. A better review technique would be for supervisors to select an event that occurred during the shift that requires video to be recorded and confirm that it was, in fact, recorded. For example, select a traffic stop and check to see if it was recorded. In this way, supervisors conducting daily random reviews should be able to determine if their officers are complying with Directive 303.3.
The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U99
The DPD shall ensure regular meetings with local prosecutors to identify issues in officer, shift or unit performance.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. To verify continued compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we reviewed the minutes of the November 9, 2011 quarterly meeting involving DPD and members of the Prosecutor’s Office. As has been common, a wide range of topics relevant to performance were discussed, including information access for both police and prosecutors, evidence issues including specific cases, and other compliance issues including uses of force and stop and frisk.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.

102

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 104 of 190 Pg ID 8326

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
D. Use of Video Cameras
CJ Requirement U100
The DPD shall repair or replace all non-functioning video cameras.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
MVS equipment, particularly older units, is subject to breaking down and requiring repair. As a result, the total number of operational units at any one time varies. DPD estimates that it has 303 MVS units operational. The compliment of MVS equipment actually installed and operational has remained the same, 303 vehicles, since July 2011.
During our last review, we were informed that the Department was upgrading the wireless receivers at the precincts and districts to ensure that the new MVS units, when installed, would function properly. The upgrade of the wireless transmission system at local precincts and districts was expected to raise the transmission speed from 54 MB to 300 MB, about a 600% increase. At the time the wireless upgrade was being installed in the Northeastern District and in the Lyndon Garage Facility. DPD was installing new MVS systems in five vehicles to be tested as prototypes. The rest of the DPD sites were expected be upgraded by the end of October 2011.
During this reporting period, we interviewed DPD Technology Bureau DC and his staff and reviewed maintenance logs and other records relating to the repair and installation of MVS equipment. We found that work on the wireless network upgrade has not yet been completed. The infrastructure work has been completed on five DPD buildings. New MVS units were installed in five vehicles that have been tested as prototypes and DPD encountered no significant problems that it was not able to resolve. It now expects to install new units in 40 more vehicles that will be placed in service. DPD estimates that the new MVS systems will transmit data to the network about 10 times faster than the old infrastructure permitted. Vehicles with older MVS systems are expected to transmit data about four times as fast.
During our previous review, we were advised that installation of new MVS units was expected to begin on December 2, 2011 and run through January 17, 2012. During this time period, DPD projected it would install the new equipment in 150 2010 and 2011 marked scout cars. During the eighth reporting period, the Department would take delivery of an additional batch of vehicles, which will receive mobile video systems as well. During this review, we found that the DPD installation plan had slipped considerably. MVS systems had been installed in 40 new cars but a procurement order for wiring harnesses had not been acted upon by the City and the work cannot be completed without the harnesses.
During the three-month period ending on September 30, 2011, the DPD IT Bureau responded to 388 requests for service. Our review found that 11 requests were pending due to vendor issues, and nine requests listed as “active” were subsequently resolved. Of the remaining 368 requests for service 356 (97%) were successfully resolved.
103

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 105 of 190 Pg ID 8327

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U101 The DPD policy on video cameras shall be revised and augmented to require:
a. activation of scout car video cameras at all times the officer is on patrol; b. supervisors to review videotapes of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an
officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits and external complaints; and c. that the DPD retain and preserve videotapes for at least 90 days, or as long as necessary
for incidents to be fully investigated. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. During our past site visits, we found:
a. The DPD MVS cameras are set to operate 100% of the time on patrol. Full video is 2430 frames per second; MVS units are set to capture one frame of video per second at all non-emergency times. Whenever the emergency lights are activated, the units switch to full-video mode and capture 28 frames per second.
b. While supervisory review of videotapes involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits, and external complaints is required, DPD has made strides in providing these data for our review but has not yet been able to provide comprehensive data identifying all such incidents. We therefore are unable to accurately measure compliance with U101b or to find DPD in compliance with this requirement.
c. DPD preserves and retains videos, as required by U101c. U101b requires that video be activated for each of the incidents specified and that supervisors conduct a review of the video where one is available. We found the following on this site visit:
• Pursuits: DPD was able to produce MAS Vehicle Pursuit Reports that identified 46 pursuit reports during the current reporting period. Thirty-two of the 46 were determined to have operational MVS systems in their cars. Of these, DPD was able to locate video for 11 (34%) pursuits where the car was equipped with operational video and audios were found for only two (6%). This is a decline from our previous review when we found 82% videos recorded in our October 2011 review.
• Uses of Force: DPD provided a list of 29 use of force cases in which in-car video could have been recorded that were closed during October, November, and December, 2011. We deducted the cases where a technical failure prevented operation of the MVS system and situations that occurred where no vehicle was close. Of 29 cases over the reporting period, 11 cases (52%) contained video that was reviewed. The chart below depicts our findings:
104

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 106 of 190 Pg ID 8328

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

# Cases Video Present and Reviewed Technical Issues or Explanation % Recorded and Reviewed

Month

October, 2011

15

4

November, 2011

4

2

December, 2011 10

5

Total

29

11

6

44%

0

50%

2

63%

8

52%

• Injuries: DPD was unable to produce a report that identified a comprehensive list of incidents involving injuries to officers or subjects in which MVS should have been recorded.

• External Complaints: DPD provided a list of eight Internal Affairs investigations closed during the current reporting period in which video should have been available and in which it was requested. In six of those cases (75%), video was produced and reviewed. The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with U101a and U101c. It is not in compliance with U101b.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U102
The DPD policy on video cameras shall require officers to record all motor vehicle stops, consents to search a vehicle, deployments of a drug-detection canine, or vehicle searches.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During this reporting period, we selected a random sample of 100 traffic stops for each of the first two months in the reporting period (October and November, 2011). The results are depicted on the following chart. DPD did not provide data for December 2011, for inclusion in this review. We have encountered difficulty in the past in obtaining data for the last month of the reporting period. In future reviews, we will examine traffic stop data for a three-month period beginning four months before the review.
• Traffic Stops: We examined 100 traffic stops selected at random for the months of October and November 2011. Overall, we found that 88 (44%) of the traffic stops contained video and 27 (14%) contained audio. The results were as depicted on the following chart.

Mobile Video Recorded - 4th Quarter 2011Traffic Stops
105

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 107 of 190 Pg ID 8329

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Month October 2011 November 2011 Total

# Sample 100 100 200

Video 46 42 88

% Audio

46%

15

42%

12

44%

27

% 15% 12% 14%

Mobile Video Recorded - 4th Quarter 2011Traffic Stops

Month

# Sample

Video % Audio

October 2011

100

46

46%

15

November 2011

100

42

42%

12

Total

200

88

44%

27

% 15% 12% 14%

• Vehicle Searches and Canine Deployments: DPD reported deploying only one canine to search a vehicle during October 2011. That search was recorded on video but there was no accompanying audio. In November 2011, 10 vehicle searches were conducted by officers utilizing patrol cars equipped with operational MVS systems. Six of the 10 (60%) were recorded on video and four (40%) of the six had audio.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance
E. Discipline CJ Requirement U103 The City shall ensure that adequate resources are provided to eliminate the backlog of disciplinary cases and that all disciplinary matters are resolved as soon as reasonably possible. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 117 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. This is the same number of cases that were closed in the previous quarter. As noted below, there is no backlog of cases and case flow is being managed sufficiently. During the current reporting period, a total of 125 new disciplinary cases were opened. We also established that all previously noted resources remain in place to support compliance with this requirement at this time. We are concerned, however, about changes in resources that are currently occurring. Personnel changes will limit the availability of prosecutors for police trial boards. The Disciplinary Unit is examining ways to compensate for this loss, including exploring the possibility of using law school graduates who are preparing to take the Bar exam
106

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 108 of 190 Pg ID 8330

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

and also law school interns. We will assess the impact of resource changes during our next site visit.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U104 The DPD shall schedule disciplinary hearings, trials, and appeals at appropriately frequent intervals, to prevent a disciplinary backlog from developing. As part of determining how often to schedule such hearings, the DPD shall establish guidelines dictating the maximum period of time that should elapse between each stage of the disciplinary process.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 117 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. All disciplinary proceedings met the established timelines and were consistent with this requirement. There are no cases remaining open that predate 2010. Seven cases remain open from 2010. At the end of December, 131 cases remained open for 2010. The status of all open cases is track by the disciplinary unit and reported quarterly. All open 2010 cases reflect appropriate scheduling and steps toward closure. The Chart below shows the method of closure by year and supports the view that disciplinary procedures are being scheduled at appropriate intervals.

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U105 The DPD shall create a disciplinary matrix that:
107

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 109 of 190 Pg ID 8331

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

a. establishes a presumptive range of discipline for each type of rule violation;
b. increases the presumptive discipline based on both an officer’s prior violations of the same rule as well as violations of other rules;
c. requires that any departure from the presumptive range of discipline must be justified in writing;
d. provides that the DPD shall not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix calls for the imposition of discipline; and
e. Provides that the DPD shall consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action also is appropriate in a case where discipline has been imposed.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 117 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. The disciplinary matrix is provided for use at disciplinary trial boards. All decisions this reporting period fell within the matrix and were consistent with this requirement. DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

108

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 110 of 190 Pg ID 8332

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

78 Comprehensive Risk Management Plan 79 Improve risk management system 80 Database requirements (a-z) 81 Database to include officer information 82 Data Input Plan (a-d) 83 Report Protocol for database (a-c) 84 Review Protocol for database (a-l) 85 Use modules to ensure work progress 86 Common control number required 87 Data retention 88 Database schedule (expired) 89 Interim database (rescinded) 90 Change process needs DOJ approval 91 Annual officer review criteria specified 92 Protocol for conducting audits 93 Audit results to Chief and commanders 94 Annual audits-use of force 95 Annual audits-probable cause/stop-and-frisk 96 Annual audits-detention practices 97 Annual audits-external complaints 98 Random reviews of in-car camera videos 99 Regular meeting with local prosecutors 100 Replace/repair video cameras 101 Revision of video camera policy 102 Record all vehicle stops, searches, etc. 103 Elimination of disciplinary case backlog 104 Scheduling of disciplinary cases 105 Disciplinary matrix of responses/sanctions

In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

109

Phase 2 Implementation Pending Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 111 of 190 Pg ID 8333

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

IX. TRAINING
During our most recent site visit, we visited the Detroit Police Training Center and interviewed the Training Commander and reviewed a variety of memoranda, policy material, and two new use of force scenarios prepared for use during the 2011-2012 Training Year (July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012). DPD continues to make progress in addressing the Consent Judgment training requirements. As we noted in our last report, the Department has achieved compliance with all training-related requirements; it should now take steps to ensure that the changes it has made are institutionalized and accepted throughout the organization.
A. Oversight and Development CJ Requirement U106 The DPD shall coordinate and review all use of force and arrest and detention training to ensure quality, consistency and compliance with applicable law and DPD policy. The DPD shall conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually, and produce a report of such reviews to the Monitor and the DOJ. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. We found during our current review that the DPD report, “Training Oversight and Development Report – Semi-Annual Review, December 2011,” addressed requirement U106. This report – the sixth such report to be issued – contained the evaluation of use of force, arrest, and detention training; and covered all elements of this requirement. The next such report will be produced in June 2012. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U107 The DPD, consistent with Michigan law and the Michigan Law Enforcement Officers Training Council standards, shall:
a. ensure the quality of all use of force and arrest and detention training; b. develop use of force and arrest and detention training curricula; c. select and train DPD officer trainers; d. develop, implement, approve and oversee all training and curricula; e. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
110

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 112 of 190 Pg ID 8334

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

f. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that training governing use of force and arrest and detention are responsive to the knowledge, skills and abilities of the officers being trained.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we met with the Training Director and staff and reviewed training records. DPD training complies with the Michigan Law Enforcement Council’s standards and Michigan law. With regard to subparagraphs a-f, during the past year we found as follows:
a. During our July site visit, we reviewed the revised lesson plans that are now being used in the 2011-2012 training cycle. In addition, during this reporting period, we reviewed the two new use of force scenarios that are being deployed and the report entitled, “Training Oversight and Development Report – Semi-Annual Review,” dated December 2011, which documents the DPD’s semi-annual review and evaluation of its training. Use of force and detention training are adequate.
b. As noted above, we reviewed the lesson plans for the Use of Force and Arrest and Detention training that are being used in the current training year (July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012), and found them to be adequate for the training required.
c. DPD did not select any new trainers during the fourth quarter of 2011. One sergeant was transferred into Training. As we have noted in the past, Training selects officers below the rank of sergeant, but those at the rank of sergeant or higher are transferred into Training under the terms of the union contract. We reviewed a memorandum that was prepared to document the newly transferred sergeant’s suitability to conduct training. The memorandum addressed past performance appraisals, use of force, and Internal Affairs. There was no indication that the sergeant was not suitable for the training assignment.
d/e.As we have observed in past reviews, DPD policy, curricula, and lesson plans address these provisions.
f. Directive 304.5-3.4 places responsibility on the Commander of Training for conducting a training needs assessment. In January, July, and December 2011, the DPD conducted and documented training needs assessments. Senior officers and mid-level managers representing critical areas of the DPD participated in the process. Over the past year, such needs assessments have identified several “performance gaps” that could be addressed through training. DPD has initiated new training and modified in-service training in order to address many of the deficiencies identified in the needs assessments. Using this process, Training determined DPD supervisors did not know how to coach their subordinates. A block of instruction is being developed that will instruct DPD supervisors in coaching and mentoring. The next critical step in this process will be evaluation of the impact of the new training and, if necessary, its revision. DPD plans to conduct a training needs assessment every year. The next one is planned for June 2012.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

111

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 113 of 190 Pg ID 8335

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U108 The DPD shall create and maintain individual training records for all officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training completed for all training conducted on or after the effective date of this agreement.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. DPD captures data relating to its in-service training, and records it on a spreadsheet. Since the spreadsheet is used by the Department to determine if all of its officers have attended the required in-service training sessions, we have conducted audits of its accuracy during the past and current reporting periods. In past reviews, we randomly selected 100 officers who were listed on the spreadsheet as having received and completed in-service training during the previous quarter. During our October 2011 review, the Training Division was able to locate sign-in sheets reflecting attendance for 100% of the officers listed on the spreadsheet as having completed their training during the previous reporting period. During this reporting period, we selected at random 123 records for officers who were listed as having completed their in-service training during the first two quarters of the current training year (October 1, through December 31, 2011). In order to complete their in-service training these officers would have to attend and sign attendance sheets for four courses. Of the 492 signatures expected, we were able to locate 480 (98%). During our previous reviews, we found that the Department committed to recording training data in the MITN System, a part of the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) data system. Training has now entered all DPD training records for years 2003 through the present. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U109 The DPD shall ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors and that instructors engage students in meaningful dialogue regarding particular scenarios, preferably taken from actual incidents involving DPD officers, with the goal of educating students regarding the legal and tactical issues raised by the scenarios.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. DPD training directives and lesson plans properly direct and instruct on the relevant provisions of the Consent Judgment.1 DPD developed two new scenarios utilizing DPD Internal Affairs
112

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 114 of 190 Pg ID 8336

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

incidents, and accepted them for incorporation into the Legal block of training. We reviewed both and found them acceptable. Our previous review of training curricula, lesson plans, and scenarios used in the current training year (July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012) revealed that they instruct and convey the requirements of the Consent Judgment and DPD policy. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U110 The DPD shall meet with the City Law Department on a quarterly basis concerning the conclusion of civil lawsuits alleging officer misconduct, information gleaned from this process shall be distributed to DPD risk management and training staff. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The DPD met with the City Law Department pursuant to this requirement on November 8, 2011. Meetings are held quarterly. The DPD remains in compliance with U110. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U111 The City and the DPD shall distribute and explain this Agreement to all DPD and all relevant City employees The City and the DPD shall provide initial training on this Agreement to all City and DPD employees whose job responsibilities are affected by this Agreement within 120 days of each provision’s implementation. Thereafter, the DPD shall provide training on the policies contained in this Agreement during in-service training. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Recruits receive this training, which is conducted by CRIB, after they complete their state certification exams and before they graduate from the Academy. The currently in-progress Basic Training class – which began its training on September 23, 2011, and is composed of 34 new recruits – will receive its training at a later date. Thirteen civilian employees (including both those newly hired and reassigned to support the DPD) received this training from CRIB during December 2011. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

113

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 115 of 190 Pg ID 8337

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

B. Use of Force Training
CJ Requirement U112
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers, and supervisors with annual training on use of force. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. The DPD’s use of force continuum; proper use of force; decision making; and the DPD’s use of force reporting requirements;
b. The Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including recent legal developments;
c. Examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper use of force decision making, including the use of deadly force;
d. The circumstances in which officers may draw, display, or point a firearm, emphasizing:
i. Officers should not draw their firearm unless they reasonably believe there is a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or another person;
ii. The danger of engaging or pursuing a suspect with a firearm drawn; and
iii. That officers are generally not justified in drawing their firearm when pursuing a subject suspected of committing only a misdemeanor;
e. The proper use of all intermediate force weapons;
f. Threat assessment, alternative and de-escalation techniques that allow officers to effect arrests without using force and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units or even letting a subject temporarily evade arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation, even when the use of force would be legally justified;
g. Interacting with people with mental illnesses, including instruction by mental health practitioners and an emphasis on de-escalation strategies;
h. Factors to consider in initiating or continuing a pursuit;
i. The proper duration of a burst of chemical spray, the distance from which it should be applied, and emphasize that officers shall aim chemical spray only at the target’s face and upper torso, and
j. Consideration of the safety of civilians in the vicinity before engaging in police action.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During our July 2011 site visit, we assessed training policy directives, curricula, lesson plans, special orders, training needs assessment and teletypes, among other materials that were prepared to address the requirements of U112 during Training Year 2011-2012 (July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012). Our review showed that the course content requirements of U112 and all of its subparagraphs were met for all recruits and in-service trainees.
Also during our October 2011 site visit, we found that 27% of the DPD members “available to train” attended use of force training during the first quarter (July 1, through September 30, 2011) of the new training year. During the same period, 27% of the officers available to train attended PR-24 training.
114

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 116 of 190 Pg ID 8338

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

During this reporting period, we found that 1,243 (49%) of its 2,540 officers currently available to train attended the use of force in-service training during the first half of the current training year. In addition, a total of 1,244 officers (49%) attended PR-24 training during the same period. The DPD is on a course to remain in compliance with this requirement. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
C. Firearms Training CJ Requirement U113 The DPD shall develop a protocol regarding firearms training that:
a. Ensures that all officers and supervisors complete the bi-annual firearms training and qualification;
b. Incorporates professional night training, stress training (i.e., training in using a firearm after undergoing physical exertion) and proper use of force decision making training in the bi-annual in-service training program, with the goal of adequately preparing officers for real life situations;
c. Ensures that firearm instructors critically observe students and provide corrective instruction regarding deficient firearm techniques and failure to utilize safe gun handling procedures at all times; and undergoing physical exertion) and proper use of force decision making training in the bi-annual in-service training program, with the goal of adequately preparing officers for real life situations;
d. Incorporates evaluation criteria to determine satisfactory completion of recruit and inservice firearms training, including:
e. Maintains finger off trigger unless justified and ready to fire; f. Maintains proper hold of firearm and proper stance; and g. Uses proper use of force decision making.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The requirements specified in U113 are addressed in the Department’s firearms training, which officers are required to attend and qualify in every six months. During the previous six-month firearms qualification period (January 1, through June 30, 2011), 97% of the officers available to train attended firearms and qualified. During the current six-month qualification period (July 1, through December 31, 2011), 2,509 officers (99%) of 2,540 available to train attended firearms training and qualified. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
115

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 117 of 190 Pg ID 8339

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Phase 2: In Compliance
D. Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training
CJ Requirement U114
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on arrests and other police-citizen interaction. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. The DPD Arrest, Investigatory Stop and Frisk and Witness Identification and Questioning Policies;
b. The Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including:
c. Advising officers that the “possibility” that an individual committed a crime does not rise to the level of probable cause;
d. Advising officers that the duration and scope of the police-citizen interaction determines whether an arrest occurred, not the officer’s subjective, intent or belief that he or she affected an arrest; and
e. Advising officers that every detention is a seizure, every seizure requires reasonable suspicion or probable cause and there is no legally authorized seizure apart from a “Terry stop” and an arrest; and
f. Examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper police-community interactions, including scenarios which distinguish an investigatory stop from an arrest by the scope and duration of the police interaction; between probable cause, reasonable suspicion and mere speculation; and voluntary consent from mere acquiescence to police authority.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force, Search, and Detention training are taught in the eight-hour Use of Force in-service training and, until the current year, in the four-hour Arrest Procedures in-service training. The Arrest Procedures session has been discontinued as a separate course, and is now being addressed in the Use of Force and Legal blocks of instruction. Annual training is provided by DPD in its in-service training program for officers and supervisors. During the last training year (July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011), the Department trained 99% of its available members in its Use of Force in-service training.
During this reporting period, we found that 1,243 (49%) of DPD’s 2,540 officers available to train attended the use of force in-service training during the first half of the new training year. In addition, 1,293 (51%) attended the legal in-service block of instruction. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

116

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 118 of 190 Pg ID 8340

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

E. Custodial Detention Training CJ Requirement U115 The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on custodial detention. Such training shall include DPD policies regarding arrest, arraignment, holds, restrictions, material witness and detention records. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. DPD developed appropriate policies and lesson plans to comply with this provision, as well as a protocol to train all recruits, sworn members, confinement officers, investigators, and supervisors. All officers who attend the Use of Force and Legal in-service training receive the detention training specified by this requirement. Officers who serve in the detention cell areas are required to receive additional annual detention officer training, which is more specifically related to detention responsibilities. (See C73.) During the training year that ended on June 30, 2011, 99% of DPD members attended the Use of Force and Legal in-service training sessions and received this training. As noted in U114, 49% of DPD officers attended the Use of Force training, and 51% attended the Legal training, during the first half of the current training year. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U116 The DPD shall advise officers that the DPD arraignment policy shall not be delayed because of the assignment of the investigation to a specialized unit, the arrest charge(s), the availability of an investigator, the gathering of additional evidence or obtaining a confession. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. DPD has incorporated these training requirements into its Use of Force lesson plan. During the past year, the Department trained 99% of its officers in its Use of Force in-service training session. DPD remains in compliance, and has trained 1,243 (49%) of officers available to train during the recently completed first half of the current training year. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U117
117

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 119 of 190 Pg ID 8341

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

The DPD shall advise officers that whether an individual is a material witness and whether that material witness should be committed to custody is a judicial determination. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Departmental policy clearly states, “[O]nly a court has the authority to decide whether an individual is a material witness, and whether that material witness should be committed to jail pending his or her testimony.” Material witness training has been incorporated into the Use of Force lesson plan. As noted above (see U115), the DPD trained 99% of its officers in the Use of Force in-service training during the training year that ended on June 30, 2011; we found that DPD trained 49% of its officers in the first half of the current training year. DPD remains in compliance with this requirement. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
F. Supervisory Training CJ Requirement U118 The DPD shall provide supervisors with training in the appropriate evaluation of written reports, including what constitutes a fact based description, the identification of conclusory language not supported by specific facts and catch phrases, or language that so regularly appears in reports that its inclusion requires further explanation by the reporting officer. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The DPD fulfills Consent Judgment requirements U118-122 through its annual Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training that is required for both supervisors and investigators. During the training year that ended on June 30, 2011, the Department trained 99% of its supervisors in its Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training session. On June 10, 2011, DPD Training approved a new three-hour block of instruction entitled, “Supervisory Report Writing – SIR Report.” This block of instruction is designed to provide procedures for proper documentation for the following situations in which:
• A use of force was employed
• A firearm was drawn and a target acquired
• An injury to detainee(s) occurred
• Allegations of injuries while in DPD custody were made The three hours have been incorporated into the Supervisory Leadership and Accountability inservice training. During the first half of the new training year (July 1, through September 30, 2011), 284 (49%) supervisors and investigators of the 581 available to train attended the Leadership and Accountability in-service training.
118

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 120 of 190 Pg ID 8342

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U119 DPD supervisors shall receive leadership and command accountability training and learn techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training shall be provided to all DPD supervisors within 30 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities and shall be made part of annual in-service training. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The DPD did not promote any personnel to the supervisor rank during the past quarter. As noted in U118, during the Training Year that ended on June 30, 2011, the DPD trained 99% of its supervisors and investigators at its annual Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training. Also as we reported in U118, during the first half of the new training year, the DPD trained 49% of its supervisors and investigators in the annual supervisory training course. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U120 The DPD shall provide training on risk assessment and risk management to all DPD supervisors, including the operation of the risk management database. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The Department’s Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training session addresses this requirement. During this reporting period, we found that DPD had provided this training to 99% of its supervisors during the training year that ended on June 30, 2011. During the first half of the new training year, it trained 49% of its supervisors and investigators. The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.

119

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 121 of 190 Pg ID 8343

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
G. Investigator Training CJ Requirement U121 The DPD shall provide training on appropriate burdens of proof, interview techniques and the factors to consider when evaluating officer, complainant or witness credibility to all officers who conduct investigations to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform and legally appropriate. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The training required by U121 is delivered in the DPD Supervisory and Leadership Accountability in-service training, which is attended by both supervisors and investigators. In the training year that ended on June 30, 2011, the Department trained 99% of its supervisory staff. During the first half of the new training year, it trained 49% of its supervisors and investigators. The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U122 The DPD shall provide all supervisors charged with accepting external complaints with appropriate training on handling external complaints that emphasizes interpersonal skills. The DPD shall provide training on the DPD external complaint process, including the role of OCI and IAD in the process, to all new recruits and as part of annual in-service training. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The training required by U122 is delivered in the DPD Supervisory and Leadership Accountability in-service training, which is attended by both supervisors and investigators. In the training year that ended on June 30, 2011, the Department again trained 99% of its supervisory staff. During the first half of the new training year, it trained 49% of its supervisors and investigators. The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

120

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 122 of 190 Pg ID 8344

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

H. Field Training
CJ Requirement U123 The DPD shall develop, subject to DOJ approval, a protocol to enhance the FTO program within 120 days of the effective date of this Agreement. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting and removing the FTOs and for training and evaluating FTOs and trainees.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD conducted a training class for its Field Training Officers in April 2011, in which it trained three new FTOs and recertified another. The Department has not conducted a certification or recertification class since April 2011. DPD currently has 115 FTOs assigned throughout the Department. There are 22 probationary officers currently in the FTO Program.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 - Policy

Phase

2

Implementation

-

106 Coordination and review of training

In Compliance

In Compliance

107 DPD will meet state training standards

In Compliance

In Compliance

108 Maintain individual training records

In Compliance

In Compliance

109 Train from approved objectives and plans

In Compliance

In Compliance

110 Quarterly meetings with Law Department

In Compliance

In Compliance

111 Distribute and training on the agreement

In Compliance

In Compliance

112 Annual use of force training required

In Compliance

In Compliance

113 Develop firearms training protocol

In Compliance

In Compliance

114 Annual arrest, citizen interaction training

In Compliance

In Compliance

115 Annual training on custodial detention

In Compliance

In Compliance

116 Prohibition of arraignment delays

In Compliance

In Compliance

117 Material witness custody

In Compliance

In Compliance

118 Supervisory training-report evaluation

In Compliance

In Compliance

119 Supervisory training-leadership

In Compliance

In Compliance

120 Supervisory training-risk management

In Compliance

In Compliance

121

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 123 of 190 Pg ID 8345

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

121 Investigator training-procedures 122 Supervisory training-external complaints 123 Enhance the FTO program

In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

122

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 124 of 190 Pg ID 8346

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

SECTION THREE: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT
This Consent Judgment sets forth procedural and operational requirements relating to the confinement facilities maintained and operated by the Detroit Police Department. The Judgment requires the revision and implementation of policies and practices that are safe, respectful, and constitutional in the areas of fire safety, emergency preparedness, medical and mental health, prisoner safety, environmental health and safety, persons with disabilities, food service, and personal hygiene. In addition, the Judgment sets forth requirements relating to the use of force in detention facilities, as well as procedures for the investigation of the use of force and complaints relating to other events occurring in these facilities. The Judgment also establishes requirements for management and supervision, the auditing of internal practices, and the training of personnel who are assigned detention responsibilities.
During our first site visit in November 2009, we reviewed required directives, supporting logs, forms, and documentation relating to the operation of the detention facilities. Accompanied by key members of the DPD Office of Civil Rights personnel, we conducted our first tour of the Detroit Police Department’s five facilities with holding cells and the Detroit Receiving Hospital.34 We have repeated our tours and inspections of some or all of these facilities during each of our subsequent site visits, and have interacted with command and key detention staff at each facility.
In addition, we have met with key CRIB command staff, Audit Team personnel, and the designated health care professional to conduct a thorough review of all requirements, DPD directives, forms, logs, and documentation relating to and required by this Judgment. Our review disclosed the need for the DPD to revise various health-related directives and to have them reviewed and approved by a health care professional. This was accomplished. In addition, we met with DPD Training staff regarding training issues, which were promptly addressed.
During our visits to and inspections of the various facilities with holding cells, we were often accompanied by CRIB staff, and assisted by the cell block supervisors and compliance officers. These inspections included our entering and examining every holding cell, interviewing detention staff, and reviewing forms and logs.
The Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment is comprised of several different categories relating to the confinement facilities maintained and operated by DPD.

34 Facilities with holding cells are located in the Northeastern, Eastern, and Southwestern Districts; Sixth and Twelfth Precincts.
123

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 125 of 190 Pg ID 8347

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

III. FIRE SAFETY POLICIES
CJ Requirement C14
The DPD shall ensure that all holding cells, and buildings that contain them, achieve and maintain compliance with the Life Safety Code within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. The City shall ensure that the Detroit Fire Marshal conducts regular and periodic inspections to evaluate whether the conditions in DPD holding cells, and buildings that contain them, are in compliance with the Life Safety Code.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The Fire Marshal reviews the FSP annually and also conducts regular and periodic (annual) inspections of holding cells; the most recent review was conducted in May 2011. With the exception of the Southwestern District, the Audit Team determined that the DPD did not meet the requirement to maintain the smoke alarm systems in the DPD district/precinct buildings buildings. The Fire Inspection was incorporated into the semi-annual audit conducted on July 31, 2011. Following the inspection, requests for repairs were submitted to the DPD Office of Facilities Management and noted on the DPD form 702 Maintenance Log. According to the DPD 33rd Quarter Report (December 31, 2011), the identified deficiencies were addressed and corrected. The next semi-annual inspection by the Audit Team is scheduled for completion by January 31, 2012.
Accordingly, DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C15
The DPD shall develop and implement a comprehensive fire detection, suppression and evacuation program for the holding cells, and buildings that contain them, in accordance with the requirements of the Life Safety Code and in consultation with the Detroit Fire Department.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the second reporting period.
During this reporting period, we reviewed DPD 716, Fire Extinguisher Monthly Inspection/Inventory, and DPD 703, Fire Drill Documentation Forms, for all of the districts/precincts with holding cells; and determined that all facilities are in compliance with these requirements. We also examined a sample of the fire extinguishers at each holding facility, and found them all to be fully charged.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

124

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 126 of 190 Pg ID 8348

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C16 The fire safety program shall be developed in consultation with, and receive written approval by, the Detroit Fire Department. As part of developing the fire safety program, the Detroit Fire Department shall evaluate the need for and, if necessary, the DPD shall install: fire-rated separations, smoke detection systems, smoke control systems, sprinkler systems and/or emergency exits for the holding cells and buildings that contain them. The fire safety program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of the Agreement. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Following the development of the Fire Safety Plan, the DPD made required structural changes to districts/precincts’ holding facilities, including the updating and/or installation of sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, and fire-rated doors. During our inspection of the district/precinct holding cells, we found the presence of all three. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C17 The DPD shall implement the fire safety program within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the plan. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. The DPD has developed and implemented the required Fire Safety Plan. During our most recent site visits to each district/precinct that maintains holding cells, we found documentation of the Fire Marshal’s inspections. The most recent inspections were conducted in May 2011. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

125

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 127 of 190 Pg ID 8349

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement C18 The DPD shall take immediate interim fire safety measures in all buildings that contain holding cells. At a minimum, these interim measures shall:
a. Ensure that the activation of any individual smoke alarm sounds an alarm throughout the building;
b. ensure that prisoners in holding cells have an adequate means of reporting emergency conditions to DPD staff immediately;
c. ensure that automated back-up power systems exist for all buildings containing holding cells that are capable of providing immediate power for emergency lighting, exit signs, fire alarm and smoke detection systems in the event of an electrical power failure through batteries or an emergency generator; and
d. reduce the likely spread of smoke and fire throughout the buildings by means of stairwells, garages, hazardous rooms and exposed pipes, such as ensuring that fire doors in stairwells are closed.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. The DPD has been in full Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the first reporting period. As previously noted, we visited each district/precinct that maintains holding cells, and determined that the DPD has made the required structural, electronic, and mechanical upgrades within the facilities. We also noted that Fire Systems of Michigan and the Fire Marshal conducted and documented inspections of suppression systems in May 2011. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C19 The DPD shall ensure that fire safety equipment is routinely tested, inspected and maintained, including the sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, manual fire extinguishers, emergency lighting and exit signs, and self-contained breathing apparatuses.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the second reporting period. The Fire Safety Plan places responsibility for ensuring the required testing, inspections, and maintenance of the various systems, fire extinguishers, emergency lighting and signs, and equipment with the DPD Office of Facilities Management. Fire Systems of Michigan and the Fire Marshal conduct the required inspections, which were last conducted in May 2011. The Fire Safety Practices and Policies audit for the reporting period ending July 31, 2011, was conducted by the Office of Civil Rights Audit Team, and members of
126

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 128 of 190 Pg ID 8350

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

the Holding Cell Compliance Committee from the Detroit Fire Department and the Independent Qualified Source, as required by Paragraph 66 of the Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment. Our review of the audit documents during the last reporting period indicated that there were maintenance problems in four of the five facilities, Southwestern being the exception. According to the DPD’s 33rd Quarterly Report (December 31, 2011), these deficiencies have been repaired. During our most recent site visit, we found that all fire safety equipment was in working condition except the fire sprinkler system at one precinct, which was inoperable due to two broken sprinkler heads. As noted above, the DPD Office of Facilities Management is responsible for the maintenance of these systems. DPD Form 702, Maintenance Log, instituted by the Holding Cell Compliance Committee in January 2011, ensures that all maintenance issues are documented and tracked at the Civil Rights Integrity Bureau. The weekly testing of emergency generator power supply systems is documented on Form 715 - Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells, which is supported by the printouts of weekly testing completed and generated by DTE Energy. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C20 The DPD shall enforce immediately its no-smoking policy in the holding cells or provide ashtrays and ensure that all holding cell areas are constructed and supplied with fire-rated materials.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the first reporting period. During our previous inspection of the facilities with holding cells, we discovered one officer smoking in the garage area and evidence that smoking had taken place at other times. During our most recent inspection, we did not find any persons smoking in unauthorized areas. Also, during our review of all of the monthly inspections on DPD 715 - Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells, we found no documentation that any smoking had been observed in the facilities. DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C21 The DPD shall insure immediately that all flammable and combustible liquids in holding cell areas and the attached and nearby DPD buildings are stored properly.
127

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 129 of 190 Pg ID 8351

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Our inspection of the holding facilities found that each district/precinct was equipped with at least one yellow storage cabinet, located in the garage area, for flammable and combustible liquids. We checked the cabinets, and found flammable materials and gas storage containers. DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C22 The DPD shall remove immediately all highly-combustible kane fiber ceiling tiles from buildings that contain holding cells. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. The DPD has been in continued compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph since 2005 when it closed some of the facilities where kane fiber ceiling tiles were in place, and it removed the tiles from the remaining facilities. DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this Consent Judgment paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 14 Holding Cell Life Safety Code compliance 15 Fire detection, suppression, and evacuation 16 Fire Department consultation/evaluation 17 Implementation of fire safety program 18 Immediate interim fire safety measures 19 Routine testing of fire safety equipment 20 Enforce no smoking in holding cells 21 Proper storage of flammable liquids 22 Remove combustible cane fiber tiles

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

128

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 130 of 190 Pg ID 8352

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

IV. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES
CJ Requirement C23
The DPD shall ensure a reasonable level of safety and security of all staff and prisoners in the event of a fire or other emergency.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
As noted previously, Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of C24-25; accordingly, our compliance finding is deferred.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Deferred
CJ Requirement C24
The DPD shall develop a comprehensive emergency preparedness program that is approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department. This program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the programs within three months of DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the plan. At a minimum, the emergency preparedness program shall:
a. include an emergency response plan for each building that contains holding cells identifying staff responsibilities in the event of fire-related emergencies and other emergencies, including notification responsibilities, evacuation procedures and key control procedures (discussed below); and
b. require performance and documentation of fire drills for all buildings containing holding cells on all shifts every six months (documentation shall include the start and stop times of each drill, the staff members who participated in the drill, a summary of the drill, and an evaluation of the success of the drill).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CEPP identifies staff responsibilities in the event of a fire emergency to include notifications, evacuation, and key control procedures. (See C15.)
The DPD achieved full compliance in the second and subsequent reporting periods as it increased the frequency of fire drills to the 100% level required by policy. During this reporting period, we determined that the fire drills were again conducted according to policy at the 100% level.
Following our recommendations that the detention evacuation equipment be stored in the immediate vicinity of the holding cells so that it is readily accessible to officers, we found, during the last reporting period, that the shackles were fully accounted for and placed
129

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 131 of 190 Pg ID 8353

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

individually in crates, allowing for easy access. During our most recent inspection, we found that the shackles were easily accessible. We determined that the detention officers had sufficient handcuffs and/or shackles for use in the event of an evacuation.
The DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C25 The DPD shall develop and implement key control policies and procedures that will ensure that all staff is able to manually unlock all holding cell doors in the event of a fire or other emergency. At a minimum, the key control policies and procedures shall:
a. provide for emergency identification of keys by touch;
b. and require routine inventory, testing and maintenance of keys and locks.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our first site visit, we recommended that each officer working in a cell block be issued a complete set of keys. Following this recommendation, we were informed that two extra sets of keys were distributed to each district/precinct with holding cells, bringing the total at each to five – three in the cell block, one with the sergeant assigned to the public lobby, and one in the emergency key box in the lieutenants’ and sergeants’ office.
During our two previous inspections, we found that each district/precinct had, at the minimum, five sets of keys – three in the cell block, one with the sergeant assigned to the public lobby, and one in the emergency key box in the lieutenants’ and sergeants’ office. Teletype #11-0989, Holding Cell Facility Keys – Required Documentation, regarding inventory and assignment of keys by the cellblock supervisor, had been distributed. This policy directed the cellblock supervisor to conduct an inventory of the keys at the commencement and the conclusion of his/her tour of duty and document same in the MAS Desk Blotter.
However, during our previous site visit, we found that at one facility, the key inventory policy had never been implemented. At another facility, two of three shifts had completed the inventory correctly; and at a third facility, a set of keys had been missing for an unknown period of time, but at least several weeks. At one facility, when asked if he had a set of keys, the Detention Officer searched under a stack of papers until he found his key set. These same problems were documented on the form 715, Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells, when the CRIB inspector conducted his unannounced monthly inspections during the previous quarter.
During our most recent site visit, we found that CRIB had distributed Department Teletype #1101395, which thoroughly explained the procedure for documenting the inventory and security of keys. When interviewed, the detention supervisors and officers appeared to have an understanding of their responsibility for key control. However, another set of keys was lost in December 2011. This required lock changes for all exterior doors at the precinct.
130

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 132 of 190 Pg ID 8354

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

As noted previously, poor key control and retention jeopardizes detainees, officers, and the public; and reflects a serious lack of security in detention facilities. Officers must have control of their keys at all times, and supervisors must know where all of the keys are located. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for this reporting period.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

23 Ensure reasonable safety in emergency

In Compliance

24

Develop

comprehensive

preparedness program

emergency In Compliance

25 Implementation of key control policies

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation Deferred In Compliance Not in Compliance

V. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES
CJ Requirement C26
The DPD shall ensure the appropriate identification of, and response to, prisoner’s medical and/or mental health conditions.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During previous reporting periods, we found DPD not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
During the previous reporting period, we reviewed DPD’s Audit Team’s report of its findings of the Holding Cells released on July 31, 2011. We noted at that time that progress had been made to address the deficiencies described in the report.
Our inspections, along with our review of the quarterly detainee file folders, revealed multiple issues and deficiencies in this area including: missing documentation and the lack of completing the Detainee Intake Form, DPD 651 by including the name of the arresting and transporting officers. We have found in a few instances where the processing officer writes this information in by hand on the form after the fact and it is therefore not entered into the database. While clerical errors are not as numerous as in past reviews, they still exist. Medical referrals and the thoroughness of medication logs have also sustained improvement during this and the previous reporting period, and the documentation of the exchange of health information between shifts had become compliant. In previous reviews, holding cell personnel did not adequately list the medical needs of the detainees on the Platoon Daily Detail Summary and the shift preparing or receiving the log failed to place the date or the time on the form.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed and inspected a random sample of 248 detainee file folders and observed personnel. We again found that personnel are still not properly implementing these procedures in accordance with the DPD directives. We continue to note
131

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 133 of 190 Pg ID 8355

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

clerical errors, incomplete or missing documentation of medical referral and medication logs, missing signatures, and missing documentation of required supervisory reviews. In order to assess compliance with this paragraph we reviewed those issues that had a direct impact on identification and response to a detainee’s medical or mental health conditions. We found 24 instances where the detainee processing time did not meet the requirement, no release of medication was indicated, no conveying officer listed or the conveying officer failed to note the date/time of the conveyance back to the holding facility, missing discharge instructions, no time indicated for the initial request for medical treatment, and in one case there was no supervisory approval for the medical referral. At this point, DPD needs to fill out the required forms completely to be in compliance with this paragraph. DPD has made progress during this reporting period, with a compliance rate of 91%. Despite this improvement, DPD remains in pending Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Pending Compliance
CJ Requirement C27 The DPD shall develop a comprehensive medical and mental health screening program (CMMHSP) that shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals. This program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the program within three months of DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least every year and prior to any revisions to the programs. At a minimum, the comprehensive medical and mental health screening program shall include prisoner screening procedures and medical protocols. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. During our seventh reporting period, the DPD Health Authority completed the review and approved the CMMHSP policies and directives. The DPD provided us with documentation during that site visit. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C28 The prisoner screening procedure, at a minimum, shall:
a. enable the DPD to identify individuals with medical or mental health conditions, including infectious diseases, chronic conditions, including disabilities, ambulatory impairments, mental health conditions, and drug/alcohol withdrawal;
132

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 134 of 190 Pg ID 8356

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

b. identify persons who are at risk of committing suicide, persons who have been on heightened observation for suicide risk at any time during a past incarceration and persons who have any medical contraindications for the use of chemical sprays,
c. require that the DPD follow a standard intake procedure for each individual entering DPD custody;
d. require that intake screening be conducted within two hours of intake and through a verbal exchange between the DPD and prisoners; and
e. incorporate all health information pertaining to a prisoner acquired by the arresting or transporting officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During all of the previous reporting periods, we found DPD not in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. We observed deficiencies including clerical errors; missing signatures of police detention officers and supervisors; and incomplete or incorrect completion of required forms. In 10 cases, during this review, we found that detainee intake screenings were not conducted within two hours of a detainee’s arrest. Occasionally, an arrestee is taken directly to DRH from the scene, and the two-hour screening mandate from time of arrest to processing does not meet the requirement. Any instance in which a detainee is screened after two hours from the time of the arrest the processing officer should so indicate the reason on the face sheet of the DIF. In two incidents, staff had not transported to DRH a detainee needing medical care until five and a half hours after the initial screening had been completed and six hours in the subsequent case. There were 22 instances where the intake screening took more than two hours; however, in 12 of these cases the arrestee was transported to DRH directly from the scene. The staff did not follow DPD policy in the remaining 10 cases. Many of these issues would be resolved if personnel would complete all the information the forms require and the OIC approving the form investigate those in violation of the two hour requirement at the conclusion of the detainee processing.
We reviewed the Cell Check Logs (DPD 659) for this reporting period, and found 99% in compliance for general population checks. The Medical/Mental High Risk Logs (DPD 661) for this reporting period revealed that high-risk detainees were observed by staff and were compliant.
There had been confusion among DPD personnel as to how to classify detainees who have had previous ideations of suicide or suicide attempts. DPD policy 305.1-3.9, Detoxification/Safety Cell, indicates that a detoxification/safety cell is an observation cell temporarily used to detain chemically impaired persons or a person who may be a suicide risk (constant observation). As the policy is written, any previous suicide attempt requires constant supervision. On page 3 of the Detainee Information Form there is a statement: “If only #10 is marked yes and suicide attempt is over one year ago, monitor. If attempt is less than one year ago, place detainee on constant supervision.” DPD Policy 305.1-3.21 indicates that a suicidal detainee is one with a history of suicide attempts. In some cases, medical professionals at DRH may recommend placing a detainee on constant watch or remove them from the watch. In these cases, DPD personnel need to indicate these changes in the comment section of the High Risk Log or on the form when they have returned to the holding facility. We have discussed these concerns with OCR staff during our site visits. There were six detainees placed on constant watch in the
133

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 135 of 190 Pg ID 8357

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

sample for this reporting period, and all were in compliance, which indicates that DPD has addressed the above-noted problems. This is the first reporting period in which we have found DPD in compliance with C28b.
During this reporting period, in our review of a random sample of 248 detainee file folders, we continued to find some of the problems we observed in the past. These deficiencies included missing or incorrect dates/times on forms and logs; forms and logs not filled out completely, handwritten documentation that was not updated in LiveScan; and cases where detainees should have been referred to DRH in a more timely fashion, but were not. We have continued to recommend to CRIB that it develops and implements a process so that when a detainee’s medical or mental health status changes, detention staff update the system accordingly.
Overall, we found that DPD had a 91% compliance rate with this paragraph due to the noncompliance of COC 28e. There were 32 instances where the Detainee Input Sheet indicated that the arresting officer listed a mental or medical issue with the detainee; and in 29 cases, the medical information was transferred by the processing officer to the Detainee Information Form. On November 11, 2011, DPD issued an Administrative Message (Teletype #11-1392) that advised commands for all detainee registrations to use the revised Detainee Input Sheet, effective December 1, 2011. DPD is in pending Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Pending Compliance
CJ Requirement C29
The medical protocols, at a minimum, shall:
a. identify the specific actions the DPD shall take in response to the medical information acquired during prisoner screening or detention, including the need for emergency care, hospitalization, prescription medication and/or intensive monitoring; and
b. require prior supervisory review and written approval, absent exigent circumstances, of all decisions made in response to acquired medical information.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD was not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph in previous reporting periods.
During this reporting period, we reviewed a sample of 248 detainee file folders, and inspected each of the districts/precincts that maintain holding cells and the Detroit Receiving Hospital. We continue to find that staff did not follow policy in several key areas, including:
• There were 61 referrals of detainees in need of medical or mental health care to the Detroit Receiving Hospital, and two of these were not within policy;
• There were 10 cases (excluding those detainees who were sent to DRH directly from the scene) in which intake screenings were not conducted within the required two-hour timeframe following arrests;

134

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 136 of 190 Pg ID 8358

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

• Detainees not receiving medications prescribed by the Detroit Receiving Hospital in a timely manner; 44 detainees had medications disbursed and in two instances the dosages were administered late;
• There were 32 instances where detainee medical information was listed by the arresting officer on the Detainee Input Sheet and in three cases the processing officer did not transfer that information to the Detainee Information Form. In three other cases the processing officer, by hand, wrote in the medical information, therefore, the health information was not being updated in Livescan;
• Detroit Receiving Hospital discharge instructions missing.
Overall, we found that 96% were in compliance with this paragraph – an increase over the 88% in the previous reporting period. DPD is now in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C30
The DPD shall develop and implement policy regarding infectious disease control (IDC) in consultation with medical health professionals. The policy shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical health professionals at least every year after implementation and prior to any revisions to the policy. At a minimum, the policy shall:
a. establish appropriate housing for prisoners believed to have infectious diseases; and
b. mandate measures the DPD shall take to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, including proper handling and disposal of bio-hazardous material.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our previous site visits, our inspections of the Detroit Receiving Hospital and the five DPD facilities that maintain holding cells disclosed poor levels of sanitation in similar degrees at all of the sites with a trend toward improvement. In our last report we found, for the first time, DPD to be in compliance with its sanitation practices.
We found, in prior visits, that some of the facilities maintained adequate sanitary conditions in the cell areas, and others needed to take additional measures to ensure proper sanitation. During our most recent site visit, we again inspected all districts/precincts with holding cells and the DRH. The DPD should continue to follow and complete the instructions in the Holding Cell Cleaning Log, which is critical to DPD’s ability to be in compliance with this paragraph. (See details in C39 and C40.)
We reviewed a sample of 45 Holding Cell Cleaning logs from the five facilities, with six days on each log, for a total of 270 days. DPD’s compliance rate for completing the Holding Cell Cleaning Logs is 97.4%. In order to be compliant with this paragraph all facilities must be in compliance. During our most recent inspection, we found that all holding facilities had

135

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 137 of 190 Pg ID 8359

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

compliance rates above 98%, with the exception of the Northeastern District (91%). The Northeastern District has historically been less clean than the other facilities.
We also found that the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) kits were in order and included an adequate supply of the required contents. Our inspection of the first aid kits found that the contents were satisfactory, as we have observed improvement by the detention staff in this area. We continue to recommend that detention staff open the first aid kits on a regular basis to verify that the contents have not expired.
An effective infectious disease control plan must account for the sanitation and maintenance of all plumbing and equipment; physical plant cleanliness; and documentation that a plan to maintain the physical plant is being implemented in the holding cell areas and holding cells. The DPD Infectious Disease Policy 403.0, Section 403.2-6.3, Statements 1-6, Department Equipment, vehicle or facility, affirms the importance of building maintenance and cleaning and decontamination of the facility. Although DPD’s overall compliance with sanitation practice documentation during this reporting period is 97%, the Northeastern District was at 91%, all holding facilities must be compliant in order to meet the requirements of this paragraph. If found to be not in compliance during the next reporting period, DPD will be removed from compliance status.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C31 The DPD shall develop and implement a protocol for updating and exchanging prisoner health information. At a minimum, this protocol shall;
a. require that prisoner’s health information is recorded at intake and thereafter immediately readily available to all relevant medical and transporting personnel in a manner consistent with the relevant federal and state confidentiality statutes;
b. require that prisoner health information is continually updated to incorporate any additional relevant information acquired during his or her detention;
c. require that relevant prisoner health information is documented and communicated between consecutive shifts, such as whether a prisoner is taking medication or has a medical condition; and
d. require that prisoner health information travel with prisoners who transferred to another facility.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During previous reporting periods, our reviews of DPD form 661, Detainee Medical/Mental Health Monitoring and form 659a, Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Form; indicated that required detainee health information – such as whether a detainee is taking medication or has a
136

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 138 of 190 Pg ID 8360

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

medical condition – was not always being documented and communicated between consecutive shifts.
As noted above our reviews of these documents is important to ensure that the detainees’ health needs are met, and for the purposes of staff safety. This information must be documented, updated, and communicated between the initial shift receiving the detainee and the subsequent shifts until the detainee is released. It is critical for the oncoming shift to indicate the date and time they receive the Platoon Daily Detainee Summary and to acknowledge its accuracy to assure the continuity of health monitoring for detainees requiring it.
We reviewed DPD log 659a, Platoon Daily Detainee Summary in the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, and found more errors than in our previous reports. Of those errors the most prevalent are those where personnel do not include the date and time of preparation or receipt of the document and the failure to mark the prescribed meds column and the Medicine Cabinet checkbox on the form. It should be noted that form DPD 659 was amended during the ninth reporting period to indicate for each detainee whether medications are prescribed. It is apparent from our observations that staff is not, in some cases, completing this section of the form and supervisory personnel are not catching the omissions. DPD’s ability to capture information and list the medical/mental needs of the detainee on the form is exceptional in almost every case. DPD is in compliance for C31a, b, and d. (See C36.) The overall compliance rate (C31c) for all holding cell facilities is 92% for this quarter.
We also reviewed 126 copies of DPD Form 661 that required a 15-minute watch. The entries were made in a timely fashion with but one exception. We attribute this improvement in part to the revised and combined DPD form 661/661a; DPD needs to continue to ensure that its detention personnel complete the forms correctly.
In addition, we found a few deficiencies in the documentation of important health information in the detainee file folders. The problems include clerical errors, incomplete or missing documentation with discharge instructions and prescription release information.
Overall, we found that 97% of the PDDSL’s were in compliance with this paragraph; however, due to C31c and the lack of staff at the Northeastern District (92%) failing to check the box indicating medications on the Platoon Daily Detainee Summary jeopardizes DPD’s compliance status – a decrease from the 97% registered in the previous reporting period. In order to be compliant with this paragraph, all facilities must be in compliance.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph; however, failing to correct the deficiencies noted will take the Department out of compliance during the next reporting period.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C32
The DPD shall develop a prescription medication policy in consultation with qualified medical and mental health professionals that ensures prisoners are provided prescription medication as directed. The policy shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals and shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of
137

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 139 of 190 Pg ID 8361

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the policy within three months of the DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the policy shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least annually and prior to any revisions to the program. At a minimum, the policy shall:
a. indicate when the DPD shall convey prisoners taking prescription medication to the DRH or other treating hospital for evaluation;
b. require the DPD distribute to prisoners only medications that have been prescribed at the DRH or other treating hospitals;
c. require that the DPD distribute medications as prescribed and not rely on inmates to identify their need for medication;
d. require that all prisoner medications be stored in a secure location near the holding cells and travel with prisoners that are transferred;
e. require the DPD to record relevant information regarding the administration of prescription medication on an auditable form;
f. require that injected medications are administered as prescribed and in a safe and hygienic manner; and
g. require that unused mediations prescribed at the DRH or other treating hospitals are provided to prisoners upon their release.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During all of the previous reporting periods, at the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, we found Medication Logs missing critical detainee and staff information. In prior reviews detainee dosages, dosing times, signatures, the names of the persons administering the medications, and prescription release information did not always appear on the logs. Those issues have been addressed with the exception of C32f, medications administrated as prescribed and C32g, prescription release information. As a result, we found the DPD not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
During the current reporting period, in our review of 248 detainee file folders, we continued to find a few instances where the DPD failed to record essential detainee and staff information. We noted, for example, that medication logs on detainees who had been released were missing signatures of detention staff or detainees; therefore, it was unclear whether detainees received their medications, or were given their unused medications at the time of release. There were 48 cases where medications were disbursed to detainees. In 11 instances, it was unknown if the remaining medication was released to the detainee or transferred with them to another facility due to personnel not indicating the status on the form. We also examined the Platoon Daily Detainee Summary logs, which are used to ensure that detainee health information is exchanged and communicated between shifts. In previous reviews, we found missing signatures between shifts, detainee health information missing, blank comment sections on the forms and lack of a date or time of the preparing officer or the officer receiving the document. During this reporting period, DPD included a section on the PDDSL to indicate if detainees on a monitoring status were taking medications. This serves as an immediate alert for the CBS at the beginning of the shift that informs him/her if any detainees are on medication. We found 92% of the logs in
138

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 140 of 190 Pg ID 8362

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

compliance – a decrease from the last reporting period, when we found 97% of them in compliance. During our most recent site visit, we checked all active detainee file folders in all facilities for those detainees who were on medication or on a monitoring status. Each of the medication disbursement logs were reviewed and matched with the medication contained in the medication storage cabinet. We found that the prescribed medication for each detainee was properly stored. We did not find any medication left in the cabinet from detainees who had already been released as we had found in previous inspections. Our inspection of medication cabinets and medications for detainees at the districts/precincts maintaining holding cells revealed that all was satisfactory in the location of the cabinets and storage of medications. Based on the noted improvements, we found DPD in pending Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during the previous reporting period. However, the Department must address the concerns related to the documentation of medication disbursements; C32a through 32f are compliant. The compliance rate for C32g is 78%. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance
CJ Requirement C33 The DPD shall provide appropriate clothing, such as paper gowns or suicide smocks, to all prisoners placed under suicide precautions. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. During previous reporting periods, we found that detention personnel were generally familiar with where the appropriate clothing items, paper gowns and/or suicide smocks, were stored. Our inspections revealed ample inventory of appropriate clothing. During our most recent inspections in all five districts and precincts with holding cells, we found sufficient inventory of paper gowns and/or suicide smocks. The staff we interviewed were knowledgeable regarding the use of the clothing and where the appropriate clothing was stored. We find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C34 The DPD shall remove or make inaccessible all suicide hazards in holding cells including exposed pipes, radiators and overhead bars. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
139

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 141 of 190 Pg ID 8363

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

During all of our previous site visits, we conducted comprehensive inspections of each of the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, as well as the Detroit Receiving Hospital cells. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 26 Prisoners’ medical/mental health conditions 27 Medical/mental health screening program 28 Medical/mental health screening procedures 29 Medical protocols 30 Infectious disease policy required 31 Prisoner health information protocol required 32 Prescription medication policy required 33 Clothing-suicide prevention 34 Removal of suicide hazards

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation Pending Compliance In Compliance Pending Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VI. PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES CJ Requirement C35 The DPD shall ensure a reasonable level of safety of staff and prisoners through the use of appropriate security administration procedures. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of staff and inmate safety measures required by C36-38; accordingly, the DPD is in compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C36 The DPD shall develop and implement a prisoner security screening program for all buildings containing holding cells. At a minimum, the program shall:

140

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 142 of 190 Pg ID 8364

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

a. establish protocols based upon objective, behavior-based criteria for identifying suspected crime partners, vulnerable, assaultive or special management prisoners who should be housed in observation cells or single-occupancy cells; and
b. require that security screening information is documented and communicated between consecutive shifts.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
DPD Form 659A (Platoon Daily Detainee Summary), revised August 2011, is used to record information on detainees with medical conditions or special needs. During this reporting period, we reviewed Eastern District logs that contained 896 entries. We found the second and third shifts’ logs seriously deficient in completing the “Prescribed Meds” column and the Medicine Cabinet checkbox. The Eastern District’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 89%, a decrease from the previous reporting period.
We reviewed Northeastern District logs that contained 539 entries, and found 10 instances where orange alert boxes were not checked for detainees who were on monitoring status in the District at the end of the shift. The Northeastern District’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 93%, a decrease from the previous reporting period.
We reviewed Sixth Precinct logs that contained 999 entries. The most prevalent deficiencies were failure to mark the Prescribed Meds column and the proper Detainee Alert boxes. The Sixth Precinct’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 94%, a slight increase from the previous reporting period.
We reviewed Twelfth Precinct logs that contained 531 entries. The Twelfth Precinct’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 99%, a slight increase from the previous reporting period and the highest compliance rate reported for this period.
We reviewed Southwestern District logs that contained 550 entries. We found many instances where the “Prescribed Meds” column was not marked for any of the detainees on the sheet, nor was the medicine cabinet checkbox marked. During the previous three reporting periods, the Southwestern District made substantial progress in this area. However, the compliance rate for this reporting period dropped significantly to 87%.
The average for all districts/precincts during this reporting period is 92% compliance out of 3,515 log entries. The failure of holding personnel to mark the “Prescribed Meds” column and the Medicine Cabinet checkbox were the major factors in preventing satisfactory compliance with this part of the Consent Judgment.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since it was in compliance during the last reporting period. However, more attention to accuracy and more thorough reviews by supervisors will be needed to keep this section in compliance.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

141

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 143 of 190 Pg ID 8365

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement C37
The DPD shall develop and implement procedures for the performance, documentation and review of routine cell checks in all holding cells to ensure safe housing. At a minimum, the procedures should:
a. require that cell checks on the general population are performed at least twice per hour and that cell checks of prisoners in observation cells and DRH holding cells are performed every 15 minutes, unless constant supervision is required; and
b. require detention officers to document relevant information regarding the performance of cell checks in an auditable log.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The duties of cell block supervisors (CBS) and detention officers relating to well-being checks are established by DPD policy. Supervisors are required to walk through the holding cell areas four times per shift to check on the well-being of the detainees. Detention officers are required to make similar visual checks every 30 minutes (or every 15 minutes for high-risk detainees). Their observations are documented on the Detention Cell Check Log (DPD 659).
At the Detroit Receiving Hospital (DRH), 15-minute well-being checks are entered on the DPD 659 Form when holding cells are occupied. The review of the DPD 659 forms from DRH this reporting period indicated a compliance rate of 98%. General population well-being checks are entered on the DPD 659 Form every 30 minutes at the districts/precincts. Detainees held in observation cells are monitored every 15 minutes on DPD Form 661 (Mental Health High Risk Monitoring). During the current reporting period, our review of 270 Detention Cell Check Logs (DPD 659) for the general detainee population from the districts with holding cell facilities reflected a 99% compliance rate. During each tour of duty, detention officers are required to make cell checks every 30 minutes (16 checks daily) and supervisors every two hours (four checks daily).
During this reporting period, it was noted in the Northeast District, there were numerous instances of a significant delay in conducting cell checks during shift changes. For example, on October 29, 2011, the last cell check on Platoon I was recorded at 6:34 am. The first cell check recorded by Platoon II was at 8:06 am. On December 3, 2011, the last cell check on Platoon I was recorded at 5:58 am. The first cell check recorded by Platoon II was recorded at approximately 7:50 am. (The last digit of the time is illegible). On December 5, 2011, the last cell check on Platoon I was recorded at 6:27 am. The first cell check recorded by Platoon II was recorded at 7:58 am. On December 6, 2011, the last cell check on Platoon III was recorded at 9:29 pm, approximately two hours before the next shift change. These time lapses not only violate the requirements of the Consent Judgment, but increase the likelihood of liability to the Department. We recommend that DPD rectify this situation.
For the periods of October 25-30, November 15-20, and December 1-6, 2011, we reviewed 126 detainees who required a 15-minute watch, including those detainees on medication. In two instances, the supervisor authorizing monitoring failed to place his/her name, signature, or badge number in the appropriate box available for that purpose. Northeastern District’s records revealed instances of 30 minutes to one hour between cell checks for a detainee who was on 15minute mental health monitoring. On this same log, there was no name, rank, badge number, or
142

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 144 of 190 Pg ID 8366

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

signature of the supervisor who authorized monitoring. Also, on October 27, 2011, in Northeastern district, a detainee’s 15-minute medical monitoring was not continued from Platoon I into Platoon II. This error was caught by the District Commander and investigated.
All districts met or exceeded the required >94% compliance standard. Therefore, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement at this time.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C38 The DPD shall record in a written policy and implement a procedure that requires detention officers to provide continual direct or on site remote observation of all observation cells while they are occupied.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the current reporting period, of the six DPD 661 Forms (for detainees who were maintained on suicide watches) that we reviewed, all six specified “constant supervision.” However, one of the six was marked “Suicide Risk” and “Mental - 15 minutes.” In one case, an officer entered “mental” in the ‘Reason for Authorizing the Watch,” and a constant watch was ordered. In another instance in the same district, the very same reason was given for authorizing the monitoring, but this detainee was assigned a “Mental - 15 Minute” watch.
There continues to be some confusion regarding what necessitates a constant watch. DPD Policy 305.1-3.21 clearly defines the criteria for classifying a suicidal detainee. As the policy is written, there is no leeway in making a determination if a detainee should be placed on constant watch. There should be more consistency among Departmental personnel when making these determinations. A constant watch should only be used when a detainee meets one or more of the criteria listed in DPD 305.1-3.21. All other mental health issues should be assigned a 15-minute watch unless medical orders specify otherwise.
All districts met or exceeded the required >94% compliance standard. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 35 Security procedures to ensure safety 36 Prisoner security screening program 37 Procedures for cell checks required

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance
143

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 145 of 190 Pg ID 8367

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

38 On-site remote observation of cells

In Compliance

In Compliance

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES
CJ Requirement C39
The DPD shall ensure that all holding cells are cleaned immediately and thereafter are maintained in a clean and sanitary manner.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During this reporting period, we evaluated all districts/precincts for general cleanliness and sanitation. There was some improvement in the overall cleanliness of the holding cells this quarter. The cleanliness levels in the Eastern District and the Sixth Precinct continued to be deficient. Cell walls, benches, sinks, and toilets were observed that were not adequately clean. Floors and walls in the Southwest District were recently painted and the walls in several of the Sixth Precinct cells were painted to a height of approximately three feet above the benches three weeks prior to this tour, according to staff. In cell 6C04, the recently applied paint was already peeling off the wall and the cell bars.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 45 Holding Cell Cleaning logs from the five facilities, with six days on each log, for a total of 270 days. DPD’s compliance rate with this paragraph improved to 97% during this rating period. The most common error was a failure to document the time for performing duties. In a few instances, the Cell Block Supervisor’s approval block was not completed.
There are five holding cell facilities among the districts/precincts, and a smaller facility at the Detroit Receiving Hospital. In order to be found in compliance with this requirement, all facilities must be in compliance. The Twelfth Precinct had a 100% compliance rate during this reporting period, followed by Eastern, Southwest, and the Sixth Precinct with rates of 98-99% compliance. The Northeast District’s compliance rate for this requirement improved to 91% during this reporting period, but remains below the >94% compliance requirement.
DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, since it was in compliance during the previous reporting period. However, the Department must correct the cleaning deficiencies noted above and correct reporting errors to remain compliant with this paragraph during the next reporting period. Particular attention is needed to improve reporting accuracy in the Northeast District. Failure to do so will jeopardize the Department’s compliance status for this section of the Consent Judgment.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C40
The DPD shall design and implement a cleaning policy for all holding cells. The policy shall require routine cleaning and supervisory inspection of the holding cells and nearby areas.
144

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 146 of 190 Pg ID 8368

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
DPD Directive 305.4 (effective September 30, 2011) is the relevant document for this section; this document is reviewed on an annual basis. Additional documents have been issued to command staff for guidance purposes to ensure consistency in cleaning methods and procedures. The Holding Cell Compliance Committee (HCCC) has issued detailed cell block cleaning instructions that covers procedures, schedules, and documentation. Cleaning chemicals are ordered through City of Detroit; therefore, the holding facilities have no control over what chemicals are supplied by the City. The cleaning chemicals and supplies received by the holding facilities are dependent upon what the City has in stock when the order is submitted. Staff frequently expressed frustration over their inability to get needed supplies. One district reported that it had to sell empty aluminum cans to obtain funds to purchase paintbrushes with which to paint the holding cells. The chemical used to clean sinks and toilets was available at only three of the five holding cell facilities.
The Department must recognize that painting over soiled surfaces, such as floors, walls, and benches, is a short-term fix, at best. The recent experience in the Sixth Precinct, as noted above, demonstrates the problems associated with this approach. There is no substitute for physical soil removal, utilizing appropriate chemicals and a healthy application of “elbow grease.” As in the October tour, it was demonstrated to staff that soil can be removed from the walls with existing chemicals and a scrubbing pad.
This requirement addresses the design and implementation of a cleaning policy for all holding cells. It also requires routine cleaning and supervisory oversight of cleaning of the cells and nearby areas. The policy is in place and is adequate. The application of this policy is weak. Supervisory oversight is insufficient to ensure that holding cells and adjacent areas are as clean as they should be.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C41
The DPD shall design and implement a maintenance policy for all holding cells that requires timely performance of routine maintenance and the documentation of all maintenance requests and responses in an auditable log.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The Platoon 1 Cell Block Supervisor is responsible for conducting a weekly maintenance inspection and for documenting discrepancies in the Facilities Maintenance Log (DPD 702). The Platoon 1 Cell Block Supervisor is required to submit repair orders via e-mail to the Facilities Maintenance Department.

145

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 147 of 190 Pg ID 8369

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Based on the Holding Cell Facility Logs (DPD 702), OCR prepares a monthly spreadsheet listing all current outstanding repairs and their status. Items on this spreadsheet are reviewed monthly by the HCCC. During this review period, HCCC meeting agendas were reviewed and confirmed that current facility repairs were being discussed. During our evaluation of this reporting period’s Facility Maintenance Logs, we reviewed all logs from each of the five districts/precincts that maintain holding facilities and matched those repair requests to the master tracking log maintained by OCR. This section of the Consent Judgment requires “timely performance of routine maintenance.” We found considerable improvement in response times to address repair issues. Several long-standing maintenance issues were completed during this reporting period, as well. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C42 The DPD shall provide adequate heating and ventilation for all buildings containing holding cells. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. During our most recent inspection of all five facilities, we checked the temperatures in the holding cell areas, and found the temperatures in each of the holding facilities to be within established limits (between 66°F and 85°F). Measured temperatures in the cell blocks ranged from 68̊ F to 81̊ F. The HVAC systems were operable in all of the DPD districts/precincts. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this paragraph for this reporting period. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C43 The DPD shall repair all broken or malfunctioning lighting, toilets, sinks and windows in holding cells and observation cells. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. During our most recent inspection, there was not an unusually large number of malfunctioning lights, toilets, and sinks, compared to other facilities of this type. The facilities and the equipment are old and outdated. It can be difficult to locate replacement parts for some of the toilet and sink units. When these malfunctions occur in the holding cells, the cells should be

146

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 148 of 190 Pg ID 8370

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

taken out of service and signage posted on the front of the cell to prevent usage until repairs are completed. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C44 The DPD shall ensure that lighting in all cell block areas is sufficient to reach 20 foot candles of illumination at desk level and in personal grooming areas. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. During a previous tour, lighting levels were determined to be below the required luminescence in all areas except the Detroit Receiving Hospital. The Consent Judgment requires “20 foot candles of illumination at desk level and in personal grooming areas.” None of the existing lighting is capable of providing 20-foot candles of illumination in the cells, as required by the Consent Judgment. These deficiencies have not been rectified during this reporting period; however, the City and DOJ have met and agreed upon a plan to resolve the issue, which will be presented to the Court during the next reporting period. Accordingly, DPD is in deferred Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph at this time. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Deferred
CJ Requirement C45 The DPD shall provide all prisoners with reasonable access to toilets and potable water 24 hours-a-day. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Our inspection of the district/precinct holding cells during this reporting period determined that all prisoners had access to toilets and potable water at all times. Cells with plumbing deficiencies were not being used and signage was posted accordingly. Based on the published directive and our observations of conditions of the physical plant in the district/precinct holding cells, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

147

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 149 of 190 Pg ID 8371

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement C46 The DPD shall ensure that all Hepa-Aire purifiers comply with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Agency standards. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. All Hepa-Aire purifiers have been permanently removed from the district/precinct holding cell areas. DPD is in full compliance with the requirements of this Consent Judgment paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 39 Clean and maintain holding cells 40 Holding cell cleaning policy required 41 Holding cell maintenance policy required 42 Provide adequate heating and ventilation 43 Repair broken/malfunctioning cell elements 44 Insure sufficient cell lighting 45 Provide reasonable access to toilets and water 46 Hepa-Aire purifiers comply with standards

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Deferred In Compliance In Compliance

VIII. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
CJ Requirement C47
The DPD shall ensure that persons with disabilities are provided with reasonable accommodations.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The Northeast District is the designated ADA-compliant holding facility. All detainees with disabilities requiring special accommodations are housed in this facility. During our most recent inspection, we found that detention staff in the districts/precincts demonstrated competency in the use of Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD). In addition, the TDD equipment was working properly. This has been accomplished by the development of an effective testing protocol. DPD detention staff are now required, per policy, to conduct tests on a monthly basis that ensures the equipment is working properly and confirms that detention staff can demonstrate the use of the equipment.
Accordingly, we find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
148

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 150 of 190 Pg ID 8372

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C48 The DPD shall develop and implement a policy concerning the detention of individuals with disabilities in consultation with qualified medical and mental health professionals. The policy shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least every year and prior to any revisions to the program. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. The provisions of this requirement are covered in DPD 305.1, Detainee Intake, and DPD 305.5, Detainee Health Care. An annual review of these policies was conducted on February 4, 2011 and approved by qualified medical and mental health professionals. Accordingly, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 47 Reasonable accommodation for disabled 48 Detention of persons with disabilities

Phase 1 - Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

IX. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES CJ Requirement C49 The DPD shall ensure food is stored and served in a sanitary manner and in compliance with state and local health codes. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of C50; accordingly, DPD is also in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

149

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 151 of 190 Pg ID 8373

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement C50
The DPD shall develop and implement a food service policy that shall be approved in writing by a qualified sanitarian. At a minimum, the food service policy shall:
a. require that the meal plan is initially approved in writing by a qualified dietician and , hereafter, is reviewed and approved in writing by a qualified dietician at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the program;
b. require that all food is stored and handled in a sanitary manner;
c. ensure that all prisoners are provided with an alternative meal if they are unable to eat the standard meal for religious or dietary reasons; and
d. ensure that food service is provided to all prisoners who are held over six hours.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed Daily Detainee Meal & Hygiene Logs, DPD form 663, for the periods of October 25-30, November 15-20, and December 1-6, 2011. Our review indicated that DPD’s compliance rate was 90%. We have found DPD in compliance with this paragraph in all of our previous inspections. During this reporting period, compliance rates ranged from 69% in the Northeast District to 99% in the Sixth Precinct. It should be noted that three officers were frequently not listing meal service times on Platoons Two and Three in the Northeast District. In several instances, officers recorded a meal being served to a detainee who, according to the log had already been transferred or released.
We also reviewed the Detention Refrigeration Logs, DPD form 655, during this reporting period. We found that in every instance the refrigerators had been cleaned weekly. The refrigerator temperatures and expiration dates on the food were up to standard. In addition, we verified that all districts/precincts had an adequate number of alternative meals available for detainees with religious or dietary needs. There were deficiencies noted in the NED documentation on DPD 655. One officer in the Northeast District signed 12 of the 18 entries covering the periods of discovery. No badge number was listed for this officer in any of the entries. Additionally, the Cell Block Supervisors’ (CBS) badge number was missing on five of the six sheets submitted and two of the six sheets had no CBS name, signature, or badge number.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph because it has been in compliance in previous inspections. However, DPD must ensure that detention staff are adequately trained to properly document the service of meals and hygiene items, and Cell Block Supervisors must review the logs for accuracy prior to affixing their signature to the logs. Failure to do so will result in the Department losing its compliance status for this section of the Consent Judgment.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy
150

Phase 2 – Implementation

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 152 of 190 Pg ID 8374

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

49 Ensure sanitary food storage and service 50 Food service policies and practices

In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance

X. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES
CJ Requirement C51
The DPD shall ensure that personal hygiene items should include; soap, toothbrushes, toothpaste, toilet paper, a comb, deodorant, and feminine hygiene products. The DPD shall implement this provision within one month of effective date of this Agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
In the current reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of Meal and Hygiene Logs. We checked the column that indicates if hygiene kits were requested or provided, and found that DPD personnel make them available to detainees. We inspected each area where the meals are stored to see if the kits were readily available, and found that in all five facilities there were an adequate number of hygiene kits to distribute to detainees when needed. Feminine hygiene products were also available in all sites. Our interviews with the PDOs demonstrate an understanding of the importance of providing personal hygiene items to the detainees on a daily basis.
The DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement is 100%. Accordingly, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 51 Make available personal hygiene items

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance

CJ Requirement C52 The DPD shall require that any use of force on prisoners in holding cells complies with the DPD’s use of force policies and procedures.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found the DPD in deferred Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph in the first reporting period, and not in compliance in subsequent reporting periods.
During the previous reporting period, we reviewed five incidents occurring at detention facilities, four uses of force, and one suicide attempt. DPD reviewed videos in four of the five cases and

151

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 153 of 190 Pg ID 8375

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

requested a CD from Technical Support for the fifth incident, which was not available for viewing due to a malfunction of the system.
During this reporting period, we examined six SIRs regarding incidents occurring at detention facilities, one in September and five in October.35 One of the October cases was a suicide attempt. There were no incidents reported at a detention facility in November. In all six of these incidents, the appropriate reports were prepared and submitted. As we have previously noted, these reports suffer from the same deficiencies as those outside the detention facilities. There were videos captured in five of the six cases. In one case, there was no video review, as it occurred in a processing area where there was no video camera and no requirement for the use of a handheld camera. It was a spontaneous incident, not a pre-planned incident. In the five cases reviewed, there were two cell extractions that would have required the use of a handheld camera; in one, the camera was utilized; in the other, it was not. In the case in which the handheld camera was utilized, there was also facility video available; however, the reviews of both videos lacked details, and the investigator simply stated that the contents appeared to be consistent with the officers’ statements. There was also a thorough review of a cell block video for another extraction, but in that instance, a handheld camera was not utilized.
There was a thorough review of an incident that started in a processing area that did contain camera coverage; but when staff moved the prisoner toward the cell area, there was no camera in that cell block area.
Video coverage of the cell block area continues to be an issue for DPD, and we strongly urge the Department to expand camera coverage to cover the entire area in which prisoners are processed and housed.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance
CJ Requirement C53
The DPD shall revise and augment its policies regarding prisoners to require that:
a. Officers utilize appropriate precautions when interacting with a prisoner who has previously demonstrated he or she is recalcitrant or resistant, including: summoning additional officers; summoning a supervisor; and using appropriate restraints;
b. absent exigent circumstances, officers notify a supervisor before using force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell; and
c. the supervisor assesses the need to use force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell, direct any such use of force and ensure the incident is videotaped.

35 There was one case at Southwest in September; and there were two cases at Eastern, two cases at Northeastern, and one case at the Twelfth Precinct in October.
152

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 154 of 190 Pg ID 8376

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
All districts/precincts that maintain holding cells are equipped with videotaping/digital recording equipment that is linked to an extensive camera system that monitors hallways and common areas as well as most, but not all, cells. In addition to the mounted video equipment, the detention districts/precincts have been issued handheld cameras that can be used for planned extractions. Our visits to the various holding facilities found that supervisors were aware of the handheld cameras and had received some training in their use. All supervisors contacted during the site visit were aware of the cameras location and there were two out of three incidents in which the cameras could be used and were.
In our previous report, we found that there were five SIR investigations of incidents occurring in detention facilities cases; only two of these cases that could be evaluated against C53a.
During this reporting period, we reviewed six SIR investigations occurring in detention facilities, including one attempted suicide. With respect to C53a, five of the cases involved prisoners who had previously demonstrated he or she was recalcitrant or resistant. In three of the cases, the officers and supervisors reacted appropriately, minimizing injury to the officers and the subject by having sufficient personnel present to deal with the situation. There were two cases involving a cell extraction (U53b); in one the required notification of a supervisor was made; in the other it was not. In none of these cases was there a need to utilize shield and vests to extract the prisoners. Regarding U53c, in one case, the handheld camera was utilized, in the other it was not.
There was video captured in five of the six cases. In one case, there was no video review, as the incident occurred in a hallway leading to the processing area where there is no video camera. There was no requirement for the use of a handheld camera. It was a spontaneous incident, not a pre-planned incident. In the five cases reviewed, there were two cell extractions that would have required the use of a handheld camera; one did and one did not. In the case in which the handheld camera was utilized, there was also a facility video available; however, the reviews of both videos lacked details, simply stating that the contents appeared to be consistent with the officers’ statements. There was also a thorough review of a cell block video for another extraction, but a handheld camera was not utilized.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance
CJ Requirement C54
The DPD shall not handcuff prisoners to benches for longer periods of time than are necessary.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found the DPD in deferred Phase 2 compliance status during the first reporting period, and in Phase 2 compliance during subsequent reporting periods.
153

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 155 of 190 Pg ID 8377

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

During our visits to detention facilities during the most recent site visit, we observed one prisoner handcuffed to a bar located beneath a telephone while he was, in fact, using the phone. This was not deemed to be a violation of this requirement. Our review of DPD 715 forms (Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells), question 22 (“Were any detainees observed handcuffed to an object?”), revealed no instances in which prisoners were so handcuffed.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 52 Use of force policies 53 Revise policy re use of force with prisoners 54 Handcuffing of prisoners to benches

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance

XII. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW CJ Requirement C55 The DPD shall require that all uses of force, injuries to prisoners and in-custody deaths occurring in the DPD holding cells are investigated in compliance with the DPD’s general incident investigation policies.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. We found the DPD out of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during all of the previous reporting periods. During the previous reporting period, we reviewed four incidents involving uses of force in holding cells and an attempted suicide. All five cases had SIR investigations completed. Three of the cases met the 10- and 30-day requirements. Four of the five cases (80%) had video reviews, a percentage exceeding that of the SIR cases outside of the holding facilities. We continue to urge the command staff to conduct critical reviews of the investigations. There was one attempted suicide and no in-custody deaths in the cell block area. During this reporting period, we reviewed six incidents, including an attempted suicide. All six cases had SIR investigations completed. Four of the cases missed the 10-day requirement, and one missed the 30-day requirement. Four of the six cases had some level of video review.36 As with the SIR investigations involving uses of force outside of the detention facilities, we continue to encourage staff to conduct more critical reviews of the investigations. There was one attempted suicide and no in-custody deaths in the cell block areas.
36 Commented on in more detail in C53.
154

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 156 of 190 Pg ID 8378

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance
CJ Requirement C56 The DPD shall require that all uses of force occurring in the DPD holding cells are reported and investigated in compliance with the DPD’s use of force investigation policies.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. During the previous reporting period, of the five cases we reviewed, we ascertained that there were video reviews prior to submission of the completed investigation in four of the cases; in one, there were insufficient details provided regarding its contents. The one that contained no review reflected that the system had a malfunction and that a recording had been ordered. While all of the video reviews did not contain a sufficient level of detail, the investigators are also improving in this area. During this reporting period, we commented on the video reviews, noting that five of the cases had opportunities for video recording and reviews. One incident occurred in an area that had no recording equipment. Of the five cases with some level of recording, we found that three had sufficient reviews of the available videos. One included a review of facility and hand-held videos, but lacked detail.37 One noted that there was no download of the video available; the report noted that it is a recurring issue in that district.38 Our review of the SIR investigations found that they suffered from the same deficiencies identified in the field SIR investigations. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

37 Eastern District. 38 Northeastern District.
155

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 157 of 190 Pg ID 8379

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement C57 The DPD shall require that all injuries to prisoners occurring in DPD holding cells are reported and investigated in compliance with the DPD’s prisoner injury investigation policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
In the ninth reporting period, we reviewed one detainee injury case that was an attempted suicide. The investigation was found to be thorough and complete.
During this reporting period, we also investigated a detainee injury case that was an attempted suicide. We noted several areas of concern. The subject threatened suicide at the scene of his arrest; however, the arresting officers did not report that threat to cell block personnel. In fact, during their interviews, one officer responded no when asked if the subject said or did anything that led personnel to believe that he might hurt himself. The second officer stated that he did not note anything unusual until they arrived at the cellblock, when the subject became loud and banged his head into the wall. While in an observation cell, an officer observed the subject wrap a shirt around his neck and pull it upward, in an attempt to choke himself. At that time, the cell block supervisor was notified; and the subject was asked to surrender his clothes, issued a paper gown, and placed on suicide watch.
Arrangements were not immediately made to have the subject transported to DRH, a violation of DPD 305.4. Holding Cells, 305.4-4.4 (2.).39 Shortly after being placed in the paper gown, the subject started beating his head against the wall and cell door, causing an abrasion to his head. EMS was requested to the scene, and the subject was transported via EMS to DRH.
The investigating supervisor and the District Command staff, along with Investigators from FI conducting the SIR reviews, addressed the issues regarding the handling of this case. The SIR package also contains the Corrective Action Plan submitted by the district in response to the areas of concern identified by FI. In combination, the district and FI addressed the relevant issues.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
Critical Issues:
• The issues that impact the quality of use of force investigations as described in the Use of Force section of the Consent Judgment are applicable to the use of force investigations of incidents occurring in cell block area. The remedies we have recommended in those areas remain constant for the Conditions of Confinement requirements. Timely and thorough investigations, coupled with critical command level reviews, are the keys to
39 “If a detainee exhibits suicidal tendencies, or indicates that he or she is currently being treated for or prescribed medication for any psychological condition (e.g., depression),
the CBS shall make arrangements to have the detainee immediately conveyed to DRH for psychiatric evaluation. The CBS shall also ensure that the Detainee Medical Care Referral Form (DPD 660) is completed. The CBS shall sign the Medical Care Referral Form as authorization for conveyance and psychiatric evaluation and/or treatment.”
156

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 158 of 190 Pg ID 8380

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

achieving compliance. We have noted improvements made in the area of video review and in the use of the handheld portable cameras.
Next Steps: During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to review all force, injury, and complaint incidents originating from detention facilities.
• Monitor the supervisory review of video captured in the detention areas, and, where appropriate, monitor the use of handheld cameras in each detention facility.
• Conduct field visits to various detention facilities to verify the Department’s adherence to policy requirements.

¶ Requirements 55 Use of force investigations 56 Use of force investigations 57 Injury to prisoner investigations

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance

XIII. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS
CJ Requirement C58
The DPD shall ensure that it accepts and processes all external complaints regarding incidents occurring in holding cells consistent with the DPD’s external complaint policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during all of the previous reporting periods.
During this reporting period, the Department closed four complaints originating from detention facilities: three in November and one in December. All complaints were accepted and processed in accordance with DPD policy. All four cases involved allegations of force. OCI retained investigation of three of the complaints, and the fourth was transferred to Force Investigation. While there were issues associated with the investigation of these complaints (see C59), DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

157

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 159 of 190 Pg ID 8381

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement C59 The DPD shall ensure that all external complaints it receives regarding incidents occurring in holding cells are investigated and reviewed consistent with the DPD’s policies concerning external complaint investigations and review. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. We found the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during the first reporting period, but not in compliance during successive reporting periods. OCI closed four complaints originating from detention facilities during the reporting period. One was transferred to Force Investigation, albeit 37 days after the complaint was filed. Only one case was completed within 90 days, and that case was improperly administratively closed. In one case, mentioned earlier in this report, the complainant alleged that officers planted drugs during the execution of a search warrant. This allegation was not investigated. In summary, the detention cases exhibited many of the issues delineated in CJ requirements U27-33, impacting DPD’s compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance
Critical Issues: • The issues that impact the quality of use of force investigations and OCI investigations, as outlined in CJ requirements U27–33 and U61–69, are also evident in the cases reviewed for requirements C52–59. As these issues are addressed Department-wide, we hope to see a positive impact on the subset of cases originating from detention facilities.
Next Steps: During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to review all force, injury, and complaint incidents originating from detention facilities.
• Check, in applicable cases, for the appropriate use of handheld cameras, now that they are deployed in all detention facilities.
• Conduct field visits to various detention facilities to verify members’ knowledge of and the Department’s adherence to policy requirements.

¶ Requirements 58 Receipt of external complaints 59 Investigation of external complaints

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance Not in Compliance

158

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 160 of 190 Pg ID 8382

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

XIV. GENERAL POLICIES CJ Requirement C60 In developing, revising, and augmenting the policies discussed in this Agreement, the DPD shall ensure that all terms are clearly defined. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. We found the DPD in Phase 2 compliance in all of the previous reporting periods. That status continues in this reporting period. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C61 The DPD shall continue to make available proposed policy revisions to the community, for review, comment and education. Such policy revisions shall also be published on the DPD’s website to allow comments to be provided directly to the DPD. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. See U71. The DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 60 Clearly define all terms in policies 61 Policy changes available to community

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

XV. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION CJ Requirement C62 The DPD shall routinely evaluate the operation of the holding cells to minimize harm to staff and prisoners. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. During this reporting period, CRIB staff inspected all of the facilities with holding cells and the DRH each month and documented their findings on Form 715 Evaluation of the Operation of
159

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 161 of 190 Pg ID 8383

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Holding Cells. All forms contained critical findings, and were complete with all required signatures.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C63 The DPD shall operate the holding cells in compliance with DPD’s comprehensive risk management plan including implementation of:
a) the risk management database;
b) the performance evaluation system;
c) the auditing protocol;
d) regular and periodic review of all DPD policies; and e) regular meetings of the DPD management to share information and evaluate patterns of
conduct by DPD that potentially increase the DPD’s liability.
Comments: With regard to personnel evaluations, requirements to sustain Phase 2 findings in U91 are also relevant here. Evaluations of detention personnel are included in our sample drawn for regular review. Procedures requiring audits of holding facilities are also included under the general audit requirements (U92-99). Findings of Phase 2 compliance in these areas, therefore, also apply to the related subsections of this requirement (sections b, c). Likewise, requirements regarding regular policy review (section d) and meetings to evaluate potential liability risk (section e) are met by monthly command review meetings. Under the Use of Force Consent Judgment, U78-90 establish the standards for the Phase 2 requirements of the risk management system. As was true with regard to Phase 1, our findings regarding those requirements are also relevant to here (section e). As noted, DPD has addressed the concerns noted in the previous quarterly report as they relate to data expected but not found in MAS. DPD is also making progress on norming MAS data by arrests. Barring any additional problems, completion of that process will allow them to achieve full compliance with U78. Since the issue of norming the data by the number of arrests is not relevant to risk management issues in the holding cells, the above noted concern does not affect compliance with this requirement.
DPD is now in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

160

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 162 of 190 Pg ID 8384

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement C64
The DPD policy on video cameras shall be revised and augmented to require:
a. the installation and continuous operations of video cameras in all prisoner processing areas of the DPD holding cells within one year of the effective date of this Agreement;40
b. supervisors to review videotapes of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force and external complaints;
c. that the DPD retain and preserve videotapes for at least 90 days, or as long as necessary for incidents to be fully investigated; and
d. that the DPD conduct and document periodic random reviews of prisoners processing area camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes and conduct periodic random surveys of prisoners processing area video recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our previous inspections of holding cells, we observed the operation of video cameras in all processing areas and throughout the holding facilities. We noted that CRIB and/or detention staff conducts monthly random reviews of videos in processing areas as well as specific reviews when a use of force incident occurs.
During our January 2011 site visit, the Parties determined that video cameras were not required outside of the processing areas. During our two previous two site visits, the video cameras in all of the districts/precincts that maintain holding cells were operational in the processing areas. DPD has purchased handheld video cameras to achieve compliance with C53, subparagraph c, which states: “The DPD shall revise and augment its policies regarding prisoners to require that: c. the supervisor assesses the need to use force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell, direct any such use of force and ensure the incident is videotaped.” Personnel in the five facilities were able to activate the handheld cameras. This equipment should be routinely checked to ensure its operability.
We reviewed five use of force cases within the holding facilities during the quarter. In one instance, the supervisor obtained the handheld camera and video-recorded the incident. In another, the resistance took place in the processing area and audio was recorded. There was corrective action taken in some of the cases that did not involve inappropriate uses of force but were concerned with delays in reporting and the canvassing of witnesses.
We reviewed DPD Form 713, effective April 2010, that requires personnel working in the five holding facilities to conduct random reviews of holding cell processing areas for training and integrity purposes and found the reviews timely. All of the logs indicated the DPD members on duty at the time of the video review. The Northeastern District did not provide any forms for review, as CRIB advised the district is experiencing many technical issues due to its exclusive installation of the new in-car video equipment. We will review the Northeastern District during the next reporting period to ensure that the logs are available.
40 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011.
161

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 163 of 190 Pg ID 8385

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C65 The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled semiannual audits, covering all DPD units and commands that investigate uses of force, injuries to prisoners and allegations of misconduct in holding cells, including;
a. reviewing a statistically valid sample of command, IAD, and Homicide Section investigations;
b. evaluating whether the actions of the officer and the subject were captured correctly in the investigative report;
c. evaluating the preservation and analysis of the evidence; d. examining whether there is consistency in use of force and injured prisoner investigations
throughout the DPD; e. evaluating the appropriateness of the investigator’s conclusions; and f. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.41 Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its Combined Use of Force Investigations Audit for the audit period ending July 31, 2011. We reviewed the audit for that reporting period. The next semi-annual audit will have been completed by January 31, 2012. We expect to review it in the next reporting period. Accordingly, we continue to find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

41 Amended to reflect the below stipulated language contained in the Court order of April 15, 2009:
The audits required by paragraphs 65 to 71 in this Agreement shall be submitted on a semiannual basis with the first and second semiannual periods ending on January 31 and August 31, 2004. Subsequent semiannual periods shall end on January 31, 2005, and every six months thereafter. Each of these audits may be conducted on an annual rather than a semiannual basis when the Monitor concludes that the most recently submitted audit for the same topic is compliant, and the remaining requirements of this paragraph have been met for the prior audit of that topic. The DPD shall issue all audit reports to the Chief of Police and also provide copies to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take nondisciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.
162

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 164 of 190 Pg ID 8386

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C66 The DPD shall create a Holding Cell Compliance Committee that is responsible for assuring compliance with requirements of this Agreement. The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate compliance with fire detection, suppression and evacuation program, including:
a. testing a sample of smoke detectors and sprinklers; b. testing the back-up power systems; c. reviewing a sample of fire equipment testing and maintenance records; and d. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph. The CRIB audit team conducted the semi-annual Fire Safety Practices and Policies Audit that was completed for July 31, 2011. During this reporting period, we inspected the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, and examined the policies and practices related to Departmental fire safety. (See C14-22.) The Fire Safety Program requires fire drills to be conducted on each shift twice each year. Our review of Log 703 revealed that all units were 100% in compliance with this requirement. Fire extinguishers are also required to be inspected and inventoried on a monthly basis. Our review of Log 716 Fire Extinguisher Monthly Inspection/Inventory Report revealed that all units were in 100% compliance. We conducted a visual check at each unit, and all fire extinguishers were charged and up to date. Accordingly, we continue to find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C67 The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled audits in all buildings containing holdings cells to evaluate emergency preparedness, including;
a. reviewing a sample of key and fire equipment maintenance and inventory records; interviewing selected detention officers about their participation in fire drills and on their

163

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 165 of 190 Pg ID 8387

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

responsibilities under emergency preparedness program and testing their ability to identify keys necessary to unlock all holding cell doors; and b. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph. The CRIB Audit team completed the Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program audit for the period ending July 31, 2011. We confirmed that the DPD met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The DPD developed and published a Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP) addressing safety and security, as required. The CEPP includes an emergency response plan for each district/precinct (see C24) and a key control system requirement (see C25). During our most recent inspection of all precincts/districts that maintain holding cells, we examined the policies and practices related to the Emergency Preparedness Program. Our findings are discussed above in C23-25. The Audit Team noted the same deficiencies for these sections as documented by this report. The DPD has conducted and documented fire drills, as required. Accordingly, we continue to find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with these requirements of this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C68 The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate the medical/mental health programs and policies, including:
a. reviewing a sampling of hospitals referral forms in comparison to prisoner intake forms to evaluate the accuracy of the intake screening and whether appropriate action was taken;
b. observing intake screening interviews to assess thoroughness; c. reviewing a sampling of the prescription medication log to ensure that medications were
administered as prescribed and that their distribution was accurately recorded; and d. issuing a written report regarding the finding of the audit.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.

164

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 166 of 190 Pg ID 8388

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

The most recent semi-annual audit was completed for July 31, 2011. The next audit is due on January 31, 2012, and will be reviewed in our next quarterly report. During this reporting period, we visited the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, and examined the policies and operational practices related to the Medical and Mental Health Program. Our findings are discussed above in C26-34. We conclude that the DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C69 The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate detainee safety programs and policies, including;
a. reviewing a sampling of security screening records, including written supervisory approvals, to ensure that prisoners are being properly screened and housed;
b. reviewing a sampling of the cell checks logs to ensure that checks are being accurately and regularly performed and that cell checks logs are receiving supervisory review and written approval; and
c. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph. The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its audit results for the Detainee Safety Program on July 31, 2011. We reviewed the current audit independently, and found that many of the deficiencies founded are similar to our findings during our inspections. The next audit is due on January 31, 2012 and will be reviewed in our next quarterly report. Additionally, we independently reviewed the operational implementation of policies and practices related to the Detainee Safety Program during our visits to all five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells and the DRH. Our findings are discussed in C35-38. We conclude that the DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of the requirements of this paragraph. Accordingly, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

165

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 167 of 190 Pg ID 8389

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement C70 The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate the environmental health and safety programs, including:
a. inspecting holding cells and surrounding areas to ensure that they are clean and clear of debris and that the lighting, sinks, and toilets are operable;
b. reviewing a sampling of cleanings and maintenance logs to ensure they are properly maintained and reflected the scheduled performance of the requisite cleaning and maintenance tasks;
c. reviewing the systems in place for assuring that all prisoners have reasonable access to potable water and toilets 24 hours a day;
d. observing whether holding cells are free of any potential suicide hazards; and e. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph. The CRIB Audit Team completed its semi-annual audit of the Environmental Health and Safety Program and issued their findings on July 31, 2011. Additionally, CRIB staff conducts monthly audits of the elements of this paragraph and documents the results on DPD Form 715 Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells. We reviewed all of the team’s results. We continue to conduct inspections separately on operational implementation of policies and practices of the five districts/precincts with holding cells and the DRH. Our findings are discussed above in C39-46. The next semi-annual audit will have been completed by January 31, 2012. We will review it for our next quarterly report. DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C71 The Holding cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled semiannual audits of all building containing holding cells to evaluate the food service program, including:
a. reviewing a statistically valid sample of food service documentation to evaluate whether prisoners who are held over six hours receive regular and adequate meals;
b. assuring that food is handled in a sanitary manner; and c. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit. Comments:
166

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 168 of 190 Pg ID 8390

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph. The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its command-specific audit on the DPD food service program and hygiene practices on July 31, 2011. We found the audit to be comprehensive and meeting the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The next semi-annual audit will have been completed by January 31, 2012. We will review it for our next quarterly report. We continue to visit the five precincts/districts that maintain holding cells. We examined the implementation of the policies and practices related to the food service program and hygiene practices. Our findings are discussed in C49-50. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C72 The audits required by paragraphs 65 to 71 in this Agreement shall be submitted on a semiannual basis with the first and second semiannual periods ending on January 31 and August 31, 2004. Subsequent semiannual periods shall end on January 31, 2005, and every six months thereafter. Each of these audits may be conducted on an annual rather than a semiannual basis when the Monitor concludes that the most recently submitted audit for the same topic is compliant and the remaining requirements of this paragraph have been met for the prior audit of that topic. The DPD shall issue all audit reports to the Chief of Police and also provide copies to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.42
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. The CRIB is mandated under this Consent Judgment paragraph to provide written reports for the Chief of Police and specified commanders. In previous reporting periods, we found that the various reports and field responses were unacceptable, in that these reports were specific to the district/precinct and did not receive sufficient attention. The CRIB conducted a review of the audit process, and subsequently changed the audit process to focus on individual commands. These command-specific audits were anticipated to result in clearer command accountability and increased awareness to issues that are identified through the audit process. For the last reporting period, we received and reviewed the command-specific audits for the period ending July 31, 2011. The audits included are Medical and Mental Health Program and
42 Consent Judgment amendment, April 15, 2009.
167

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 169 of 190 Pg ID 8391

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Policies; Environmental Health and Safety; Detainee Food Service and Personal Hygiene Practices; Fire Safety Practices and Policies; Allegations of Misconduct in Holding Cells and Uses of Force in Holding Cells Combined; and Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program. We also reviewed the Corrective Action Notices from the commands that were submitted prior to August 15, 2011. The next set of audits is due to be completed by January 31, 2012. Although we find the audits to be comprehensive and accurate, we cannot recommend that they be conducted on an annual basis due to the excessive number of repeat deficiencies that have been discovered.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements
62 Evaluation of holding cell operation 63 Operate cells in compliance with risk plan 64 Augment policy regarding video cameras 65 Quarterly audits required 66 Fire safety audits required 67 Emergency preparedness audits required 68 Medical/mental health program audit 69 Detainee safety audits required 70 Environmental health/safety audits 71 Food service program audits required 72 Audit results to Chief and Commanders

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation
In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

CJ Requirement C73
The DPD shall provide comprehensive pre-service and in-service training to all detention officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During past site visits, we have conducted surveys to evaluate the comprehensiveness of training provided to detention officers, and determine the Department’s compliance with its policies requiring that officers who are assigned detention duties have been afforded detention training. DPD has steadily improved in this area. In the first three quarterly reviews of 2011, our surveys
168

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 170 of 190 Pg ID 8392

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

found 100% compliance; all officers and supervisors who had worked in detention on the selected days had received detention training.
During this reporting period, we again sampled three days (Sunday, October 16; Monday, November 21; and Friday, December 2, 2011) and found that 146 (99%) of the 148 officers who worked in detention duties on those three days in our random sample had completed the Detention Officer Course. We also found that all (100%) of the supervisors specifically designated on the Daily Details as responsible for the cellblock had received detention training. We note, however, that supervisory authority over the cellblock area in some precincts and districts is not clearly defined on the Daily Details. In 11 (20%) of the 54 Daily Details that we reviewed, no supervisor was clearly listed as assigned to supervise the cellblock. The DPD remains in compliance with C73 but, while the failure to denote the cellblock supervisor on the Daily Detail is not technically a violation of this requirement, it is an undesirable trend that needs to be corrected.
The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C74
The DPD shall create and maintain individual training records for all detention officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training, completed for all training completed on or after the effective date of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
In July 2011, we found that DPD had completed the entry of all training records since 2003 into the Michigan MITN automated records system. During this reporting period, we verified the accuracy of the DPD Training records (see U108). DPD is able to produce an accurate and current list of officers and supervisors who received in-service training. We further verified the accuracy of detention training records by comparing the list of the 148 officers who served in detention duties on three randomly selected days (see C73 above) with the sign-in sheets on which their training attendance was recorded. We found 146 officers had received detention training and we were able to locate attendance records for 139 (95%) of those officers.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

169

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 171 of 190 Pg ID 8393

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

CJ Requirement C75 The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors of detention officer and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in emergency preparedness. Such training shall include drills and substantive training in the following topics:
a. Emergency response plans and notification responsibilities; b. Fire drills and use of fire extinguishers and other fire suppression equipment; c. Key control drills and key control policies and procedures; and d. Responding to emergency situations, including scenarios detention officers likely will
experience.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Although DPD detention training adequately addresses the requirements of C75, we found in our previous reviews that the Department continued to assign officers and supervisors who had not been trained in detention duties. Throughout the first three quarters of 2011, we found that 100% of DPD officers serving in detention duties on three randomly selected days attended the required detention training. Our review during our most recent site visit found 99% compliance. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C76 The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in the medical/mental health screening programs and policies. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. prisoner intake procedures and medical and mental health protocols, including protocols for transferring or housing prisoners with infectious diseases, disabilities and/or requiring increased monitoring;
b. recording, updating and transferring prisoner health information and medications c. the prescription medication policy, including instructions on the storage, recording and
administration of medications; and d. examples of scenarios faced by detention officers illustrating proper intake screening and
action in response to information regarding medical and mental health conditions. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. This requirement addresses training to be afforded to all detention officers, supervisors, and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee. Since our random review of training files during this reporting period showed that 99% of the officers serving in detention duties received this training, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
170

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 172 of 190 Pg ID 8394

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C77 The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in detainee safety programs and policies. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. the security screening program, including protocols for identifying and promptly and properly housing suspected crime partners, vulnerable, assaultive or special management prisoners;
b. protocols for performing, documenting and obtaining supervisory review of holding cell checks;
c. protocols concerning prisoners in observation cells, including protocols for direct and continual supervision, for spotting potential suicide hazards and providing appropriate clothing; and
d. examples of scenarios faced by detention officers illustrating appropriate security screening, segregation and monitoring techniques.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. This requirement addresses training to be afforded to all detention officers, supervisors, and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee. Since our random review of training files during this reporting period showed that 99% of the officers serving in detention duties received this training, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C78 The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in environmental health and safety and hygiene. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. cell block cleaning and maintenance protocols; and b. sanitary food preparation and delivery protocols. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. This requirement addresses training to be afforded to all detention officers, supervisors, and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee. Since our random review of training files
171

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 173 of 190 Pg ID 8395

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

during this reporting period showed that 99% of the officers serving in detention duties received this training, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

Phase

2

Implementation

-

73 Pre-service and in-service training

In Compliance

In Compliance

74 Maintain records training

In Compliance

In Compliance

75 Emergency preparedness training

In Compliance

In Compliance

76 Medical/mental health training

In Compliance

In Compliance

77 Detainee safety programs training

In Compliance

In Compliance

78 Environmental, safety, and hygiene training In Compliance

In Compliance

172

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 174 of 190 Pg ID 8396

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

APPENDIX A: Use of Force – Directives/Policies

USE OF FORCE POLICY

14

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective June 27, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and

November 3, 2011); and Training Directive 04-7, Use of Force, effective November 21, 2005.

15

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective June 27, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and

November 3, 2011) and Training Directive 04-3, Use of Force Continuum, effective May 9, 2005.

16

See paragraph #15 above.

17

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective June 27, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and

November 3, 2011); and Training Directive 04-7, Use of Force, effective November 21, 2005.

18

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, approved by DOJ April 14, 2005, effective June 27, 2005

(revised November 1, 2010, and November 3, 2011).

19

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective June 27, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and

November 3, 2011); and Training Directive 04-7, Use of Force, effective November 21, 2005.

20

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective August 4, 2011 which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

effective November 2010; and Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011.

21

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective August 4, 2011, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

effective November 2010, and in Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011.

22

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective May 2, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and August 4,

2011).

23

See paragraph #22 above. Also, Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011.

24

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective June 27, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and

November 3, 2011); DPD Directive 304.4, PR 24 Collapsible Baton, effective July 1, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010); and Training Directive 04-3, Use of Force Continuum, effective May 9, 2005.

25

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective June 27, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and

November 3, 2011); DPD Directive 304.3, Chemical Spray Device, effective July 2, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010); and Training Directive 04-7, Use of Force/Detainee Injuries or Allegations of

Injuries Reporting and Investigating, effective November 21, 2005.

26

See paragraph #25 above.

INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW

27

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective June 27, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and

November 3, 2011); 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective July 1, 2008 (revised

November 2010); DPD Directive 102.6 Citizens Complaints, effective July 1, 2008 (revised

November 2010); Training Directive 04-7, Use of Force, effective November 21, 2005; Training

Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009); Office of the

Chief Investigator, Standard Operating Procedure, July 1, 2010; and Internal Affairs Standard

Operating Procedure, January 2011.

28

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective June 27, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and

November 3, 2011); DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective July 1,

2008; and Training Directive 04-7, Use of Force, effective November 21, 2005.

29

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective June 27, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and

173

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 175 of 190 Pg ID 8397

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

November 3, 2011); DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective July 1, 2008; Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009); Training Directive 04-7, Use of Force, effective November 21, 2005; Internal Affairs Standard Operating Procedure, (January 2011); and Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedure (July 1, 2010).

30

See paragraph #29 above.

31

Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, dated February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009).

32

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective June 27, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and

November 3, 2011); DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective July 1,

2008; Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006 (revised October 24,

2009); Training Directive 04-7, Use of Force, effective November 21, 2005; Internal Affairs Standard

Operating Procedure (January 2011); and Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating

Procedure (July 1, 2010).

33

See paragraph #32 above.

34

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective June 27, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and

November 3, 2011); DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective May 2, 2005 and revised August 4,

2011; and Training Directive 04-7, Use of Force, effective November 21, 2005; Training Directive

11-01, Reporting/Documenting The “Acquiring of a Target” effective August 4, 2011.

35

See paragraph #34 above.

36

See paragraph #34 above.

37

See paragraph #34 above. Also DPD Joint Incident Shooting Team Standard Operating Procedures

and DPD Training Directive 04-07, Use of Force/Detainee Injuries or Allegations of Injuries

Reporting and Investigating, effective November 21, 2005.

38

See paragraph #37 above.

39

DPD Special Order 09-13, Command Level Force Review Team (CLFRT) dated March 2, 2009,

replaced with DPD Special Order 11-02, effective January 1, 2011; and DPD Directive 101.9, Special

Purposes Committees, issued March 2, 2009 and revised September 22, 1011.

40

See paragraph #39 above.

41

See paragraph #39 above.

ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES

42

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 2010.

43

See paragraph #42 above.

44

See paragraph #42 above (202.1); 202.2, Search and Seizure, effective May 2, 2005; revised

November 2010; 203.9, Custodial Questioning, effective November 20, 2010; and 404.1, Definitions,

effective November 20, 2010.

45

See paragraph #42 above.

46

DPD Directive 203.9, Custodial Questioning, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 20, 2010.

47

See paragraph #46 above.

48

See paragraph #46 above.

174

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 176 of 190 Pg ID 8398

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

49

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 20, 2010.

50

See paragraph #49 above.

51

See paragraph #49 above.

52

DPD Directive 305.2, Detainee Registration, and effective September 12, 2005.

53

See paragraph #52 above.

54

See paragraph #52 above.

55

See paragraph #52 above.

56

DPD Directives 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 20, 2010) and 305.2,

Detainee Registration, effective September 12, 2005. Also Training Directive #04-01, Confinement

of Material Witness, effective March 1, 2005.

57

See paragraph #56 above.

58

See paragraph #56 above.

59

See paragraph #56 above.

60

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 20, 2010); and DPD

Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 3, 2010).

EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS

61

DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 2010); IAD

Standard Operating Procedures, Sections 1 and 3 (January 2011); and OCI Standard Operating

Procedure, effective July 24, 2003 (revised April 29, 2004, and July 1, 2010).

62

Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedures, effective July 24, 2003 (revised April

29, 2004, and July 1, 2010).

63

DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 2010).

64

See paragraph #61 above. Also see DPD Directive 102.6.

65

See paragraph #63 above.

66

See paragraph #61 above.

67

See paragraph #61 above.

68

See paragraph #65 above.

69

See paragraph #61 above. Also DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations,

effective July 1, 2008; and Training Directive 04-4 Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006

(revised October 24, 2009).

GENERAL POLICIES

70

DPD Directives 101.1, Directive System, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) and

404.1, Definitions, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010).

71

DPD Directive 101.1, Directive System, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010). The

DPD also utilizes a Protocol for Proposed Policy Revisions; an SOP outlining procedures for posting

proposed policies to the website; and a flow chart (Visio-DPD Policy Flow Chart) that tracks the

175

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 177 of 190 Pg ID 8399

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

movements of proposed policy revisions through the Department and public review.

72

DPD Directive 102.3, Code of Conduct, effective November 1, 2009 (revised November 1, 2010).

73

On November 6, 2007, the DPD agreed to a 1:10 ratio of supervisors to officers in patrol and

specialized units.43 Also Directive 101.10, Organization and Management, effective March 30, 2011.

74

DPD Directive 102.3, Code of Conduct, effective November 1, 2009 (revised November 1, 2010).

75

See paragraph #74 above. Also DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective May 2. 2005 (revised

November 1, 2010 and August 4, 2011).

76

Directives 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised effective March 1 2010 and

305.7, Transportation of Detainees, effective May 9, 2005 (revised May 1, 2010).

77

DPD Directive 202.7, Foot Pursuits, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010).

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

78

DPD Directive 401.13, Management Awareness System, effective November 6, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010).

79

See paragraph #78 above.

80

See paragraph #78 above.

81

See paragraph #78 above. Also see the DPD Data Input Plan, approved by the Department of Justice,

June 9, 2011.

82

See paragraph #81 above.

83

See paragraph #78 above.

84

See paragraph #78 above.

85

See paragraph #78 above.

86

See paragraph #81 above.

87

See paragraph #78 above.

88

See paragraph #78 above.

89

See paragraph #78 above.

90

See paragraph #81 above.

91

DPD Directive 401.2, Performance Evaluation Ratings, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1,

2010).

92

DPD Audit Protocol, effective September 30, 2011. Annual revision required.

93

See paragraph #92 above.

94

See paragraph #92 above.

43Section I, Paragraph of the UOF CJ defines a supervisor as a sworn DPD employee at the rank of sergeant or above and non-sworn employees with oversight responsibility for DPD employees.

176

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 178 of 190 Pg ID 8400

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

95

See paragraph #92 above.

96

See paragraph #92 above.

97

See paragraph #92 above.

98

DPD Directive 303.3, In-Car Video, effective June 21, 2004 (revised February 22, 2010).

99

DPD Directive 304.5 Training, effective May 13, 2011.

100

DPD Directive 303.3, In-Car Video, effective June 21, 2004 (revised February 22, 2010).

101

See paragraph #100 above. Also, Teletype #11-1468, Roll Call Informational Bulletin, Use of

Department Issued In-Car Video Equipment and Body Microphones.

102

See paragraph #100 above.

103

DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective July 1, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010) and the related DPD Discipline Matrix (DPD22a).

104

See paragraph #103 above.

105

See paragraph #103 above.

TRAINING

106

DPD Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011.

107

See paragraph #106 above.

108

See paragraph #106 above.

109

See paragraph #106 above.

110

See paragraph #106 above.

111

See paragraph #106 above.

112

See paragraph #106 above.

113

See paragraph #106 above. Also Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective August 4, 2011.

114

See paragraph #106 above.

115

See paragraph #106 above.

116

See paragraph #106 above.

117

See paragraph #106 above.

118

See paragraph #106 above.

119

See paragraph #106 above.

120

See paragraph #106 above.

121

See paragraph #106 above.

122

See paragraph #106 above.

123

See paragraph #106 above.

177

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 179 of 190 Pg ID 8401

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

178

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 180 of 190 Pg ID 8402

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

APPENDIX B: Conditions of Confinement – Directives/Policies

FIRE SAFETY POLICIES

14

DPD Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan (CEPP), which includes a Fire Safety Plan (FSP)

requiring compliance with the Life Safety Code and inspections. The FSP was approved by DOJ on

May 23, 2006. The Fire Marshal reviews the FSP annually; the last review was conducted on

November 29, 2010. Also, DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective April 21, 2011.

15

See paragraph #14 above.

16

See paragraph #14 above.

17

See paragraph #14 above.

18

See paragraph #14 above.

19

See paragraph #14 above.

20

See paragraph #14 above.

21

See paragraph #14 above.

22

See paragraph #14 above.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES

23

DPD Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan (CEPP), effective May 2011 and DPD Directive

305.4, effective April 21, 2011.

24

See paragraph #23 above.

25

See paragraph #23 above.

MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES

26

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake Assessment; 305.5, Detainee Health Care and; 403.2,

Infectious Disease Control Plan, all effective May 9, 2005. Reviewed and updated by a qualified

health care professional on February 5, 2010 and February 4, 2011 as required. DPD Directive 305.5

cited above along with forms and logs, comprises the Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health

Screening program (CMMHSP).

27

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

28

See paragraphs #26.

29

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.1).

30

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 403.2).

31

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

32

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

33

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.1)

34

See paragraph #26 above.

179

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 181 of 190 Pg ID 8403

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES

35

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake, effective May 9, 2005 (revised February 5, 2010); Directive

305.2, Detainee Registration; Directive 305.3, Detainee Personal Property, effective May 20, 2010

(revised November 3, 2011); DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective February 1, 2008,

and revised March 20, 2010; Directive 305.5, Detainee Health Care, effective May 20, 2010;

Directive 305.7, Transportation of Detainees; effective May 20, 2010; and Directive 305.8, Detainee

Food Service and Hygiene, effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 20, 2010).

36

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.1)

37

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.4).

38

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.1 and 305.4).

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES

39

DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective February 1, 2008 (revised September 30, 2011).

Annual review and revision required.

40

See paragraph #39 above.

41

See paragraph #39 above.

42

See paragraph #39 above.

43

See paragraph #39 above.

44

See paragraph #39 above.

45

See paragraph #39 above.

46

See paragraph #39 above.

POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

47

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake and Assessment, and 305.5, Detainee Health Care, effective

May 9, 2005, approved and updated by a qualified medical and mental health professional on

February 5, 2010 and February 4, 2011. Also the Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health

Screening Program (CMMHSP).

48

See paragraph #47 above (DPD Directive 305.1).

FOOD SERVICE POLICIES

49

DPD Directive 305.8, Detainee Food Service, effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 20, 2010). Also,

the Detainee Meal and Hygiene Items Log, DPD 663, effective July 5, 2010.

50

See paragraph #49 above.

PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES

51

See paragraph #49 above.

USE OF FORCE AND RESTRAINTS POLICIES

52

DPD Directives 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 1 2010) and 304.2,

Use of Force, effective June 27, 2006 (revised November 1, 2010 and November 3, 2011).

180

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 182 of 190 Pg ID 8404

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

53

See paragraph #52 above.

54

See paragraph #52 above.

INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW

55

DPD Directives 304.2, Use of Force, effective June 27, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010 and

November 3, 2011) and 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 1, 2010)

56

See paragraph 55 above. Also DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective June 27, 2006 (revised

November 1, 2010 and November 3, 2011).

57

See paragraph #55 above.

EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS

58

See paragraph #55 above. Also see DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008

(revised November 2010).

59

See paragraph #58 above.

GENERAL POLICIES

60

DPD Directive 404.1, Definitions, effective November 2010.

61

DPD Directive 101.1, Written Directive System, effective November 2010.

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

62

DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised April 21, 2011).

63

DPD Directive 401.13, Management Awareness System, effective November 6, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010); DPD Directive 401.2, Performance Evaluation Ratings, effective July 1, 2008

(revised November 1, 2010); and DPD Audit Protocol, effective September 30, 2011.

64

See paragraph #62 above.

65

DPD Audit Protocol meeting generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS), effective

August 31, 2008 (revised October 31, 2010 and September 11, 2011).

66

See paragraph #65 above.

67

See paragraph #65 above.

68

See paragraph #65 above.

69

See paragraph #65 above.

70

See paragraph #65 above.

71

See paragraph #65 above.

72

See paragraph #65 above.

TRAINING

73

Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011.

74

See paragraph #73 above.

181

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 183 of 190 Pg ID 8405

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

75

See paragraph #73 above.

76

See paragraph #73 above.

77

See paragraph #73 above.

78

See paragraph #73 above.

182

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 184 of 190 Pg ID 8406

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

APPENDIX C: Acronyms
The following is a listing of acronyms frequently used in our quarterly reports.

ACRONYM AT BOPC CAM CBS CCR CDDT CEPP CFD CI City CJ CLBR CLFRT CLO CLI CME CMMHSP CO COC CJ CRIB DCCL DDHWP DDMHIL DFD DFF DFO/PDO DHWP DIF DOJ DPD DRH

DEFINITION Audit Team Board of Police Commissioners Command Accountability Meeting Cell Block Supervisor Citizen Complaint Report Curriculum Design and Development Team Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program Critical Firearm Discharge Chief Investigator City of Detroit Consent Judgment Command Level Board of Review Command Level Force Review Team Compliance Liaison Officer Command Level Investigation Confidential Medical Envelope Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening Program Commanding Officer Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment Civil Rights Integrity Bureau Detention Cell Check Log Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Program Daily Detainee Meal and Hygiene Items Log Detroit Fire Department Detainee File Folders Detention Facility Officer Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Promotion Detainee Intake Form Department of Justice Detroit Police Department Detroit Receiving Hospital
183

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 185 of 190 Pg ID 8407

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

EPP ERP FI FIS FSP FSPP FY GAS HCCC IA IAD IMAS ITS JIST MAS MCOLES MITN OCI OCR OIC PDDSL PDO PEERS PFC PI PSA RFP RMB SIR SME SMT SOP TA UOF CJ UOF

Emergency Preparedness Program Emergency Response Plan Force Investigation (interchangeable with FIS) Force Investigation Section Fire Safety Program Fire Safety Practices and Policies Fiscal Year Government Auditing Standards Holding Cell Compliance Committee Internal Affairs Internal Affairs Division Interim Management Awareness System Information Technology Services Joint Incident Shooting Team Management Awareness System Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards MCCOLES Information and Tracking System Office of the Chief Investigator Office of Civil Rights Officer in Charge Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Log Police Detention Officer Performance Evaluation and Enhancement Review Session Policy Focus Committee Performance Indicator Public Service Announcement Request for Proposals Risk Management Bureau Supervisor’s Investigation Report Subject Matter Expert Senior Management Team Standard Operating Procedure(s) Technical Assistance Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention Consent Judgment Use(s) of Force
184

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 186 of 190 Pg ID 8408

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

USAO WCPO WCJ

United States Attorney’s Office Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office Wayne County Jail

185

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 187 of 190 Pg ID 8409

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

APPENDIX D: Monitoring Team
Robert S. Warshaw, Monitor Chief (Ret.) Charles D. Reynolds, Deputy Monitor
Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) J. Rick Brown Evaluates compliance with U16-17 and U19, General Use of Force Policy; U22, Use of Firearms Policy; U24, Intermediate Force Device Policy; U25-26, Chemical Spray Policy; U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34-36, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; and U37-41, Review of Critical Firearm Discharges and In-Custody Deaths.
Division Chief (Ret.) Rachel M. Burgess Evaluates compliance with U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; U61-63, External Complaints; U64-66, Intake and Tracking; and U67-69, External Complaint Investigations; C14-22, Fire Safety Policies; C23-25, Emergency Preparedness Policies; C60-61, General Policies; and C65-72, Management and Supervision.
Commander (Ret.) John M. Girvin Evaluates compliance with U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; U61-63, External Complaints; U64-66, Intake and Tracking; U67-69, External Complaint Investigations; and C58-59, External Complaints.
Chief (Ret.) Eduardo Gonzalez Evaluates compliance with U14-19, General Use of Force Policy; U22, Use of Firearms Policy; U24, Intermediate Force Device Policy; U25-26, Chemical Spray Policy; U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34-36, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; and U70-72 and U74-77, General Policies.

186

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 188 of 190 Pg ID 8410

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

John M. Klofas, Ph.D. Evaluates compliance with U78-90, Risk Management Database; U91, Performance Evaluation System; U92-97, Oversight; and U103-105, Discipline.
Leonard F. Rice, M.E.S., R.S. Evaluates compliance with C39-46, Environmental Health and Safety Policies; C47-48, Policies Concerning Persons with Disabilities; C49-50, Food Service Policies; and C51, Personal Hygiene Policies.
Chief (Ret.) Billy R. Riggs Evaluates compliance with U42-43, Arrest Policies; U44-45, Investigatory Stop Policies; U4648, Witness Identification and Questioning Policies; U49-51, Prompt Judicial Review Policies; U52-53, Hold Policies; U54-55, Restriction Policies; U56-57, Material Witness Policies; U58, Documentation of Custodial Detention; U59-60, Command Notification; C26-34, Medical and Mental Health Care Policies; and C64, Management and Supervision Policies.
Asst. Director (Ret.) Joseph R. Wolfinger Evaluates compliance with U20-21 and U23, Use of Firearms Policy; U98-99, Oversight; U100102, Use of Video Cameras; U106-111, Oversight and Development; U112, Use of Force Training; U113, Firearms Training; U114, Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training; U115117, Custodial Detention Training; U118-120, Supervisory Training; U121-122, Investigator Training; and U123, Field Training.
Robin Busch-Wheaton Editor

187

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 189 of 190 Pg ID 8411

APPENDIX E: Detroit Police Department Management Dashboard Data
The table below presents data on measures relevant to the requirements set forth in the Consent Judgments. The data were compiled by the Detroit Police Department and are displayed for presentation by the Monitor. These data are presented here with the consent of the Police Department and serve simply as a means to provide information relevant to issues raise in the Consent Judgments.

Dashboard Data: Detroit Police Department 2011

Total Arrests

Jan 2099

Feb 1943

March 2456

April 2523

May 2959

June 2470

July 2673

August 3196

Sept 2725

October November December 2011

Graphed

2940

2553

2403

Number of Events per 1000 Arrests

Uses of Force Firearms Discharge Citizen Complaints Traffic Crashes Civil Litigation Vehicle Chases Disciplinary Action Closed Date

43.83 0.48 64.79 5.24 7.15 6.19 52.41

29.34 1.03 49.41 5.15 3.60 4.63 47.35

46.01 1.22 50.49 4.89 7.33 5.29 20.77

40.82 0.79 56.28 3.17 8.32 3.57 39.64

37.51 0.68 47.65 5.41 5.75 8.11 25.35

45.34 1.21 59.92 3.64 2.43 6.07 43.32

34.42 0.75 42.27 5.99 0.00 6.73 5.99

35.98 0.94 40.68 3.75 0.00 12.20 3.13

26.06 0.73 34.86 3.30 0.00 12.48 5.50

11.49 0.59 6.78 1.03 0.00 0.88 6.63

16.30 0.37 23.52 2.41 2.04 2.04 3.33

18.24 0.22 24.02 3.11 2.67 4.89 9.56

Arrests for Assault and Battery on a PO Resisting or Obstructing Arrests Disorderly Conduct Arrests Interfering Arrests Total Consent Judgment noted Arrests (above 4)

2.38

3.09

5.70 10.31

7.10

5.26

7.86

4.38

6.61

1.33

15.72 8.23 18.32 15.46 16.90 16.60 9.35 15.64 10.28 5.16

8.10

1.54

4.48

3.17

5.07

6.07

5.99

2.19

3.30

0.59

2.38

1.54

2.85

5.15

3.04

1.62

3.37

3.75

1.47

0.15

28.59 14.41 31.35 34.09 32.11 29.55 26.56 25.97 21.65

7.22

3.70 3.70 2.22 0.37 10.00

3.56 7.56 0.89 0.22 12.23

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 596-1 Filed 04/19/12 Pg 190 of 190 Pg ID 8412

TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

April 18, 2012

This is the data from 2010.

Dashboard Data: Detroit Police Department 2010

Jan

Feb

March April May June July

August Sept Oct

Nov

Dec

Graph

Total Arrests

3108 2751 3074 3052 3012 2937 2634 2629 2397 2309 2115 1871

Number of Events per 1000 Arrests

Uses of Force Firearms Discharge Citizen Complaints Traffic Crashes Civil Litigation Vehicle Chases Disciplinary Action Closed Date

33.78 1.93 52.45 4.83 3.54 2.57 29.28

35.26 1.09 49.07 6.91 8.36 1.82 12.00

33.51 0.00 58.23 2.60 2.60 4.88 23.42

32.77 0.33 50.79 2.62 2.62 3.60 22.28

35.52 0.00 44.16 3.32 2.66 1.99 30.21

39.50 0.00 49.03 4.43 6.47 2.04 35.75

28.85 2.28 51.25 3.04 0.76 1.52 18.22

29.29 0.00 63.90 8.37 3.80 3.80 22.44

47.98 5.01 57.57 3.75 0.00 4.17 53.40

33.78 1.73 19.92 3.03 0.00 2.60 19.49

41.61 0.95 60.05 6.15 5.20 5.20 8.51

43.83 0.53 57.72 7.48 6.41 11.76 22.98

Arrests for Assault and Battery on a PO Resisting or Obstructing Arrests Disorderly Conduct Arrests Interfering Arrests Total Consent Judgment noted Arrests (above 4)

5.79 10.30 7.72 0.97 24.77

7.63 12.36 1.82 1.45 23.26

7.16 14.64 6.83 2.28 30.90

4.59 9.17 4.59 0.98 19.33

5.98 13.61 3.98 3.65 27.22

6.13 16.00 5.45 2.38 29.96

4.94 7.97 1.90 0.38 15.19

6.85 10.27 4.56 1.90 23.58

6.26 15.02 7.93 2.92 32.12

3.90 15.16 1.73 0.43 21.22

9.46 9.46 5.67 0.95 25.53

8.55 18.17 2.14 0.53 29.40

 2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 1 of 197 Pg ID 8684

	
   TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT
	
  

Independent Monitor 	
  

	
  

	
  	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

Robert S. Warshaw 	
  
	
  

Office of the Independent Monitor 	
   Police Performance Solutions, LLC 	
  
	
   	
  

September 28	
 ,  2012

	
  

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 2 of 197 Pg ID 8685
Table of Contents
SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................7
SECTION TWO: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT ...............................................................................................12 III. USE OF FORCE POLICY..................................................................................................................................12
A. General Use of Force Policy ............................................................................................................................14 CJ Requirement U14 ...........................................................................................................................................14 CJ Requirement U15 ...........................................................................................................................................14 CJ Requirement U16 ...........................................................................................................................................15 CJ Requirement U17 ...........................................................................................................................................16 CJ Requirement U18 ...........................................................................................................................................17 CJ Requirement U19 ...........................................................................................................................................17 CJ Requirement U20 ...........................................................................................................................................18 CJ Requirement U21 ...........................................................................................................................................18
B. Use of Firearms Policy ....................................................................................................................................19 CJ Requirement U22 ...........................................................................................................................................19 CJ Requirement U23 ...........................................................................................................................................19
C. Intermediate Force Device Policy....................................................................................................................20 CJ Requirement U24 ...........................................................................................................................................20
D. Chemical Spray Policy ....................................................................................................................................21 CJ Requirement U25 ...........................................................................................................................................21 CJ Requirement U26 ...........................................................................................................................................22
IV. DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW ............................................................................24 A. General Investigations of Police Action ..........................................................................................................24 CJ Requirement U27 ...........................................................................................................................................24 CJ Requirement U28 ...........................................................................................................................................26 CJ Requirement U29 ...........................................................................................................................................29 CJ Requirement U30 ...........................................................................................................................................32 CJ Requirement U31 ...........................................................................................................................................34 CJ Requirement U32 ...........................................................................................................................................35 CJ Requirement U33 ...........................................................................................................................................41 B. Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations ................................................................................................43 CJ Requirement U34 ...........................................................................................................................................43 CJ Requirement U35 ...........................................................................................................................................43 CJ Requirement U36 ...........................................................................................................................................45 CJ Requirement U37 ...........................................................................................................................................47 CJ Requirement U38 ...........................................................................................................................................48 CJ Requirement U39 ...........................................................................................................................................48 CJ Requirement U40 ...........................................................................................................................................49 CJ Requirement U41 ...........................................................................................................................................50
V. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES........................................................................52 A. Arrest Policies ....................................................................................................................................................53 CJ Requirement U42 ...........................................................................................................................................53 CJ Requirement U43 ...........................................................................................................................................54 B. Investigatory Stop Policies.................................................................................................................................54 CJ Requirement U44 ...........................................................................................................................................54 CJ Requirement U45 ...........................................................................................................................................55 C. Witness Identification and Questioning Policies ...............................................................................................57 CJ Requirement U46 ...........................................................................................................................................57

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 3 of 197 Pg ID 8686

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 2

September 28, 2012

CJ Requirement U47 ...........................................................................................................................................58 CJ Requirement U48 ...........................................................................................................................................58 D. Prompt Judicial Review Policies........................................................................................................................60 CJ Requirement U49 ...........................................................................................................................................60 CJ Requirement U50 ...........................................................................................................................................60 CJ Requirement U51 ...........................................................................................................................................62 E. Hold Policies ......................................................................................................................................................62 CJ Requirement U52 ...........................................................................................................................................62 CJ Requirement U53 ...........................................................................................................................................62 F. Restriction Policies ..............................................................................................................................................63 CJ Requirement U54 ...........................................................................................................................................63 CJ Requirement U55 ...........................................................................................................................................63 G. Material Witness Policies...................................................................................................................................64 CJ Requirement U56 ...........................................................................................................................................64 CJ Requirement U57 ...........................................................................................................................................64 H. Documentation of Custodial Detention..............................................................................................................65 CJ Requirement U58 ...........................................................................................................................................65 I. Command Notification ........................................................................................................................................66 CJ Requirement U59 ...........................................................................................................................................66 CJ Requirement U60 ...........................................................................................................................................67
VI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS.............................................................................................................................71 CJ Requirement U61 ...........................................................................................................................................71 CJ Requirement U62 ...........................................................................................................................................72 CJ Requirement U63 ...........................................................................................................................................73
A. Intake and Tracking ...........................................................................................................................................74 CJ Requirement U64 ...........................................................................................................................................74 CJ Requirement U65 ...........................................................................................................................................75 CJ Requirement U66 ...........................................................................................................................................75
B. External Complaint Investigations .....................................................................................................................75 CJ Requirement U67 ...........................................................................................................................................75 CJ Requirement U68 ...........................................................................................................................................78 CJ Requirement U69 ...........................................................................................................................................79
VII. GENERAL POLICIES .....................................................................................................................................82 CJ Requirement U70 ...........................................................................................................................................82 CJ Requirement U71 ...........................................................................................................................................82 CJ Requirement U72 ...........................................................................................................................................83 CJ Requirement U73 ...........................................................................................................................................83 CJ Requirement U74 ...........................................................................................................................................84 CJ Requirement U75 ...........................................................................................................................................84 CJ Requirement U76 ...........................................................................................................................................85 CJ Requirement U77 ...........................................................................................................................................86
VIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION........................................................................................................87 A. Risk Management Database ...........................................................................................................................88 CJ Requirement U77 ...........................................................................................................................................88 CJ Requirement U78 ...........................................................................................................................................89 CJ Requirement U79 ...........................................................................................................................................90 CJ Requirement U80 ...........................................................................................................................................90 CJ Requirement U81 ...........................................................................................................................................93 CJ Requirement U82 ...........................................................................................................................................93 CJ Requirement U83 ...........................................................................................................................................94 CJ Requirement U84 ...........................................................................................................................................94

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 4 of 197 Pg ID 8687

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 3

September 28, 2012

CJ Requirement U85 ...........................................................................................................................................97 CJ Requirement U86 ...........................................................................................................................................97 CJ Requirement U87 ...........................................................................................................................................98 CJ Requirement U88 ...........................................................................................................................................98 CJ Requirement U89 .........................................................................................................................................100 CJ Requirement U90 .........................................................................................................................................100 B. Performance Evaluation System ......................................................................................................................101 CJ Requirement U91 .........................................................................................................................................101 C. Oversight ..........................................................................................................................................................101 CJ Requirement U92 .........................................................................................................................................101 CJ Requirement U93 .........................................................................................................................................102 CJ Requirement U94 .........................................................................................................................................102 CJ Requirement U95 .........................................................................................................................................103 CJ Requirement U96 .........................................................................................................................................104 CJ Requirement U97 .........................................................................................................................................104 CJ Requirement U98 .........................................................................................................................................105 CJ Requirement U99 .........................................................................................................................................105 D. Use of Video Cameras .....................................................................................................................................106 CJ Requirement U100 .......................................................................................................................................106 CJ Requirement U101 .......................................................................................................................................108 CJ Requirement U102 .......................................................................................................................................108 E. Discipline..........................................................................................................................................................112 CJ Requirement U103 .......................................................................................................................................112 CJ Requirement U104 .......................................................................................................................................112 CJ Requirement U105 .......................................................................................................................................113
IX. TRAINING ......................................................................................................................................................114 A. OVERSIGHT AND DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................115
CJ Requirement U106............................................................................................................................................115 CJ Requirement U107 .......................................................................................................................................115 CJ Requirement U108 .......................................................................................................................................117 CJ Requirement U109 .......................................................................................................................................117 CJ Requirement U110 .......................................................................................................................................118 CJ Requirement U111 .......................................................................................................................................118
B. USE OF FORCE TRAINING................................................................................................................................119 CJ Requirement U112 .......................................................................................................................................119
C. FIREARMS TRAINING .......................................................................................................................................120 CJ Requirement U113 .......................................................................................................................................120
D. ARREST AND POLICE-CITIZEN INTERACTION TRAINING .......................................................................121 CJ Requirement U114 .......................................................................................................................................121
E. CUSTODIAL DETENTION TRAINING..............................................................................................................122 CJ Requirement U115 .......................................................................................................................................122 CJ Requirement U116 .......................................................................................................................................123 CJ Requirement U117 .......................................................................................................................................123
F. SUPERVISORY TRAINING.................................................................................................................................124 CJ Requirement U118 .......................................................................................................................................124 CJ Requirement U119 .......................................................................................................................................124 CJ Requirement U120 .......................................................................................................................................125
G. INVESTIGATOR TRAINING.............................................................................................................................125 CJ Requirement U121 .......................................................................................................................................125 CJ Requirement U122 .......................................................................................................................................126
H. FIELD TRAINING ...............................................................................................................................................126 CJ Requirement U123 .......................................................................................................................................126

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 5 of 197 Pg ID 8688

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 4

September 28, 2012

SECTION THREE: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT .........................................................................................................................................128 III. FIRE SAFETY POLICIES ..........................................................................................................................129
CJ Requirement C14 .........................................................................................................................................129 CJ Requirement C15 .........................................................................................................................................129 CJ Requirement C16 .........................................................................................................................................130 CJ Requirement C17 .........................................................................................................................................130 CJ Requirement C18 .........................................................................................................................................131 CJ Requirement C19 .........................................................................................................................................131 CJ Requirement C20 .........................................................................................................................................132 CJ Requirement C21 .........................................................................................................................................133 CJ Requirement C22 .........................................................................................................................................133
IV. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES...............................................................................................134 CJ Requirement C23 .........................................................................................................................................134 CJ Requirement C24 .........................................................................................................................................134 CJ Requirement C25 .........................................................................................................................................135
V. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES ............................................................................137 CJ Requirement C26 .........................................................................................................................................137 CJ Requirement C27 .........................................................................................................................................138 CJ Requirement C28 .........................................................................................................................................138 CJ Requirement C29 .........................................................................................................................................140 CJ Requirement C30 .........................................................................................................................................141 CJ Requirement C31 .........................................................................................................................................142 CJ Requirement C32 .........................................................................................................................................143 CJ Requirement C33 .........................................................................................................................................145 CJ Requirement C34 .........................................................................................................................................145 CJ Requirement C35 .........................................................................................................................................146 CJ Requirement C36 .........................................................................................................................................146 CJ Requirement C37 .........................................................................................................................................147 CJ Requirement C38 .........................................................................................................................................148
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES .......................................................................149 CJ Requirement C39 .........................................................................................................................................149 CJ Requirement C40 .........................................................................................................................................150 CJ Requirement C41 .........................................................................................................................................151 CJ Requirement C42 .........................................................................................................................................152 CJ Requirement C43 .........................................................................................................................................152 CJ Requirement C44 .........................................................................................................................................153 CJ Requirement C45 .........................................................................................................................................153 CJ Requirement C46 .........................................................................................................................................154
VIII. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ...............................................................154 CJ Requirement C47 .........................................................................................................................................154 CJ Requirement C48 .........................................................................................................................................155
IX. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES ..........................................................................................................................155 CJ Requirement C49 .........................................................................................................................................155 CJ Requirement C50 .........................................................................................................................................156
X. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES.................................................................................................................157 CJ Requirement C51 .........................................................................................................................................157 CJ Requirement C52 .........................................................................................................................................158

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 6 of 197 Pg ID 8689

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 5

September 28, 2012

CJ Requirement C53 .........................................................................................................................................158 CJ Requirement C54 .........................................................................................................................................160
XII. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW ....................................................161 CJ Requirement C55 .........................................................................................................................................161 CJ Requirement C56 .........................................................................................................................................161 CJ Requirement C57 .........................................................................................................................................162
XIII. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS ........................................................................................................................163 CJ Requirement C58 .........................................................................................................................................163 CJ Requirement C59 .........................................................................................................................................164
XIV. GENERAL POLICIES ...................................................................................................................................165 CJ Requirement C60 .........................................................................................................................................165 CJ Requirement C61 .........................................................................................................................................165
XV. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION ........................................................................................................166 CJ Requirement C62 .........................................................................................................................................166 CJ Requirement C63 .........................................................................................................................................166 CJ Requirement C64 .........................................................................................................................................167 CJ Requirement C65 .........................................................................................................................................168 CJ Requirement C66 .........................................................................................................................................169 CJ Requirement C67 .........................................................................................................................................170 CJ Requirement C68 .........................................................................................................................................171 CJ Requirement C69 .........................................................................................................................................172 CJ Requirement C70 .........................................................................................................................................172 CJ Requirement C71 .........................................................................................................................................173 CJ Requirement C72.........................................................................................................................................174 CJ Requirement C73.........................................................................................................................................175 CJ Requirement C74.........................................................................................................................................176 CJ Requirement C75.........................................................................................................................................177 CJ Requirement C76.........................................................................................................................................177 CJ Requirement C77.........................................................................................................................................178 CJ Requirement C78.........................................................................................................................................179
APPENDIX A: USE OF FORCE - DIRECTIVES/POLICIES...........................................................................184
APPENDIX B: CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT - DIRECTIVES/POLICIES ........................................189
APPENDIX C: ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................192
APPENDIX D: MONITORING TEAM ................................................................................................................195
APPENDIX E: Detroit Police Department Management Dashboard Data………………………………….. 196

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 7 of 197 Pg ID 8690

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 6

September 28, 2012

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION
On October 5, 2009, the Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr., United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division (the Court), appointed me to serve as the Independent Monitor of the Use of Force and Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgments in the case United States of America v. City of Detroit, Michigan (the City) and the Detroit Police Department (DPD) No. 03-77758, decided in June 2003. With this appointment and assisted by a team of highly respected professionals, I assumed responsibility for monitoring compliance with the requirements of these Judgments – the implementation of a compilation of generally accepted professional police and confinement policies, procedures, and related practices.
Our Team conducted our first quarterly site visit in November 2009, and has conducted subsequent site visits each subsequent calendar quarter. We have observed considerable change within the City and the Detroit Police Department during our engagement.
Similar to previous reports, the issuance of this report follows an onsite visit to assess and guide the Department’s ongoing efforts. This report includes our assessment of the Department’s compliance with each of the requirements contained in Judgments. Our findings are based on the results of discussions and meetings with City and DPD staff, observations of operational activities, inspections of facilities, and our review of documents and data covering the period of April 1, through June 30, 2012.
The body of this report is comprised of our assessments of compliance with the individual requirements of the Consent Judgments. We include introductory narratives for each major section of the Use of Force Judgment and one overall narrative for the Conditions of Confinement Judgment. Following these narratives are their respective requirements and our comments regarding the compliance status for each. After these are summary notations of Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance. A statement of “Critical Issues” follows the reviews of the requirements in each major section of the Judgment. A brief statement of “Next Steps” follows, in which we describe a plan of work for the next visit including a discussion of the data we plan to review. Finally, a table summarizes the compliance finding for that particular section of the Judgment.
Our Team determines compliance through an examination of policies and implementation of practices that support each requirement in the Consent Judgments. Phase 1 compliance is dependent upon the development and adoption of a policy or set of procedures that supports each Consent Judgment requirement. Phase 2 compliance is dependent on the effective implementation of the practices necessary to meet the requirements, consistent with the applicable policy. Full compliance is dependent on both Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance. Accordingly, we note our finding of “in compliance” or “not in compliance” for each requirement.
Additionally, in the limited circumstances where substantial work and time is required to achieve implementation of a policy or procedure and the related practices, and where ongoing progress is clearly evident, we recognize that progress with the designation “pending compliance.” Where there are circumstances in which we are unable to fully determine the compliance status of a requirement due to a lack of data or other reasons, we identify that status with the designation “deferred.”

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 8 of 197 Pg ID 8691

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 7

September 28, 2012

Verification of compliance with the many parts of the Consent Judgments requires the analysis of multiple instances of activity, reviewing cases, or observations of the practical application of policies and procedures. In those circumstances, our first option is to conduct an analysis-based on a review of all cases or data. Where that is not appropriate or possible, we rely on statistically valid samples of the population. To reach conclusions based on analyses of cases, a minimal standard must be met. To achieve compliance based on these analyses, we have determined that more than 94% of relevant indicators must conform to the provisions articulated in the Judgments.
The independent monitoring of two Consent Judgments is a complex process involving complex issues. The delivery of police services to a community – and the simultaneous retention of the public trust – are perhaps the most fundamental and sacred roles of government. In the course of our responsibilities, we shall endeavor at all times to fulfill our mandate in a manner consistent with these principles.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is our twelfth quarterly report of the Independent Monitor in the case of United States of America v. City of Detroit No. 03-72258. The report is for the period of April 1, through June 30, 2012; and is based on our site visit of July 16, through July 20, 2012; and our subsequent analyses of relevant data from this period. Consistent with the practice we established in our first review, we continue to assess all requirements of both active Judgments for compliance. This includes 110 requirements in the Use of Force Judgment, and an additional 65 requirements in the Conditions of Confinement Judgment. In this executive summary, I will review the levels of compliance found for the reporting period.
With regard to Phase 1 (policy) compliance, for the fifth consecutive reporting period, we found the City and the Police Department in compliance with all requirements of both Judgments. Following the practice we established during the last reporting period, all references to supporting policies, directives, and other relevant documents are listed in Appendices A (Use of Force) and B (Conditions of Confinement).
As noted above, the Department is again in Phase 1 compliance with all 110 (100%) of the Use of Force requirements. For the current reporting period, we also found the Department in Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance (full compliance) with 95 (86%) of the 110 Use of Force requirements. During this reporting period, one Use of Force requirement is deferred.
As noted above, the Department is again in Phase 1 compliance with all 65 (100%) of the Conditions of Confinement requirements. This level has been maintained since the fourth reporting period. We found the Department in Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance (full compliance) with 56 (86%) of the 65 requirements. The current figures are presented in the table below. Two requirements under the Conditions of Confinement are in pending status compliance, and three are deferred.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 9 of 197 Pg ID 8692

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 8

September 28, 2012

Twelfth	
  Quarterly	
  Report	
  Summary

Use of Force Cond of Conf

Total

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2

Paragraph Numbers Number of Requirements Pending Compliance Not in Compliance Deferred In Compliance

14-123

110 110

0

1

0

13

0

1

110

95

14-78

65

65

0

1

0

5

0

3

65

56

175 175

0

2

0

18

0

4

175 151

Percent in Compliance

100% 86% 100% 86% 100% 86%

In summary, this is the fifth consecutive report in which we have found DPD in Phase 1 compliance with all (100%) of the 175 monitored requirements. We found the Department to be in full compliance (that is, both Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance) with 151 (86%) of the 175 monitored requirements of the applicable paragraphs of both Consent Judgments. We also found the Department to be in pending Phase 2 compliance with two requirements. An additional four compliance assessments are deferred.

The chart below illustrates the levels of compliance achieved on both Judgments and across all 12 reporting periods.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 10 of 197 Pg ID 8693

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 9

September 28, 2012

The table below provides the summary data illustrating the status of compliance over the course of the quarterly reporting periods.

Q uarterly	
  R eport
Report 1 Report 2 Report 3 Report 4 Report 5 Report 6 Report 7 Report 8 Report 9 Report 10 Report 11 Report 12

Use of Force Phase 1 Phase 2
81% 24% 94% 41% 96% 49% 98% 62% 97% 61% 99% 68% 99% 75% 100% 79% 100% 82% 100% 84% 100% 85% 100% 86%

Percent in Compliance

Cond of Conf

Total

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2

83% 37%

82% 29%

92% 51%

93% 44%

95% 54%

96% 51%

100% 51%

99% 58%

100% 60%

98% 61%

100% 58%

99% 65%

100% 68%

99% 72%

100% 75% 100% 78%

100% 77% 100% 80%

100% 83% 100% 83%

100% 85% 100% 85%

100% 86% 100% 86%

The summary tables highlight progress over the course of our twelve reports. The pattern, without a single overall decline, is noteworthy, particularly against the backdrop of budgetary issues facing the Department and the City of Detroit. Even these overall figures, however, can mask developments that are worthy of special attention.
With this report, the final requirement addressing risk management in the Department has come into compliance. It is an important milestone not just as it marks progress but also as a model of resources management. Even before our first report, serious questions had been raised about the viability of the risk management system that was being developed as part of the reform process. Our early test of the system was nothing short of disaster. It was clear that, without extraordinary effort, the system was headed for the scrap pile and a new and very costly replacement would be needed. But the Department put the necessary human resources in place and started down the path of technological improvement and, indeed, innovation. Not only has this led to compliance and avoided the need for a whole new system, the Department is now a national leader in the development and use of this critical management tool. This is an achievement particularly worthy of recognition.
We noted in our last report that progress was fragile and pointed to the return of a backlog in cases at OCI as evidence. We have no fears of similar problems with the MAS system and we are pleased to see that the backlog issue has been addressed and there seems to be no reason to expect another reversal. But as the list of requirements which remain out of compliance dwindles it becomes ever easier to see the areas of concentration for the unfinished business. With regard to the Use of Force Consent Judgment, issues of accountability in investigations linger as do concerns with reviews of investigations as they move up the chain of command. As the Department faces the continuing challenges posed by prisoner detention, critical issues regarding the physical plant, including maintenance and hygiene issues, grow more pressing and

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 11 of 197 Pg ID 8694

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 10

September 28, 2012

difficult to defer. At the same time the issues regarding investigations which hold back progress in the Use of Force judgment echoes in unsatisfied requirements of the Conditions of Confinement judgment. It is clearly an area where additional progress must be made.
We cannot end without noting again that we are cognizant of the many challenges faced by the Department and City. The currency of those issues, however, cannot alter the course of reform which began nearly a decade ago but only more recently has marked real progress. The advancements noted in our reports over the past three years are testament to the strong leadership that guides the department and to the commitment, across the organization, to that leadership. The leadership which we believe has helped the Department continue on its path towards full compliance comes from City Hall, the Police Department, the OCI executives and the City’s legal advocate. While there is still work to be done, Detroit has now become an example through their understanding of how things are to get done and why such things are important. We are certain that even in difficult times the course forward can remain true.

Chief (Ret.) Robert S. Warshaw Monitor

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 12 of 197 Pg ID 8695

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 11

September 28, 2012

The Monitoring Team: Chief (Ret.) Charles D. Reynolds, Deputy Monitor
Lt. Colonel (Ret.) J. Rick Brown Division Chief (Ret.) Rachel M. Burgess
Commander (Ret.) John M. Girvin Chief (Ret.) Eduardo Gonzalez John M. Klofas, Ph.D. Leonard F. Rice, M.E.S., R.S. Chief (Ret.) Billy R. Riggs
Asst. Director (Ret.) Joseph R. Wolfinger Robin Busch-Wheaton, Editor

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 13 of 197 Pg ID 8696

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 12

September 28, 2012

SECTION TWO:
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT

III. USE OF FORCE POLICY
This section of the Consent Judgment, containing paragraphs U14 through U26, requires that DPD review and revise its general use of force, firearms, and chemical spray policies; select an intermediate impact device and develop guidelines on its use; and provide appropriate training relating to the use of force. To determine compliance with this section’s various requirements, we verify that DPD has both developed the required policy and effectively implemented the policy, including providing any necessary and appropriate training.
DPD has conducted the requisite reviews and revisions of policies, which have been approved by the Department of Justice. The revised policies include a force continuum that identifies lethal and less lethal force options; relates the force options to the types of conduct by the individuals justifying the various force options; and describes de-escalation, disengagement, and other appropriate tactics and responses. The revised firearms policies address qualification requirements, approved firearms and ammunition, and a prohibition on the firing at or from moving vehicles. DPD also selected an intermediate impact device, developed guidelines on its use, and provided the required training. The chemical spray policy requires, when appropriate, a verbal warning prior to the deployment of chemical spray; sets forth requirements for decontamination, medical assistance, and requires supervisory approval if the chemical spray is to be used against a crowd. It prohibits officers from using chemical spray on a handcuffed individual in a police vehicle or keeping a sprayed individual face-down.
To assess implementation of these policies for this and previous reporting periods, we visited police districts, precincts, and other commands; met and discussed operational activities with command, supervisory, and training staff; observed training classes; reviewed arrest, use of force, and related police reports; and reviewed investigations of force, detainee injuries, and allegations of force.
During this reporting period, the Deputy Chief of the Civil Rights Integrity Bureau (CRIB) instituted a revised review procedure for all use of force and detainee injury supervisory investigations. This process includes a detailed review by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) staff prior to final case closure and submission by the command to FI. The objective of the OCR review process is to assist the command in identifying deficiencies and/or required corrective action, when warranted, to enforce a level of supervisory accountability within all levels of the investigating command. Once FI receives a closed case, FI will ensure that the command followed the recommendations and/or required corrections promulgated through the OCR review process.1
1 DPD 35th Quarter Status Report, June 30, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 14 of 197 Pg ID 8697

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 13

September 28, 2012

To assess compliance with the requirements relating to the issuance and carrying of authorized weapons and ammunition, we examined the investigations of critical firearm discharges by FI. During this reporting period, we reviewed documentation that included 13 critical firearm discharges.
The DPD selected the PR-24 collapsible baton as its impact device, and has provided training on its use to 2,406 members (98%) through the final quarter of the fiscal year. In the use of force reports we reviewed during this reporting period, there were no PR-24 related incidents where a subject was struck in the head. We reviewed instances of chemical spray deployments during this reporting period, and found that there were six cases in which chemical spray was utilized. A warning was articulated prior to its use in all of those cases.
During this reporting period, DPD continued its practice of issuing Roll Call Information Bulletins that are designed to improve member compliance with DPD policy reflecting the Consent Judgment requirements. Below are some examples of some of the pertinent bulletins relating to both Judgments; these were issued between March 30, and June 22, 2012.

Date

Teletype No. Subject

3/30/2012 12-0245

4/6/2012

12-0260

4/13/2012 12-0268

Reporting/Documenting the “Acquiring of a Target” Audio/Video Review of the Incident
[Revised] Activity Log (DPD250): Documenting the Acquiring of a Target and the Number of Rounds (ammunition) Carried by Members
Securing of Department Issued Weapons

4/20/2012 12-0299

5/4/2012 5/11/2012

12-0343 12-0359

5/18/2012 12-0385

5/25/2012 6/8/2012 6/15/2012

12-0403 12-0438 12-0459

6/22/2012 12-0489

[Revised] Training Directive 11-01a: Reporting and Documenting “Acquiring of a Target” Audio/Video Procedures for Department Forms Procedures for Conducting Interviews in Conjunction with Administrative Guidelines Guidelines for Recording with the New Wireless Microphone in Patrol Vehicles
Supervisor’s Responsibilities in Allegations of a Use of Force Release of Detainees’ Authorized Prescription Medication Desk Blotter Entries for Detainee Food Service and the Cleaning of Holding Cells/Areas Using “Cut and Paste” Narratives in the Use of Force/Detainee Injury Reports

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 15 of 197 Pg ID 8698

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 14

September 28, 2012

A. General Use of Force Policy
CJ Requirement U14
The DPD shall revise its use of force policies to define force as that term is defined in this Agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with this requirement, we reviewed completed use of force investigations, met with DPD staff, and observed relevant operational activities. We also determined that DPD generated 237 uses of force during the last reporting period, and 334 during this reporting period. With that, the percent of all arrests associated with force rose from 3.8% to 5.4%. We will monitor these results over time to see whether this is transitory or reflects a changing pattern. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U15
The use of force policy shall incorporate a use of force continuum that:
a. identifies when and in what manner the use of lethal and less than lethal force are permitted;
b. relates the force options available to officers to the types of conduct by individuals that would justify the use of such force; and
c. states that de-escalation, disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units are often the appropriate response to a situation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our previous reviews of use of force reports found that they lacked sufficient documentation or specificity with regards to de-escalation and details of actual disengagement to make a definitive determination regarding Phase 2 compliance.2 In the last reporting period, we found that 63% of the Command Level Investigations we reviewed contained sufficient explanations of officers’ efforts to de-escalate or implement some of the disengagement responses suggested in U15c.
Command Level Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 91 Command Level Investigations, which described the conduct of individuals against whom force was used and the
2 Report of the Independent Monitor, issued September 23, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 16 of 197 Pg ID 8699

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 15

September 28, 2012

corresponding response from the involved officers.3 In evaluating de-escalation techniques utilized by the officers, we eliminated 37 incidents in which there was no opportunity to attempt de-escalation.4 There were 54 cases evaluated; in 39 of them, we found evidence of some efforts at de-escalation (72%), an improvement over the 63% registered in the last reporting period. We continue to encourage DPD to emphasize the importance of de-escalation techniques as a means of avoiding violent confrontations between citizens and police, and to emphasize the importance of adequately documenting the steps taken by the officers to minimize the use of force. Deescalation efforts for the purposes of this requirement are those attempted prior to the force being used. Increased video/audio recordings of encounters with the citizens would prove beneficial in achieving compliance with this requirement.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 28 UOF investigations. We found two cases where officers inappropriately escalated force by using choke holds. See U17.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U16
The use of force policy shall reinforce that individuals should be provided an opportunity to submit to arrest before force is used and provide that force may be used only when verbal commands and other techniques that do not require the use of force would be ineffective or present a danger to the officer or others.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 224 use of force reports, of which 200 were applicable to this paragraph. We found that 189 (95%) of the 200 included verbal commands and an opportunity to submit to arrest prior to the use of force; or provided a reason why the verbal command was not given.5

3 We randomly selected 111 cases for review. Of the 111, 20 had no SIR investigations leaving 91 cases for review; of the 20 cases eliminated, seven were assumed by Force Investigations; eight were canine deployments with no contact; four were acquired targets, which do not require SIR investigations; and one, upon further review by DPD, was determined to not be a use of force.
4 Thirty-seven were eliminated: 14 in March; 10 in April; and 13 in May. Cases that were eliminated included, but were not limited to, the subject fleeing as soon as he sees officers; subjects engaged in assaults as officers arrived; subject striking officers without warning; detainee injury; canine apprehensions with no contact, and attempted suicides.
5 The base was reduced from 224 to 200 by eight canine deployments, 12 detainee injuries/attempted suicides, and four instances of insufficient time.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 17 of 197 Pg ID 8700

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 16

September 28, 2012

DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 28 force investigations and found that officers appropriately used verbal commands and provided an opportunity for subjects to submit to arrest prior to the use of force in 11 cases.
The requirements of this CJ paragraph were not applicable in the remaining cases, which involved vehicle pursuits ending in crashes, with fatalities and/or injuries to involved subjects; firearm discharges; or exigent circumstances in which opportunities to give verbal commands were not present. There was one instance involving an unauthorized firearm discharge; the involved officer is facing formal disciplinary action. This represents a 100% compliance rate. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Force Investigations portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U17
The use of force policy shall prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we reviewed 224 use of force reports and 91 completed Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs). There was one case where a subject claimed that he was choked. The officer stated he used a hypoglossal pressure point; the subject verified where the pressure was applied. That pressure point technique is taught by the Training Bureau.
Force Investigations: Our review of 28 force investigations for this reporting period identified two incidents wherein DPD officers used choke holds after the subjects were arrested and placed in custody. The DPD investigations determined that the officers used excessive force. Both officers are facing formal discipline.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U18
The DPD shall develop a revised use of force policy within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The policy shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 18 of 197 Pg ID 8701

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 17

September 28, 2012

shall implement the revised use of force policy within three months of the review and approval of the DOJ.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the effective field implementation of the requirements contained in paragraphs U14-17 and U19. We found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with U14, U16, U17, and U19, but not in compliance with U15; therefore, Phase 2 compliance remains deferred.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Deferred

CJ Requirement U19 The use of force policy shall provide that a strike to the head with an instrument constitutes a use of deadly force. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Use of Force Reports: Our review of 224 use of force reports found no instances of any strikes to the head. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for use of force reports in this paragraph. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for use of force reports. Force Investigations: Our review of 28 investigations completed by Force Investigations revealed no instances where a DPD officer used the Department PR-24 to strike a subject on the head. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U20
The DPD shall revise its use of firearms policies to provide that officers must successfully qualify with their department-issued firearm and any other firearm they are authorized to use or carry on-duty on a bi-annual basis, as described in paragraph 113.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 19 of 197 Pg ID 8702

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 18

September 28, 2012

DPD policy requires officers to attend and qualify at firearms training sessions in the six-month periods ending on December 31 and on June 30 of each year. During the six-month qualification period that ended on December 31, 2011, 99% of the DPD officers who were available to train attended firearms and qualified.
On June 30, 2012, the end of the most recent six-month firearms qualification period (January 1, 2012 through June 30, 2012), 2,394 (98%) of the 2,454 officers available to train attended firearms training and qualified. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement; 98% of the officers available to train qualified during the six-month period that concluded in December 2011.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U21
Officers who fail to re-qualify shall be relieved of police powers and relinquish immediately all department-issued firearms. Those officers who fail to re-qualify after remedial training within a reasonable time shall be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the current six-month firearms qualification period (January 1, through June 30, 2012), 48 members failed to qualify. Twelve officers were in medical “no gun” status and were not required to attend or participate in firearms training. The 48 officers who did not qualify were reported to CRIB; their guns were removed and they were placed in “no gun” status.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Use of Firearms Policy CJ Requirement U22 The firearm policy shall prohibit shooting at or from a moving vehicle except in exceptional circumstances. The policy shall also prohibit officers from intentionally placing themselves in the path of a moving vehicle.6
6 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011; approved by the BOPC, November 3, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 20 of 197 Pg ID 8703

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 19

September 28, 2012

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: During this reporting period, we reviewed 224 use of force reports and 91 Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs), and found no incidents involving officers firing at or from moving vehicles. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for use of force reports in this requirement.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 28 FI investigations, and found one incident involving officers firing at a moving vehicle. In this case, the suspect vehicle was being pursued for traveling at a high speed; it crashed, and as it was slowly rolling toward a stop, an occupant discharged one round from a firearm at the officers. The bullet struck the windshield of the scout car. Both officers in the scout car returned fire, although the vehicle was not at a complete stop. The DPD found the force justified in this case.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U23
The DPD shall identify a limited selection of authorized ammunition and prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition. The DPD shall specify the number of rounds DPD officers shall carry.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During previous site visits, we found officers to be carrying authorized weapons and ammunition, and that the Department had implemented a procedure requiring the inspection of officers’ weapons and ammunition as part of its required biannual firearms training program which officers are required to attend.
During firearms training, officers fire the ammunition that they are carrying and are issued a new supply of approved ammunition. Ammunition is also checked periodically at roll calls when other police equipment (e.g., handcuffs, chemical spray) is inspected.
During the six-month firearms qualification period that ended on June 30, 2012, 98% of DPD officers participated in the biannual qualifications, where they shot their old ammunition, which was replaced with authorized ammunition. In addition, 478 of these officers qualified with a secondary weapon.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 21 of 197 Pg ID 8704

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 20

September 28, 2012

Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Intermediate Force Device Policy
CJ Requirement U24
The DPD shall select an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The DPD shall develop a policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: During this reporting period, we reviewed 224 use of force reports, and found no strikes to the head with the designated intermediate force device (PR-24). At the conclusion of the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 training cycle, a total of 2,406 members (98%) received PR-24 training. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for use of force reports.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 28 cases completed by FI; there was one case where an intermediate force device (PR-24) was used. The DPD officer in this case was exonerated in the use of the PR-24.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for Force Investigations.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

D. Chemical Spray Policy
CJ Requirement U25
The DPD shall revise its chemical spray policy to require officers to:
a. provide a verbal warning and time to allow the subject to comply prior to the use of chemical spray, unless such warnings would present a danger to the officer or others;
b. provide an opportunity for decontamination to a sprayed subject within twenty minutes of the application of the spray or apprehension of the subject;
c. obtain appropriate medical assistance for sprayed subjects when they complain of continued effects after having been de-contaminated or they indicate that they have a pre-existing medical condition (e.g., asthma, emphysema, bronchitis or heart ailment) that may be aggravated by chemical spray and if such signs are observed the subject shall be immediately conveyed to a local hospital for professional medical treatment; and
d. obtain the approval of a supervisor any time chemical spray is used against a crowd.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 22 of 197 Pg ID 8705

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 21

September 28, 2012

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 224 use of force reports and 91 Command Level Investigations. We found six deployments of chemical spray, with warnings or danger articulated in all six (100%) of the cases. This is an increase over the percentage registered during the last reporting period, 78%. During our evaluation of decontamination requirements, we found that all (100%) six cases provided details of decontamination within 20 minutes of spraying or capture. This is an increase from the 67% registered during the last reporting period.
In all cases, officers noted that windows were rolled down to allow for proper ventilation during the transport of subjects. Medical assistance was offered to two of the three subjects requiring it, and two of them were transported to a hospital; three of the subjects did not require medical attention.7
During this reporting period, there was one reported instance of an officer spraying an unruly crowd. The officer stated that he was targeting a particular individual whom he believed was stirring up the crowd, but at least one other person in the crowd was also sprayed.8
As we continue to note, the use of chemical spray by DPD officers is very limited; consequently, the Department’s compliance numbers are affected by the failure of one or two officers to document their actions when using chemical spray. This reporting period represents an improvement over previous reporting periods, in that the warnings were provided in all cases prior to the use of chemical spray and the decontaminations were well documented. DPD needs to address the issue of subjects complaining of burning eyes on the scene and determine what the proper response should be – transportation to DRH for medical attention or to a holding facility; however given the overall improved compliance we are moving the DPD to Pending compliance with this portion of the requirement for this reporting period.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 28 cases completed by FI, and there were no cases of chemical spray being used during the arrest of a subject. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the reporting of the use of chemical spray in the use of force investigations.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
7 The one subject was complaining of burning eyes at the scene; in addition his girlfriend told the supervisors her boyfriend’s eyes were burning. This was clearly a “complaint of continued effects after having been decontaminated” which requires that the DPD “obtain appropriate medical assistance” yet the subject was transported to a holding facility rather than to DRH or access to other medical assistance.
8 In the SIR review, the investigating supervisor noted notice is made of the exigent circumstances in which the officers found themselves, precluding prior authorization from a supervisor. They were in the middle of an unfriendly crowd that had gathered following the arson of a residence in the neighborhood, and assistance was still a distance away.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 23 of 197 Pg ID 8706

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 22

September 28, 2012

Phase 2: Pending Compliance

CJ Requirement U26
The DPD shall prohibit officers from using chemical spray on a handcuffed individual in a police vehicle. The DPD shall also prohibit officers from keeping any sprayed subject in a face down position, in order to avoid positional asphyxia.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 224 use of force reports, and 91 use of force Command Level Investigations. No handcuffed individuals in a police vehicle were sprayed, and no sprayed individuals were placed face-down. There was one instance where a subject was placed in a scout car, and later an effort was made to handcuff him. The officers were able to place a handcuff on one hand, but the subject’s resistance was such that the officers decided to use chemical spray to subdue him and get the other hand cuffed. We do not believe that the tactics used in this incident are DPDapproved tactics; we have recommended that CRIB review this handcuffing process with the Training Bureau. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of the requirement.
Force Investigations: During our review of 28 force investigations, we found no instances of DPD officers using chemical spray on a subject who was handcuffed and in the police scout car. There were no incidents of DPD officers deploying chemical spray on a subject that was in a face-down position.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
• The issue of how best to determine DPD’s efforts at deescalating and disengaging with respect to use of force situations remains a perplexing issue, and one that affects DPD’s compliance with several of the requirements. As we have noted above, an improved reliance on body microphones and a strict requirement that officers utilize them when engaging Detroit citizens could prove beneficial to better documenting the de-escalation techniques.
• DPD is currently providing better documentation of officers’ actions associated with their acquiring of a target when the acquiring of a target is the only force utilized. The districts/precincts are providing DPD 568 Forms that include references to the availability of video/audio recordings – and, if they exist – a detailed description of the contents.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 24 of 197 Pg ID 8707

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 23

September 28, 2012

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to monitor the numbers of use of force reports generated during the next reporting period, and continue to discuss with DPD the issue of documenting the deescalation of use of force situations in an effort to identify a sound methodology for measuring the effort. We will monitor any increase in the reliance on audio recordings to enhance the documentation provided by the officers. We will also meet with CRIB personnel to further discuss the progress being made with the newly established OCR review process.

¶ Requirements 14 Revise use of force policies 15 The use of lethal, less lethal force 16 Opportunity to submit to arrest 17 Prohibit choke holds 18 Approval of policy 19 Strike to the head-deadly force 20 Bi-annual firearms qualification 21 Failure to qualify with firearms 22 Prohibit firing at vehicles 23 Selection of ammunition 24 Intermediate force device 25 Chemical spray policy 26 Spraying handcuffed subjects

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Deferred In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Pending Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 25 of 197 Pg ID 8708

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 24

September 28, 2012

IV DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW
A. General Investigations of Police Action
CJ Requirement U27
The DPD and the City shall revise their policies regarding the conduct of all investigations to ensure full, thorough, and complete investigations. All investigations shall, to the extent reasonably possible, determine whether the officer’s conduct was justified and the DPD and the City shall prohibit the closing of an investigation being conducted by the DPD and/or the City simply because a subject or complainant is unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate, including a refusal to provide medical records or proof of injury.
Comments:
To assess compliance with these requirements, we meet on a quarterly basis with Command, Internal Affairs, Force Investigations, OCI and other staff. We also review relevant investigative and other reports, including the Department’s quarter status reports. The DPD 35th Quarter Status Report, dated June 30, 2012, which sets forth some of the corrective measures initiated by DPD to achieve compliance with this paragraph, notes the following:
“During this reporting quarter the Deputy Chief of CRIB instituted a revised review procedure for all use of force and detainee injury supervisory investigations. This process includes a detailed review by OCR staff prior to final case closure and submission by the command to FI. The objective of the OCR review process is to assist the command in identifying deficiencies and/or required corrective action, when warranted, that shall be instituted in order to enforce a level of supervisory accountability within the investigating command, at all levels. Once received by FI as a closed case, FI will ensure that the command followed the recommendations and/or required corrections promulgated through the OCR review process.”
Command Level Investigations: To assess DPD’s Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for this reporting period, we again met with relevant staff and reviewed 224 use of force reports resulting in 91 SIRs.9 There were no instances where a SIR was closed simply because a subject or complainant was unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate, including a refusal to provide medical records or proof of injury. We also found sufficient justification for officers’ conduct in 86 (95%) of the SIRs. We found no investigations that were closed prematurely.
9 Many of the command-level investigations contained multiple use of force forms. Canine deployments with no contact, acquired target cases, and cases assumed by FI were removed from the numbers reported as SIRs. There was one case in which the SIR was never submitted for review.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 26 of 197 Pg ID 8709

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 25

September 28, 2012

DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: In our previous reports, we noted that our reviews of FI and JIST investigations – which included critical firearm discharges, pursuits, and allegations of excessive force – found these investigations sufficiently detailed to support the findings relating to the conduct of the officer(s) in each case. In addition, no investigations were closed because the subject or complainant was unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate. Although we noted lack of detail or required specificity in early cases, FI addressed these issues with strengthened supervision and in-service training.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 28 FI cases, and found them in compliance with the requirements. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI cases portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During our previous reviews of completed cases, we noted that while the case files generally contained sufficient facts to support a determination that justified or did not justify an officer’s actions, there were several inconsistencies between investigators, and some cases lacked the necessary information to reach a proper determination. Additionally, we noted cases that were improperly administratively closed, and cases that were significantly overdue, impacting DPD’s ability to reach appropriate conclusions many months after the alleged occurrence.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled cases from the 579 cases that were closed in April, May, and June 2012. (This represents a 7% increase in closed cases over the previous reporting period.) Generally, the investigations established sufficient facts to support determinations that justified or did not justify the actions of the officer(s) or non-sworn member of the Department.10 However, we continue to note a significant number of cases that appear to have been closed prematurely (18 cases during the previous reporting period; 16 cases during this reporting period). During this reporting period, four of these cases were closed administratively – three by administrative closure and one by informal complaint resolution (ICR).
The three administratively closed cases each did not meet one of the five criteria for administrative closure (lack of sufficient details as to officers involved, lack of sufficient details as to facts surrounding the incident, lack of merit, or no allegation of misconduct and an uncooperative complainant). One involved missing property after the complainant was released from jail. While the complainant ultimately refused to cooperate, the complaint did not lack specificity – the property, date, time, location, and involved officers were provided. Another case stemmed from a complaint of illegal search and damage to property. Two officers were interviewed and then the case was inexplicably administratively closed. The third case involved a complaint of reckless driving on the part of a traffic officer. It was closed for lack of specificity, despite the fact that a date, time, location, and six of the seven digits in the vehicle’s identification number were provided. The OCI investigator claimed that she was unable to identify the vehicle; yet a sergeant in the Office of Civil Rights ascertained the involved vehicle with a few minutes of effort.
10 If an allegation appropriately received a finding of unfounded or not sustained, justification for the conduct was not assessed since, by definition, its occurrence was either refuted or not substantiated.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 27 of 197 Pg ID 8710

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 26

September 28, 2012

The case that was informally resolved concerned allegations of failure to leave a copy of a search warrant and failure to return property. After 193 days, the decision was made to close the case by ICR. First, it did not meet the criteria for informal resolution (a claim of innocence of a charge or a service complaint); and second, an allegation that officers acted inappropriately in the presence of a female went unaddressed.
Six cases were closed prior to each allegation being addressed. In some cases, allegations documented in the Citizen Complaint Report (CCR) were not investigated. In others, we learned of additional, unaddressed allegations only by listening to interviews. These cases are further described in CJ Requirement U69.
While complainants failed to cooperate in 29% of the cases, their lack of cooperation was not a factor in the closing of these cases.
With an 84% compliance rate, the City is not in compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, we interviewed IAD supervisors and selected staff, and reviewed the 24 cases that were closed by IAD in April, May, and June 2012. We assessed the investigations for consistency with the procedures contained in applicable DPD directives and generally accepted law enforcement techniques – specifically relating to procedural fairness, timeliness, confidentiality, and the meticulous reporting of facts and results of an investigation.
We found that all of the cases were sufficiently investigated – including five cases where the complainants and/or witnesses failed to respond to requests to be interviewed. In one case, the complainant never submitted proof of the alleged medical treatment. All of the cases met the requirements of this paragraph.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U28
The DPD and the City shall ensure that investigations are conducted by a supervisor who did not authorize witness or participate in the incident and that all investigations contain:
a. documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene during the incident and a canvas of the scene to identify civilian witnesses;
b. thorough and complete interviews of all witnesses, subject to paragraph 31 below and an effort to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements;
c. photographs of the subject’s(s’) and officer’s(s’) injuries or alleged injuries; and
d. documentation of any medical care provided.
Comments:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 28 of 197 Pg ID 8711

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 27

September 28, 2012

The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: During the last reporting period, we found that thorough and complete interviews were conducted in only 66% of the cases. In addition, of the cases we reviewed that contained material inconsistencies, supervisors attempted to resolve these inconsistencies in only 35%. Photos of officer or subject injuries were ordered in 85% of the cases where they should have been requested.
During this reporting period, we determined the following:
• There were two cases in which the investigating supervisor authorized, witnessed, or participated in the incident; and one that is unknown, as the report was not submitted for review. This resulted in a 97% compliance rate. In 88 (97%) of the cases, the names of all of the officers involved or on the scene during the incident were included. In 84 (92%) of the cases, the investigating supervisor conducted a canvass to identify civilian witnesses or explained why a canvass was not conducted.
• We found that thorough and complete interviews were conducted in only 68 (75%) of the cases. The issues associated with this finding continue as previously documented and include: the one-question interviews; the willingness on the part of investigators to accept general statements from officers; and the failure to ask follow-up questions. We continue to encourage supervisors to focus on the who, what, where, when, why, and how questioning used by journalists and other investigative writers for basic information gathering. We are finding more command-level reviewers, from the first reviewing supervisor through the commander, performing more critical review of the interviews, but not yet in sufficient numbers to materially affect the compliance rate for this category.
• Thirty-six of the cases we reviewed contained material inconsistencies; supervisors attempted to resolve the inconsistencies in 12 (33%) of these. We reiterate that it is incumbent on individuals involved in the command-level review to question material inconsistencies that are not addressed and resolved by the investigator, taking the appropriate corrective actions. First-line supervisors must conduct more critical reviews.
• In 58 cases, photos should have been requested for officer or subject injuries. The reports noted that photos were ordered in 48 (83%) of the cases. Sixty-nine of the cases could have included documentation of medical care; 64 (93%) did. Not all of the administered medical care was related to police actions. Twenty of the cases involved care ranging from psychiatric evaluations to asthma to a need for medications.
We continue to emphasize the need for the critical review of completed investigations, especially at the first reviewing supervisory level, which is the first review level. Inspectors and commanders are becoming more involved in the reviews and that is a positive step, but it is important that they ensure that levels below them are also complying with their responsibilities.
The Command Level Investigations are not in Phase 2 compliance with these requirements.
Force Investigations: Our previous reviews of force investigations found appropriate documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene of the various incidents. The cases also contained witness interviews (recorded and written). The

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 29 of 197 Pg ID 8712

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 28

September 28, 2012

investigations we reviewed also contained documentation of canvasses for civilian witnesses and any medical care provided.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 28 force investigations.11 The case files included complete documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene of the various incidents, canvasses for civilian witnesses in all applicable cases, and any medical care that was provided.
The investigations contained witness interviews, both written and recorded. We noted continued improvement by FI in addressing material conflicts in investigations. Investigators used recorded statements and video evidence to address material inconsistencies and identify when officers or citizens were untruthful during an investigation.
We found that 16 of the 28 cases required photographs of the subjects’ or officers’ injuries to meet the requirements of this paragraph. One investigation did not contain photographs of the officer’s or subject’s injuries as required; however, the DPD identified this omission and initiated formal discipline in this circumstance for the policy violation making the compliance rate for this section >94%.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled OCI investigations. All of the cases were investigated by investigators who did not authorize, witness, or participate in the incidents being investigated. In 14 cases, involved officers were not identified by both name and badge number. One case was transferred to Internal Investigations based on the allegations and before steps were taken to identify the officers involved. In two cases, the officers were apparently known but not identified by name and badge number in the investigative summary. In the remaining cases, OCI took diligent steps to identify involved personnel. If they were not identified, they were listed as “unknown.”
Canvasses were generally deficient, as outlined in U32. We noted two cases in which investigators failed to attempt to contact potential witnesses. One involved a lack of medical attention in a detention facility. The complainant indicated that both sworn personnel and other detainees were potential witnesses, but DPD made no efforts to identify or interview them. In the other case, the complainant called his mother twice on a cell phone during his interactions with DPD officers so she could hear their demeanor; however, DPD made no apparent attempts to contact her. In many other cases, witnesses refused to cooperate, but investigators documented their steps to try to obtain statements.
In all but one of the cases alleging excessive force that were retained by OCI (one case was transferred to Force Investigations), photographs were referenced where appropriate. In most of the cases, force could not be substantiated and use of force documentation, including photographs, did not exist. In nine cases, it was appropriate to reference medical care; and in all but one, the documentation was included in the investigative packages.

11 These investigations included 14 critical firearm discharge events and three vehicle pursuits.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 30 of 197 Pg ID 8713

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 29

September 28, 2012

With greater than 94% compliance with the paragraph requirements, the City is in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: We reviewed all 24 IAD cases that were completed by IAD during this reporting period. The investigations consistently included the names and badge numbers of all officers who were involved in or on the scene during an incident. IAD expended particular efforts in identifying officers when allegations of criminal misconduct were reported and the officer(s) was unknown to the complainant. IAD conducted canvasses to identify witnesses or obtain any video recordings that might be available from businesses near the location. IAD now has the capacity to access recordings from in-car video storage from the division’s desktop computers. If any related evidence has been recorded, it can be requested from the Technical Services Unit within a 90-day period. We also found in the cases that we reviewed that witnesses were interviewed, and that the investigators made an effort to resolve inconsistencies between witness statements.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U29
The DPD and the City shall revise their procedures for all investigatory interviews to require:
a. officers who witness or are involved in an incident to provide a timely statement regarding the incident (subject to paragraph 31 below);
b. whenever practicable and appropriate, interviews of complainants and witnesses be conducted at sites and times convenient for them, including at their residences or places of business; and
c. that all IAD, OCI and Critical Firearm Discharge Investigations shall also include inperson video or audio tape-recorded interviews of all complainants, witnesses, and involved DPD officers and prohibit group interviews. In cases where complainants/witnesses refuse in-person video or audio tape recorded interviews, written statements shall be taken and signed by the complainant/witness along with a signed refusal statement by the complainant/witness.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: During the last reporting period, we found that in 95% of the cases we reviewed, timely statements were taken from officers who were involved or who witnessed the incident. We also found that the interviews of complainants and witnesses were conducted at sites and times convenient for them in 100% of the cases we reviewed.
During this reporting period, we determined that in 79 (87%) of the 91 cases we reviewed, timely statements were taken from officers who were involved in or witnessed the incident. This

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 31 of 197 Pg ID 8714

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 30

September 28, 2012

percentage is lower than the 95% noted in our last report. The interviews of complainants and witnesses were conducted at sites and times convenient for them in 89 (98%) of the 91 cases we reviewed. The reduction in timely statement compliance from the 95% rate during the last reporting period to 87% during this reporting period places DPD in jeopardy regarding its Phase 2 compliance status for the Command Level Investigations. If the rate remains below >94% in our next quarterly evaluation, DPD will be removed from phase 2 compliance at that time.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for use of force reports.
Force Investigations: In previous reporting periods, we noted that statements were generally taken at sites and times convenient for the person(s) being interviewed. However, we expressed concerns that statements from witness officers were unnecessarily delayed, or that investigators instead relied on the officer’s Crisnet report. We noted that there were significant delays in taking Garrity statements due to the practice of awaiting prosecution declinations from the District Attorney. We also noted our concerns regarding the variance in practice between FI and Homicide members of the Joint Incident Shooting Team (JIST) when interviewing witnesses and taking statements. Specifically, we were concerned with the practice adopted by Homicide members of JIST to take written, rather than recorded, statements. This is a longstanding issue that the Department has not yet addressed.
To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 28 closed FI cases, and continued to find much the same as described above. Statements were generally taken at sites and times convenient for the person(s) being interviewed. Statements of non-police witnesses were generally taken in a timely manner, usually within minutes or hours of the event; however, in seven cases, statements that were taken from involved officers under the provisions of Garrity were unnecessarily delayed.
The number of delays with the Garrity interviews of involved officers in these cases decreased from the last reporting period, but remained at an unacceptable level of 52 to 342 days from the date of the incident. During this reporting period, we found no Garrity interviews of witness officers unnecessarily delayed; however, we reviewed one case where the FI investigator did not interview a civilian witness that was a ride-along in the scout car until 31 months after the incident. We have discussed with FI our concern regarding interview delays for a host of reasons – not the least of which is credibility. As we have previously noted, officers’ recollections of the facts, weeks and months after an event, particularly one involving the use of deadly force, are externally and perhaps significantly affected by news accounts and their interactions with friends, family, and colleagues, and thus, often altered. The practice of delaying interviews, for whatever reason, mitigates the accuracy and credibility of the information provided by officers. In addition, aside from investigative reasoning regarding the delaying of interviews of involved officers, we find no legitimate basis to delay interviews of witness officers; quite the contrary, there is a compelling need to interview all witnesses – including witness officers – in an expeditious manner.
As reported, the delays discussed above often result from the desire to await a declination decision from the District Attorney. Accordingly, we examined 28 cases closed by FI during this reporting period, and found seven where a prosecutorial decision from the Wayne County District Attorney’s Office was sought with the following results:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 32 of 197 Pg ID 8715

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 31

September 28, 2012

• Six of the seven cases involved critical firearm discharge events, and one case involved an in-custody death resulting from a drug overdose.
• All seven cases included Garrity interviews conducted by FI prior to the prosecutorial decision by the District Attorney.
• All seven cases include requests for prosecutorial decisions that are still pending receipt. The oldest prosecutorial decision pending as of June 30, 2012 is 465 days, and the most recent pending request made prior to the end of this reporting period is 12 days. None of the seven cases included Garrity interviews that were completed within 30 days from the date the prosecutorial decision was rendered, or completion of the criminal prosecution, as required by paragraph U38.
• None of the seven cases included Garrity interviews completed within 30 days after the prosecutorial decision was rendered or completion of the criminal prosecution as required by paragraph U38.
There are few situations requiring more diligence or professional police response than an allegation or a perceived use of excessive force – especially when involving a critical firearm discharge. All warrant a priority, thorough response and expeditious conclusion. We encourage the DPD, with the cooperation of the District Attorney, to continue to resolve these issues.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph with a compliance rate of 75%.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During previous reporting periods, we noted ongoing issues with untimely interviews, particularly of officers. Interviews of sworn personnel frequently take place many months after the incident complained of. Often, no reason is given for the delay other than the difficulty in scheduling the interviews. We noted that complainant/witness and officer interviews were, with limited exceptions, properly recorded.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled investigations. Timely interviews of involved parties, particularly officers, continue to be an issue. In 36 of the cases we reviewed, employee interviews were untimely. In several cases, investigators cited difficulty in scheduling employee interviews as a reason for requesting an extension. However, a review of the Significant Event Logs often revealed that attempts to schedule interviews were not made until well into the 90-day timeframe allowed for investigations, and sometimes after the 90-day mark had passed. In several cases, the first attempt to schedule officer interviews came after an extension request.
Complainants were identified as uncooperative in 29 of the investigations we reviewed. OCI investigators relied on the synopsis contained in the Citizen Complaint Report in these cases. When complainants and witnesses were available for interviews, they were recorded, either over the telephone or in person. Timeliness issues notwithstanding, when interviews were conducted, they were administered and recorded in accordance with requirements. We did not note any instances of complainants or witnesses refusing recorded statements when participating in the investigation.
The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 33 of 197 Pg ID 8716

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 32

September 28, 2012

Internal Affairs Division Investigations: During earlier reporting periods, we found that the DPD directive requiring timely statements from officers was inconsistently applied. Interviews of involved witness officers were often delayed with little justification other than unavailability. There were exceptions involving pending criminal proceedings against officers in some cases.
During this reporting period, timely interviews were appropriately conducted in all of the 24 cases that we reviewed.
When the Internal Affairs Alert Teams, who are available or on-call 24 hours a day, respond to a complaint or allegation of criminal activity or serious misconduct by a Department member, preliminary interviews are conducted immediately and according to DPD directives.
In all of the investigations, complainants and witnesses were interviewed at times and sites convenient for them. DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U30
The DPD and the City procedures for all investigatory interviews shall prohibit:
a. the use of leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s(s’) actions when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques; and
b. the use of interviews via written questions when it is contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command-Level Investigations: During the last reporting period, we found 73 cases (96%) in which the question-and-answer format was used to document officer interviews in the SIR; in four (5%), investigators asked improper leading questions.
During this reporting period, we found that in 81 (94%) of 86 cases, the question-and-answer format, without the use of leading questions, was used to document officer interviews in the SIR.12 In six (7%) of these cases, the investigator utilized leading questions. There were no interviews via written questions contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level portion of this requirement.
Force Investigations: Our previous review of FI cases for compliance with these requirements found instances where leading questions were contained in written statements. Additionally,
12 Five of the cases did not utilize a question-and-answer format, reducing the base to 76 cases.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 34 of 197 Pg ID 8717

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 33

September 28, 2012

when listening to randomly selected recorded interviews conducted by various investigators, we noted that investigators asked leading questions in 80% of the interviews.
We also noted that the details of Garrity interviews are often adversely affected by the excessive delays in scheduling them. Officers being interviewed are routinely referring to their Crisnet reports and/or do not have a recollection of specific details because so much time has elapsed between the incident and the day of their interview. We noted that investigators routinely fail to ask appropriate follow-up questions leaving the interviews appearing to revolve around reporting – not investigating. And finally we noted our continued concern with investigators’ lack of preparation to conduct Garrity interviews.
To assist with the assessment of compliance for this reporting period, we requested several randomly selected recorded statements taken from police officers. The recordings were not received; therefore we are unable to determine whether the deficiencies cited in our previous reports have been resolved. Accordingly, we are deferring findings on this section for this reporting period.

Office of the Chief Investigator: OCI supplied digitally recorded interviews for both sworn and civilian interviewees for a randomly selected subset of our review sample. During this reporting period, we listened to 81 interviews (52 employees, 29 citizens) associated with 19 cases. Generally, investigators are employing proper interviewing techniques, using open-ended rather than leading questions. We continue to note some OCI investigators using “Do you recall,” rather than simply directly asking a question. This occurred mainly in the older cases in our sample, since we have been encouraging OCI to address this poor interviewing technique for several reporting periods.
During this reporting period, we noted six instances in which leading questions were used. We also noted four instances in which the investigator began the interview by reading the complaint form to complainants and witnesses. Again, this occurred in the older cases, and it appears that OCI has been addressing this issue in the more recent cases because of our recommendation that it eliminate this practice.
Written questions were included in four cases, although it is probable that they were used to structure interviews in many more cases. In each case, the questions we reviewed were appropriate and in keeping with accepted law enforcement practices. During our April site visit, the acting Chief Investigator issued a directive requiring that all investigators “prepare core Garrity questions in advance and attach those questions within the file.” This not only serves to structure the interviews, but also allows another investigator to more easily conduct an interview if the primary investigator is unavailable. We anticipate seeing more written questions as we review cases that were opened after the directive was issued.
We note a wide disparity in the interviewing skills of OCI’s investigators, and have recommended that supervising investigators either observe the interviews conducted by OCI’s investigators or listen to the recordings, in order to identify training needs and provide appropriate, individualized corrective measures. We advised the acting Chief Investigator that during this reporting period, we would review a list of interviews monitored by the supervising

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 35 of 197 Pg ID 8718

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 34

September 28, 2012

investigators. The supervising investigators provided documentation that they either observed, or reviewed recordings of, interviews in 51 cases during the reporting period.
The City is in compliance with the OCI portion of this requirement.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: Since the first reporting period, we have found no evidence of the use of leading questions during IAD interviews. During this reporting period, we reviewed all 24 investigations that were completed by IAD, and again, did not find any indication that investigators conducted interviews via the use of leading questions. In all cases, we sought evidence in the case summary that the investigators had asked particular questions to clarify complainants’ and witnesses statements, and/or physical evidence.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
We continue our compliance findings for this paragraph; however the DPD should take the necessary steps to assure requested interview recordings are provided for our review during the next reporting period in order assure continued compliance.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U31
The DPD and the City shall develop a protocol for when statements should (and should not) be compelled pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The directive provides criminal and administrative guidelines for investigators and supervisors regarding when statements should and should not be compelled from officers during internal investigations. In addition, it requires that all officers sign a Certificate of Notification of Constitutional Rights - Departmental Investigations prior to any interview.
The protocol also requires that all officers sign a Certificate of Notification of Constitutional Rights - Departmental Investigations prior to any interview.
Our reviews of SIR, IAD, FI, and OCI investigations found supervisors and investigators compliant with applicable Garrity requirements. In all of the cases involving officer interviews, proper protocols pursuant to Garrity were followed. Each case contained documentation that officers were advised of their rights, and all of the officer interviews we listened to begin with an on–the-record acknowledgement of Garrity rights. However, we have noted unnecessary delays of interviews with witness officers due to a misconception that these interviews must be delayed pending the completion of a criminal review. This practice mitigates the credibility of both the interviews and the investigations.
Despite this, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 36 of 197 Pg ID 8719

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 35

September 28, 2012

Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U32
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding all investigatory reports and evaluations to require:
a. a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident, including a detailed account of the subject’s(s’) or complainant’s(s’) and officer’s(s’) actions and an evaluation of the initial stop or seizure;
b. a review of all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence;
c. that the fact that a subject or complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense shall it justify discontinuing the investigation;
d. reasonable credibility determinations, with no automatic preference given to an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement or discounting of a witness’s statement merely because the witness has some connection to the subject or complainant
e. an evaluation of whether an officer complied with DPD policy;
f. an evaluation of all uses of force, including the officer’s tactics, and any allegations or evidence of misconduct uncovered during the course of the investigation;
g. all administrative investigations to be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard;
h. written documentation of the basis for extending the deadline of a report and evaluation and provide that the circumstances justifying an extension do not include an investigator’s vacation or furlough and that problems with investigator vacations or workload should result in the matter being reassigned; and
i. any recommended non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action be documented in writing.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our assessment of compliance with the Phase 2 requirements of this paragraph included interviews with relevant staff; and a review of closed command-level, FI, IAD, and OCI cases.
Command Level Investigations: During the current reporting period, we found the following:
• The data reflects a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident, including a detailed account of the subject(s) or complainants and officer(s) actions in 58 (64%) of the investigations, a decrease from the 68% registered during the last reporting period. Some of the issues that continue to adversely affect compliance in this area include: insufficient details in any of the interviews; no information as to how the prisoners were handcuffed; interviews that appear almost verbatim from officer to officer; officers providing statements which are evasive and nebulous, and investigators

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 37 of 197 Pg ID 8720

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 36

September 28, 2012

not asking follow-up questions; investigators failing to address discrepancies between officer statements; and investigators failing to interview complainants/victims.13 In 87 (96%) of the cases, an evaluation of the initial stop or seizure was conducted.
• In 52 (72%) of the cases, all of the relevant evidence – including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence – was reviewed.14 This is an increase from the 64% we found during the last reporting period. As we have previously mentioned, we are placing greater emphasis on the review of available video and audio recordings in the evaluation of this requirement. We continue to assert that the review of both video and audio recordings of citizen contacts with DPD members is essential to use of force investigations and consequently we continue to recommend, in the strongest of terms, that DPD initiate all of the corrective actions necessary to ensure that encounters are captured in both video and audio recordings. Every effort should be made to review video/audio recordings prior to the submission of the SIR. The failure to have these reviews conducted prior to the submission of the final report is an unacceptable practice. In one of the 91 cases we reviewed, we were unable to determine if the fact that a subject or complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense was considered as evidence of whether a DPD officer engaged in misconduct. We were likewise unable to determine if this information was used to justify discontinuing the investigation.
• Eighty-eight (97%) of the investigations contained evidence that reasonable credibility determinations, with no automatic preference given to an officer’s statement over a nonofficer’s statement, were made to reach conclusions regarding the investigations. This is an increase from the 100% we found during the last reporting period. Eighty-three (91%) of the investigations contained an evaluation of whether or not an officer complied with DPD policy. This is an increase from the 89% we found during the last reporting period. The primary issues impacting on compliance with this requirement continue to include the failure to document officers not recording the shift (no audio recordings of citizen contacts), the officers failing to make force notifications from the scene, officers not utilizing the zone dispatcher to notify of the use of force, and officers not completing their 002 forms in a timely fashion or supervisors not approving them in a timely basis. As previously noted, this failure to deal with policy violations can be corrected through more critical reviews of the investigative work product, getting the issues corrected before submission to MAS. Seventy-eight (98%) of the 80 cases that we reviewed contained an evaluation of the use of force.15 Officers’ tactics were evaluated in 81 (89%) of the cases; during the last reporting period, we found this number to be 100%. There were four cases with misconduct identified; 96% had no misconduct identified.
• Eighty-six (95%) of the 80 cases were evaluated on a preponderance of the evidence standard. This is a decrease from the 99% that we found during the last reporting period. Sixty-nine of the cases (76%) met both the 10- and 30-day submission requirements; of
13 This is not an all-inclusive list.
14 Nineteen of the units had no equipment installed.
15 Eleven cases were eliminated, as they were detainee injuries or attempted suicides, with no use of force.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 38 of 197 Pg ID 8721

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 37

September 28, 2012

the remaining 22 cases, nine (41%) contained documentation of the delays, either by a formal extension request or by notations in the file reflecting submission dates, return for corrections dates, and final submission dates. Of the 13 that did not, the issues identified included extension requests submitted after the due date, unapproved extension requests, no extension request submitted for a case submitted 50 days after the incident with no explanation, and investigations not assigned in a timely fashion. We continue to urge DPD to provide guidance to the various commands regarding the importance of properly documenting the extensions and the returns of reports for corrections routinely documented in the Timeline section of the SIRs. Documents returned for corrections should reflect the new due dates. There were 70 SIRs in which corrective action might have been taken; corrective action was documented in 58 (83%) of the investigations. Inclusive in the corrective action were misconduct investigations, negative administrative counseling registers, re-instructs, re-training, written reprimands, and verbal counseling.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level Investigations portion of this requirement.
Force Investigations: Our review of completed FI cases for previous reporting periods found them to be in overall compliance, but we noted cases wherein there was no evaluation of the initial stop and/or seizure; no reference to the presence or absence of circumstantial evidence; and a lack of reference to the conducting of credibility determinations.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we examined 28 completed case files and noted the continued inclusion of a detailed account of the facts of the event.16 Investigators evaluated the initial stop/contact in each case, but need to more thoroughly evaluate available direct, circumstantial, and physical evidence. For example, investigators need to review related police reports; medical documentation for injured subjects; and autopsy reports. Investigators miss opportunities to complete thorough and factual investigations when evidence is obtained and not properly analyzed.
During this reporting period, there were no instances where a subject’s court-related appearances had any effect on the outcome of investigations.
The files documented some reasonable credibility determinations, but demonstrated the need for FI to continue to provide training on this issue. We found that investigations contained reviews of tactics and identified officers’ unrelated conduct violations. Findings were based mostly on a preponderance of evidence standard, and recommended referrals for disciplinary intervention were documented.
We found that investigations contained reviews of tactics and identified officers’ unrelated conduct violations. Findings were based mostly on a preponderance of evidence standard, and recommended referrals for disciplinary intervention were documented.
We noted during this assessment that no extensions were requested or documented. Nonetheless, despite the lack of requested extensions, 18 of the 28 (64%) of the submitted FI cases were untimely, and extensions should have been requested and documented. We recognize the
16 These investigations included 14 critical firearm discharge events and three vehicle pursuits.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 39 of 197 Pg ID 8722

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 38

September 28, 2012

challenges inherent with effective case management, and recognize the continued efforts of DPD – particularly IAD and FI staff – to address them. Regardless, it is difficult to justify the approval of deadline extensions to conduct interviews, obtain an officer’s discipline history, obtain videotapes relating to an event, or locate complainants or subjects weeks or months after an incident.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: We noted in our previous reports that OCI investigations were most often not completed within the prescribed 90-day timeframe. Requests for extensions were frequently submitted well after the case was overdue, and adequate justification of the need for the extension was rarely provided. The delay in securing timely interviews has been a recurring problem that has impacted the quality of the investigations. However, OCI investigations have generally been factual and complete, and more often than not the preponderance of evidence standard is used in reaching determinations.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected cases. One complaint was filed in 2010. Forty-six of the complaints were lodged in 2011. Fifty-three cases were received – and closed – in 2012. In all of the cases, there was a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident complained of. However, we noted six cases in which additional allegations were raised during interviews, but not documented or addressed. In one case, a detainee indicated that he became ill during his two-day incarceration because he was not given his prescription medication. Not only was this complaint not documented or investigated, but the investigator wrote that the complainant “did not indicate that he had other health concerns.” In the other five cases, either complainants or witnesses complained of profane language being used by DPD officers. The investigators did not address these demeanor allegations. In one of these cases, an investigator wrote that a witness stated the officers were “not rude or unprofessional,” despite the witness’ claim that officers used profanity.
In two cases, OCI did not consider the relevant evidence available in a case. One case involved the allegation of poor driving mentioned above, in which there was clearly enough information to identify the vehicle. The other case, also mentioned above, involved the complainant calling his mother on two separate cell phones during his encounter with DPD so that she could listen to their interactions.
We note that investigators generally explore the availability of video evidence in cases where it is appropriate. In 37 cases, investigators appropriately inquired as to the availability of video. In 29, or 76%, of these cases, video evidence was not available. This is concerning, given the large monetary and resource investment that DPD has made in this technology. We continue to recommend that investigators inquire about video as early in the investigation as possible, as retention times for both DPD and private sources can result in the deletion of the video before it can be acquired. In addition, there were eight other cases in which video evidence might have been available, but OCI did not document any efforts to obtain it.
We found no evidence where a complainant’s conviction or guilty plea had a bearing on the investigation. However, credibility assessments were lacking for both officers and complainants/witnesses.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 40 of 197 Pg ID 8723

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 39

September 28, 2012

In all of the cases we reviewed, we noted appropriate evaluation of whether officers complied with DPD policy.17
In four cases, OCI did not discover potential misconduct. Two involved possible truthfulness allegations, in that the officers were sustained for activity they denied during their interviews. In one, a complaint of rudeness in a detention facility, an officer’s denial was refuted by video evidence. In the other case, a demeanor allegation during an investigation at a business establishment was sustained based on witness statements. In another case, we learned through listening to interviews that the investigator went to great lengths to establish that officers failed to make a mandatory arrest in a domestic violence investigation. However, this was never documented or treated as a separate allegation. In the last case, an officer admitted to using profanity. While this was identified in the summary of his statement, it was not addressed as potential misconduct.
In 13 cases, the preponderance of evidence standard was not used. This is based on our determination that not all potential evidence was considered, or different findings were warranted based on the documentation provided for our review. For example, allegations that were unfounded or exonerated by investigators would more appropriately be classified as not sustained based on the information in the case file.
Sixty-three of the cases we reviewed were not completed within the prescribed 90-day time period. Written requests for extension were submitted in 33 of these 63 cases, frequently after the investigations were already overdue. None of the requests mentioned workload as a reason for the extension in contradiction of policy and this paragraph. As a rule, the extension requests do not adequately identify why the extensions are required, nor do they explain long periods of investigative inactivity leading up to the requests. In at least seven cases, investigators cited the difficulty in scheduling Garrity interviews as the reason for needing an extension. In each of these cases, the first attempt to schedule these interviews came after the extension requests were filed. In another case, an investigator identified the need to interview both witnesses and officers. No witnesses existed in the case and the involved officers were never identified, much less interviewed. We noted several other requests that contained boilerplate language, or simply asked for an extension with no justification given – leading us to conclude that extension requests are routinely approved with little or no verification of their content.
There were no cases in which corrective action or disciplinary action was recommended as a result of the investigation. All sustained cases were referred to the Office of the Chief of Police “for appropriate action.”
We reviewed several cases in which the canvasses were either deficient or performed so long after the alleged occurrence as to have no investigative value.
In summary, although appropriate directives are in place, our analysis of OCI investigations does not support a Phase 2 compliance finding with this paragraph.

17 If an allegation appropriately received a finding of unfounded or not sustained, evaluation of policy compliance was not assessed since, by definition, its occurrence was either refuted or not substantiated.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 41 of 197 Pg ID 8724

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 40

September 28, 2012

Internal Affairs Division Investigations: Our review during this reporting period found that the IAD investigative packages continue to be well organized, and elements of the investigation are easy to locate. We found that the IAD investigations were conducted in a professional manner. The supervisor meets with the investigators every two weeks to discuss the case progress and grant extensions when necessary. During this review of 24 completed IAD investigations, we found that there were precise descriptions of the incidents and reviews of all relevant evidence. There were three cases that exceeded the 90-day requirement. In those cases, extensions were requested and appropriately granted. Appropriate credibility determinations were made in all of the cases, and ultimately the determinations were made using the preponderance of evidence standard. In four of the 24 investigations, additional DPD policy violations were identified and sustained.
DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U33
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding the review of all investigations to require:
a. investigations to be reviewed by the chain of command above the investigator;
b. the reviewing supervisors to identify any deficiencies in those investigations and require the investigator to correct any deficiencies within seven days of the submission of the report and evaluation to the reviewing supervisor;
c. the reviewing supervisors to recommend and the final reviewing authority to refer any incident with training, policy or procedural implications to the appropriate DPD unit;
d. appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action when an investigator fails to conduct or reviewing supervisor fails to evaluate an investigation appropriately; and
e. a written explanation by any supervisor, including the Chief of Police, who disagrees with a finding or departs from a recommended non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action, including the basis for the departure.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our assessment of compliance with the Phase 2 requirements of this paragraph included interviews with staff; and a review of closed command-level, FI, IAD, and OCI cases.
Command Level Investigations: Our assessment for this reporting period found that in 88 (97%) of the 91 SIRs reviewed there was a chain of command review above the investigator. DPD identified deficiencies in 83 (91%) of the 80 cases, with 51 requiring corrections within seven days of submission. In 10 of the cases, DPD made recommendations that training, policy, or

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 42 of 197 Pg ID 8725

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 41

September 28, 2012

procedural issues be referred to the appropriate DPD unit. In 13 instances, the final reviewing authority referred the matter to an appropriate DPD unit. There were 17 instances of DPD taking corrective action for investigations that were not conducted properly; the corrective action included re-instruction, training, and the issuance of corrective memos. There were six instances where appropriate actions were taken for investigations that had not been evaluated appropriately by the reviewing supervisor, to include re-instruction and Negative Administrative Counseling Registers.
As we have previously mentioned, the review of SIRs by the command level remains the most critical step in the conduct of these investigations. We note that during this reporting period inspectors and commanders have become more involved in critical reviews of the investigations. It is incumbent on that level to continue to correct deficiencies in the investigations, and to ensure that the appropriate units are consulted if any procedural or tactical issues are identified.
DPD is not in compliance with the Command Level Investigations portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: In our previous reviews of FI cases for compliance with these requirements, we noted that the case files included chain of command reviews and recommended referrals to training. The investigations also included references to supervisors’ requests for additional information or investigative work.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 28 completed FI cases. Although we are sufficiently satisfied, based on our discussions with FI staff, that supervisory reviews and evaluations are occurring, we were unable to find some supporting documentation referred by FI as Case Review Sheets. We recommend that these reviews be more thoroughly documented. Considering the fact that 16 of the cases we reviewed were very late, correcting deficiencies within seven days in these investigations is insignificant for the purpose of compliance with this paragraph. Only 43% of the cases we reviewed were timely.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: In our previous reports, we noted our inability to determine what appropriate supervisory intervention has taken place when investigations are deficient. While there has been evidence of supervisory review in most cases, when investigations are returned, specific issues and corrective measures were usually not documented. Glaring deficiencies such as chronic timeliness issues, which would warrant counseling and/or discipline, were not addressed in writing.
For the current reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 100 closed investigations. During this reporting period, 32 cases were returned for deficiencies. Most of these were for spelling, grammar, and formatting. In 39 of the cases, we believe glaring deficiencies were either missed or not corrected within seven days. These include lack of investigative activity for long periods of time, as well as many of the issues cited above, such as investigative shortcomings and failure to submit proper extension requests.
We did not review any cases in which a reviewer disagreed with the recommended findings of the investigator.
The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of the paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 43 of 197 Pg ID 8726

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 42

September 28, 2012

Internal Affairs Division Investigations: During this reporting period, the IAD supervisor used the case management system, Case Trax, to record any deficiencies and instructions in the investigators’ progress notes. All of the investigations were reviewed and approved by the chain of command above the investigators within the required timeframe.
IAD is in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

B. Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations
CJ Requirement U34
The DPD shall revise its reporting policies to require officers to document on a single auditable form any prisoner injury, use of force, allegation of use of force, and instance in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In the last reporting period, we found that 73% of the auditable forms (UF002) forms we reviewed were prepared correctly and documented the prisoner injuries, uses of force, and allegations of force. The forms included 10 cases that were referred to FI/IAD.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 224 auditable forms, and found that 185 (83%) were prepared correctly and documented the prisoner injuries, uses of force, and allegations of force. The forms include 15 forms that were referred to FI/IAD, and nine in which the officers acquired a target.
The DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U35
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding use of force and prisoner injury notifications to require:
a. officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or prisoner injury;
b. that upon such notice, a supervisor shall respond to the scene of all uses of force that involve a firearm discharge, a visible injury or a complaint of injury. A supervisor shall respond to all other uses of force on a priority basis. Upon arrival at the scene, the

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 44 of 197 Pg ID 8727

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 43

September 28, 2012

supervisor shall interview the subject(s), examine the subject(s) for injury, and ensure that the subject(s) receive needed medical attention;
c. the supervisor responding to the scene to notify IAD of all serious uses of force, uses of force that result in visible injury, uses of force that a reasonable officer should have known were likely to result in injury, uses of force where there is prisoner injury; and
d. IAD to respond to the scene of, and investigate, all incidents where a prisoner dies, suffers serious bodily injury or requires hospital admission, or involves a serious use of force, and to permit IAD to delegate all other use of force or prisoner injury investigations to the supervisor for a command investigation.18
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the last reporting period, we found that in 96% of the Command Level Investigations cases we reviewed, a supervisor was notified following a use of force or a prisoner injury. Supervisors responded to 96% of cases in which the use of force involved a firearms discharge, a visible injury, or a complaint of injury. Supervisors responded to other uses of force on a priority basis in 94% of cases. In combination, a supervisor responded to 95% of the cases that we reviewed. Ninety-five percent of the cases reflected supervisory efforts to interview the subject, either on the scene or at the district. In 95% of the cases, the supervisor examined the subject on the scene or at the district/precinct for injuries, and ensured that the subjects received the needed medical attention. Force Investigations was notified in 14 cases, and assumed responsibility for eight cases.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 91 Command Level Investigations cases and found that in 88 (97%), a supervisor was notified following a use of force or a prisoner injury. There were 27 cases in which the use of force involved a firearms discharge, a visible injury, or a complaint of injury; and a supervisor responded to all of them. Supervisors responded to other uses of force on a priority basis in 61 (95%) of the remaining 64 cases. In combination, a supervisor responded to 88 (97%) of the 91 cases reviewed, a slight improvement over the 95% registered in the last reporting period.
In 86 (95%) of the 91 cases, a supervisor interviewed the subject at the scene, at the district/precinct, or at DRH.19 Also in 86 (95%) of the 91 cases, a supervisor examined the subject for injury and ensured that the subject received needed medical attention.20 Force Investigations (FI) was notified in 22 of the cases, and assumed responsibility for seven of them.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for Command Level Investigations with this paragraph.

18 Amended by Court Order dated September 15, 2008
19 In some instances, a subject is moved to the District/Precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject.
20 In some instances, a subject is moved to the District/Precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 45 of 197 Pg ID 8728

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 44

September 28, 2012

Force Investigations: Our review of 28 FI cases relevant to this requirement shows that officers failed to report the use of force to supervisors as required in only two cases. Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U36
The DPD shall revise its use of force and prisoner injury investigation policies to require:
a. command use of force preliminary investigations to be completed within 10 days of the incident. These investigations shall include a synopsis of the incident, photographs of any injuries, witness statements, a canvas of the area, and a profile of the officer’s prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct, and a first-line supervisory evaluation. The final command use of force investigation shall be completed within 30 days of the incident;
b. IAD investigations to be completed within 90 days of the incident; and
c. copies of all reports and command investigations to be sent to IAD within 7 days of completion of the investigation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: In the last reporting period, we found that 98% of the Command Level Investigations were completed within 10 days of the event. All of the investigations contained the required synopsis of the event. There were 10 photographs of injuries in the files. In 99% of the cases, the canvass and witness information was included in the file. Officers’ prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct were included in 100% of the cases. Ninety-nine percent of the cases reflected first-line supervisor evaluations. The final command use of force investigations were completed within 30 days in 82% of the cases. Copies of completed Command Level Investigations were transmitted to IAD within seven days of completion of the investigations in 95% of the cases.
During this reporting period, we found that 80 (88%) of the preliminary investigations were completed within 10 days of the event, a marked decrease over the previous reporting period’s 98%. Ninety reports (99%) included a synopsis of the incident. There were photographs of injuries in four of the files.
In 84 (92%) of the cases, the canvass and witness information was included in the file. Officers’ prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct were included in 90 cases (99%). Eighty-eight of the 91 cases (97%) reflected first-line supervisor evaluations. The final command use of force investigations were completed within 30 days in 76 (84%) of the cases. Copies of completed Command Level Investigations were transmitted to IAD within seven days of completion of the investigations in 88 (98%) of the 91 cases.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 46 of 197 Pg ID 8729

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 45

September 28, 2012

We continue to recommend that DPD develop a more sophisticated system of tracking these cases. Although DPD achieved a 98% 10-day submission rate for the preliminary report in the last reporting period, the Department dropped back to 88% this quarter. Cases failing to meet the 30-day requirement ranged from 31 to 84 days after the incident.21 We recognize that some cases may be quite complex, but our review of the delayed cases didn’t find them to be particularly complex. DPD has not achieved Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for the Command Level Investigations.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 28 completed FI cases.22 Sixteen of the 28 cases we reviewed were untimely. Our review of the untimely cases revealed a troubling pattern, in which FI conducted much of the early investigation soon after the event, but then took from several months to more than two years to complete the actual investigative report. None of these cases included any justification for investigators to require several months or even years to complete a report long after the investigative work had been completed.
We continue to recommend that DPD closely evaluate case management and related issues, including staffing, and more closely monitor FI investigators’ time management and report preparation to more expeditiously complete these investigations.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U37
The DPD has created a Shooting Team, composed of officers from the Homicide Section and IAD. The Shooting Team shall respond to the scene and investigate all critical firearms discharges and in-custody deaths.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Previously, we found that the JIST appropriately responded to critical firearm discharge events; accordingly, we found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. There were 13 critical firearm discharge investigations and one in-custody death investigation completed during this reporting period. JIST appropriately responded to all of the events.
21 The report – which was not transmitted until 84 days after the incident – resulted in many categories being classified as unknown, adversely affecting compliance rates in some of the requirements where one case can make a difference. 22 These investigations included 14 critical firearm discharges and three vehicle pursuits.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 47 of 197 Pg ID 8730

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 46

September 28, 2012

DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U38
The DPD shall develop a protocol for conducting investigations of critical firearm discharges that, in addition to the requirements of paragraphs 27-36, requires
a. the investigation to account for all shots fired, all shell casings, and the locations of all officers at the time the officer discharged the firearm;
b. the investigator to conduct and preserve in the investigative file all appropriate ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests; and
c. the investigation to be completed within 60 days of the incident. If a Garrity statement is necessary, then that portion of the investigation may be deferred until 30 days from the declination or conclusion of the criminal prosecution.23
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our review of critical firearm discharge investigations for previous reports noted a number of significant issues relating to the requirements of this paragraph. We found that although investigators inventoried the officers’ ammunition to assist with determining the number of shots fired, and collected shell casings at the scene, there were instances where the number of shots believed to have been fired did not match the inventory of officers’ ammunition and/or the number of retrieved shell casings. We emphasized the importance of accounting for all rounds that are fired, and where there appears to be a discrepancy due to the described magazine problems, documenting it in the case reports. The DPD attributed this to an ongoing problem with the ammunition magazines that sometimes prevented officers from loading them to capacity and indicated its intent to correct the problem with the issuance of replacement equipment.
In addition, we noted that while the locations of officers were generally described, diagrams depicting their positions were not consistently included in the case files. We also expressed concern regarding the absence of gunshot residue and DNA collection and analysis. The DPD advised that gunshot residue analysis is no longer available; that DNA analysis is limited and that there are significant delays in ballistics analyses, which are conducted by the State Crime Lab. These have been – and remain – issues mitigating the ability of FI to conduct complete and timely critical firearm discharge investigations. And finally, we have repeatedly expressed concern with the failure to complete these investigations within the prescribed 30-day time limit.

23 Consent Judgment amendment April 23, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 48 of 197 Pg ID 8731

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 47

September 28, 2012

To assess compliance with requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 14 completed critical firearm discharge investigations, none of which involved fatalities. One case contained discrepancies between the number of rounds (ammunition) officers were carrying at the time of the event and the number of rounds they are required to carry by policy. These discrepancies were resolved due to other evidence; however, they do illustrate the need for investigators to document DPD policy violations relating to the carrying of a specified amount of ammunition and the need for DPD to take corrective action.
The investigations that we reviewed described the locations of the officers; however, the diagrams that were included did not always specifically indicate them. The locations of shell casings were noted. Additional evidentiary issues of concern pertinent to the requirements of this paragraph include: the failure of FI to reconcile the number of shots believed to have been fired; and the failure of FI to collect and submit DPD firearms for ballistic testing, and to conduct gunshot residue tests in eight cases where residue testing would have been an investigative aid in the case. In one case, a subject involved in a hot-rodding incident alleged that a DPD officer fired a shot at him; gunshot residue testing would have been a valuable aid to the investigator assigned to the incident. The officer’s ammunition was counted, but the weapon was not examined by a ballistics expert to see if the weapon was fired. The officer could have carried more than the required amount of ammunition as required by DPD policy. Also, the lack of or presence of fresh gunshot residue evidence could have assisted the DPD in proving or disproving the allegation. The finding in this case was not sustained. The involved officers denied firing their Department-issued firearms. This is tantamount to reporting and not investigating a deadly force allegation/incident.
We also are concerned that ballistic testing and analysis was not conducted on recovered spent shell casings due to the procedures and protocols of the State Lab; we are further concerned that certain firearms evidence was not submitted to the State Lab for testing due to the DPD practice of only submitting evidence for ballistic testing/analysis when there is an injury due to gunfire and/or unless the Prosecutor’s Office requested it.
During our review of FI cases, we came across two officer-involved shooting cases that are particularly troubling. Both cases involve ballistics evidence forwarded to the Michigan State Police (MSP) Lab for analysis.
In the first case, the ballistic analysis report from MSP indicated that all of the casings collected on the scene were fired from the same weapon; however, evidence revealed two different officers fired their weapons during the incident. This incident involved a slowly moving vehicle, and no one was injured. The evidence – along with the two officers’ weapons – has been resubmitted to State Lab for retesting. The results of the retest are still pending.
In the second case, the State Lab ballistics analysis report did not include the ballistics evaluation of the officers’ weapons in regards to four 40-caliber shell casings and one recovered bullet from the scene. An additional analysis has been requested and is still pending. In this case, a suspect received non-fatal injuries (struck by three rounds). The State Lab report indicates that the officers’ service weapons were returned, unopened and without examination. This raises concerns regarding adherence to lab protocols, including the proper requests and submission of evidence for analysis in addition to our continued concerns regarding the efficacy of present procedures relating to ballistic analyses and related testing.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 49 of 197 Pg ID 8732

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 48

September 28, 2012

Only 10, or 71%, of the 14 critical firearm discharge investigations we reviewed were timely. These cases were closed in a timeframe of one year to two years and six months, well outside of the 60-day requirement.
These above-cited ongoing issues are significant and continue to mitigate the quality and thoroughness of these investigations, and therefore require expeditious resolution.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U39
The DPD shall require a Command-level Force Review Team to evaluate all critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths. The team shall be chaired by the Deputy Chief who directly supervises IAD. The DPD shall establish criteria for selecting the other member of the team.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The Team is chaired by the Commander, Internal Affairs/Force Investigations, and includes Deputy Chiefs, the Training Commander, and a specified Chief of Police designee.
During this reporting period, the CLFRT convened and reviewed for compliance with DPD policy 13 critical firearm discharge investigations, one vehicular pursuit that led to a fatality, one death investigation where DPD officers were present and used no force (the subject was deceased upon arrival), one in-custody death, and one excessive force case.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U40 The DPD policy that defines the Command-level Force Review Team’s role shall require the team to:
a. complete its review of critical firearm discharges that result in injury and in-custody deaths within 21 days from the completion of the investigation and require the Chief of Police to complete his or her review of the team’s report within 14 days;24
24 Amended by Court Order dated April 23, 2012

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 50 of 197 Pg ID 8733

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 49

September 28, 2012

b. comply with the revised review of investigations policies and procedures;
c. interview the principal investigators; and
d. prepare a report to the Chief of Police in compliance with the revised investigatory report and evaluation protocol.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During this reporting period, FI submitted 13 critical firearm discharge investigations, one vehicular pursuit that led to a fatality, and one in-custody death.
During the last reporting period, we were troubled by one case that involved DPD officers who handcuffed a subject, using their body weight, and risked positional asphyxiation of the arrestee. The subject became unresponsive and unconscious, and his breathing became labored. Due to a delayed response by EMS, the two DPD officers decided to transport the subject to the hospital. During the transport, the officers only tilted the subject’s head back to try and assist his breathing, but did not perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). During questioning by FI, both officers claimed that they could not recall their CPR training because they had not received it since their time in the academy (17 years for the involved sergeant, and 11 years for the assisting officer). The subject, who was under the influence of cocaine, died while in DPD custody. The CLFRT exonerated the officers and referred the CPR issue to Training. Training is still working on resolving this issue. We will follow up with DPD on the status of CPR training during the next reporting period.
All 13 critical firearm discharge investigations that were completed and submitted to the CLFRT for review during this reporting period were completed in a timely manner. The in-custody death and pursuit fatality investigations were also reviewed in a timely manner. No issues of substantive concern were identified in the 15 total incidents reviewed by the CLFRT during this reporting period.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U41
The commanding officer of Force Investigation or other appropriate DPD executive designated by the Chief of Police shall annually review critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths in aggregate to detect patterns and/or problems and report his or her findings and recommendations, including additional investigative protocols and standards for all critical firearm discharge and in-custody death investigations, to the Chief of Police. A copy of the

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 51 of 197 Pg ID 8734

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 50

September 28, 2012

report shall be submitted to the Monitor within five months after the end of the year reported on.25
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The CLFRT Chair previously prepared an annual report and critique of critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths and was found in compliance with this paragraph. These reports are due by May of the year following the year under review.
We received the CLFRT 2011 annual report on June 6, 2012. The report, prepared by Force Investigation, included a description of investigative processes; case summaries; and various analyses of fatal and non-fatal firearm discharges, in-custody deaths, and pursuits. As in previous reports, the report indicated a downward trend in critical firearm discharges during the latest six-year period. After peaking at 59 in 2006, DPD recorded 30 critical firearm discharges in 2011. There were two fatal shootings in 2010, after peaking at nine in 2006. The most common encounter involved armed subjects.
The CLFRT made recommendations to revise the policy dealing with the Discharging of a Weapon at or from a Moving Vehicle; directed officer safety training after detecting a pattern of officer reaching inside vehicles to turn off the ignition during traffic stops, which were resulting in officers being dragged by the vehicle as operators attempted to escape; and recommended the Training Commander re-assess instruction relating to dealing with subjects with mental conditions and/or subjects who display symptoms of Excited Delirium. In addition, the report addressed the issue of unintentional/accidental discharges by officers. There were three total listed in the report – one of which occurred off-duty. The accidental discharge information has been communicated to the CLFRT by FI for further evaluation. In the interim, all officers involved in the accidental discharges were found negligent and directed to Firearms Training for additional instruction on proper weapon handling and firearm safety.
The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
• The failure to conduct quality investigations within prescribed timelines remains a critical issue. We believe that a more sophisticated case management program would prove beneficial. We again emphasize the need to provide formal documentation of reasons for delays in the completion of investigations. Many cases indicate that they are returned for

25 Amended by Court Order dated January 28, 2009

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 52 of 197 Pg ID 8735

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 51

September 28, 2012

corrections, but do not explain what is needed to be corrected, nor what new time limits have been established for re-submission.
• As of this writing, OCI has successfully addressed its backlog of cases. Our review samples during the last two or three reporting periods were populated with scores of closed, backlogged cases. These cases were replete with deficiencies – many related to timeliness issues, and many related to investigative shortcuts apparently taken to expeditiously address the backlog. We have cautioned OCI that the quality of its investigations – even those that are past due – cannot be sacrificed in pursuit of closure. Now that the backlog has been addressed, OCI must shift its focus to addressing the qualitative deficiencies we have identified and discussed during each of our site visits.
• A vital component of the Command Level investigative process is the critical review of the work product by supervisory personnel, beginning with the first-line supervisors. Many command staff – particularly inspectors, but some commanders as well – have conducted critical reviews and recommended meaningful corrective actions in their efforts to improve the quality of the investigations. Specific training recommendations as opposed to the more general “re-instruct” might prove more beneficial to members who are experiencing difficulties with the preparation of the forms as well as with conducting the investigations.
• DPD needs to give more attention to the quality of interviews; many are one-question interviews, with no follow-up questions; other lack details regarding the incident and how the officers on the scene responded to the incident. Video and audio recordings must be reviewed as part of the investigative process; the Department needs to place greater emphasis on the appropriate use of the body microphones to capture interactions between officers and the public/subjects. Supervisors need to ensure that activity logs are properly completed with respect to the video and audio capabilities; and when equipment is inoperative, the proper documentation should be prepared and commented on in the investigation.
• The DPD does not have a formalized practice of forwarding complex investigations to the Training Division and/or the Policy Section for review to ensure that both units are aware of the situations officers are confronting in the streets. The reviews of the use of force reports reflects some tactical concerns that would be best addressed through a critical review by tactical personnel at the Training Bureau. Improved tactics will improve interactions with the public; even more importantly, they will improve officer safety. The review of these cases by those specialized units could result in enhanced training curricula or improved DPD policies.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to assess compliance, paying particular attention to meeting the specific detailed elements prescribed in these requirements. Of particular concern to us are the

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 53 of 197 Pg ID 8736

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 52

September 28, 2012

thoroughness and completeness of investigations, their review by supervisors, and compliance with the timelines.
• We are pleased to note that the Board of Police Commissioners has hired a Chief Investigator after a vacancy in that position for nearly a year. We look forward to working with the new Chief Investigator as she assumes her leadership position in OCI.

¶ Requirements 27 Revise investigative policies 28 Investigation by uninvolved supervisor 29 Procedures for investigative interviews 30 Leading questions prohibited, etc. 31 Garrity Protocol required 32 Revise investigatory report policies 33 Chain of command reviews 34 Auditable form required 35 Notification of supervisors, etc. 36 Completion of command investigations 37 Joint Incident Shooting Team 38 Protocol for critical discharge investigations 39 Command Level Force Review Team 40 Review critical firearm discharges 41 Command-level force review requirements

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

V. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES
	
   The arrest and detention policies and practice requirements are a critical component of this Agreement. The policies prohibit an offi	
c  	
 e 	
  r	
  	
 f 	
 r 	
o   m making an arrest without probable cause, and
the existing policy requires supervisory review within 12 hours of the arrest. It further requires that for an arrest that is unsupported by probable cause, or a warrant that is not sought, an auditable form must document the circumstances within 12 hours of the event.
The DPD revised its investigatory stop-and-frisk policies to appropriately define investigatory stops and reasonable suspicion and supported this effort by frequent roll call training and two Administrative Messages issued in January and April 2011. As a result of additional emphasis by the Department on investigatory stops/frisks, DPD has been compliant for two consecutive reporting periods. DPD also revised its witness identification policies to comply with the revised

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 54 of 197 Pg ID 8737

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 53

September 28, 2012

arrest and investigatory policies. Policy establishes that a material witness can only be taken into custody by obtaining a Court order prior to such taking.
The revised policies and procedures in this area require significant documentation and reviews by supervisors. Command notification is required in all instances where there exists a reported violation of DPD arrest, holds/warrants, investigatory stop-and-frisk, witness identification and questioning policies, and all reports in which an arraignment warrant is not sought. While compliance has been achieved in these areas, we have noted during this reporting period that the inability of personnel to indicate holds over 48 hours on the Warrant Tracking Form has been problematic. Compliance review in this area thus draws heavily on the detailed records required in this section.
DPD has made significant progress in documenting Investigatory Stops, Detainee Registration and following their internal Witness Identification policies during the previous three reporting periods. DPD has been in compliance with its investigatory stop policies for three consecutive reporting periods; and in order to remain in compliance, supervisory personnel must ensure the preparation of auditable forms when reasonable suspicion is not properly articulated for the stop.
The Department’s ability to document and timely prepare warrant submittals to the prosecutor had been problematic, in that the failure to do so caused other violations of policy. (See U50, U51, and U53.) We have found that in a few instances, the failure to prepare the required auditable form or timely review by a commanding officer has kept DPD from compliance with certain paragraphs. Supervisory and command review continues to be lacking in some areas, and that documentation of violations should be a Departmental priority.
In the fifth reporting period, DPD assigned a commanding officer (lieutenant) to coordinate the efforts of the different districts/precincts and other investigative operational units in their reviews of witness identification and questioning policies. This strategy has been successful, as we have found the applicable CJ paragraph in compliance for seven consecutive reporting periods.

A. Arrest Policies CJ Requirement U42 The DPD shall revise its arrest policies to define arrest and probable cause as those terms are defined in this Agreement and prohibit the arrest of an individual with less than probable cause. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance is linked to and dependent upon the implementation of U43. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 55 of 197 Pg ID 8738

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 54

September 28, 2012

CJ Requirement U43
The DPD shall review all arrests for probable cause at the time the arrestee is presented at the precinct or specialized unit. This review shall be memorialized in writing within 12 hours of the arrest. For any arrest unsupported by probable cause or in which an arraignment warrant was not sought, the DPD shall document the circumstances of the arrest and/or the reasons the arraignment warrant was not sought on an auditable form within 12 hours of the event.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 104 arrest case files. The review included Crisnet reports, Detainee Input Sheets, DPD Warrant Verification Logs, officers’ Daily Activity Logs, Arraignment Verification Logs, and detainee file folders. In all cases but one, sufficient probable cause for the arrest was present; and, as in the two previous reporting periods, an auditable form (DPD UF-001, Review of Arrest Exception) was not completed for the case lacking probable cause. In this case, the warrant submittal was denied by the Prosecutor’s Office.
In all cases but four, supervisory approval occurred within 12 hours of the arrest. (In these cases, the time of approval was not listed on the Crisnet report or the Detainee Information Sheet.) In one sample arrest case for the month of May, the packet did not contain the Detainee Information Sheet or the required Warrant Tracking Form. CRIB issued a Corrective Action Notice in this instance.
When an officer is not seeking an arraignment warrant, the Department is required to complete Auditable Form U004, Warrant Tracking Hold Form (effective September 2009). Of the 104 arrest cases we reviewed, the Department did not seek a warrant in 15. In all of the cases the required auditable form was completed in a timely basis.
We are observing more Corrective Action Notices being issued when DPD discovers violations of policy. DPD’s compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon probable cause to arrest and timeliness in preparing the required auditable forms.
DPD’s compliance rate for this reporting period is 96%, a decrease from the last reporting period’s 98%, for the three separate and distinct requirements of this paragraph. DPD has been in compliance with Phase 2 of this paragraph in all our previous reports.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Investigatory Stop Policies
CJ Requirement U44
The DPD shall revise its investigatory stop and frisk policies to define investigatory stop and reasonable suspicion as those terms are defined in this Agreement. The policy shall specify that

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 56 of 197 Pg ID 8739

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 55

September 28, 2012

a frisk is authorized only when the officer has reasonable suspicion to fear for his or her safety and that the scope of the frisk must be narrowly tailored to those specific reasons. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of U45. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U45
The DPD shall require written documentation of all investigatory stops and frisks by the end of the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD shall review all investigatory stops and frisks and document on an auditable form those unsupported by reasonable suspicion within 24 hours of receiving the officer’s report.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In our previous report, we determined that DPD was in compliance with the provisions of this paragraph; this was the first reporting period that DPD, since our reviews began in 2009, achieved compliance in this area. DPD had previously come into compliance with traffic and investigatory stops. In the last reporting period, DPD’s compliance rate for frisks was 96%.
During this reporting period, we noted that officers have improved in the way they articulate reasonable suspicion with frisks, and that supervisors are properly checking the officers’ Daily Activity Log entries. During the current reporting period, as in our previous review, we found that DPD personnel have made significant progress in documenting investigatory stops. We also found that some supervisors, when reviewing officers’ Daily Activity Logs, checked off each frisk on their subordinate’s logs or completed an auditable form when the frisk was not articulated. This sound accountability practice by DPD supervisory personnel should be continued.
Due to settling a previous litigation, DPD issued Training Directive 12-03 on January 12, 2012 reinforcing Detroit City Code 38-1-3 as it pertains to the loitering ordinance. The new guidelines clearly define the rights of the individual and provide clarity to personnel when enforcing loitering violations.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 496 officers’ Daily Activity Logs completed on three randomly selected dates.26 Each district/precinct provided the logs requested, which included traffic stops and other situations where officers made investigatory stops of
26 For this review, we randomly selected Daily Activity Logs completed on April 24, May 17, and June 9, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 57 of 197 Pg ID 8740

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 56

September 28, 2012

individuals who were not in vehicles or in vehicles stopped in places where a police inquiry was warranted.
Our review yielded 146 investigatory stops, of which 145 indicated a lawful purpose. In the one case, the first-line supervisor (sergeant) issued an auditable form (Investigatory Stop and/or Frisk Exception Form) for not properly describing reasonable suspicion for the stop. In our last report, we noted that supervisors are now more thorough in their reviews of officers’ Daily Activity Logs; that has continued for the current reporting period. Most of the investigatory stops involved subjects being in a park after posted hours, entering premises/property without owner’s permission, and loitering. In all instances, supervisors reviewed all investigatory stops within the required timeframe. DPD’s compliance rate for investigatory stops only (excluding frisks, traffic stops, and required auditable forms) during this reporting period is 100%, an increase from the last reporting period’s 98%.
The logs included 538 traffic stops, and our review indicated that eight did not contain sufficient information to justify the stop, which is a basic requirement. For example, the officers failed to describe the initial necessity or purpose of the traffic stop. Supervisors reviewed 535 traffic stops in a timely fashion, marking their signatures, and dates and times of review. In two cases, sergeants did not review the Activity Log; and in the third, the sergeant reviewed and signed the log, but failed to enter the date and time of the review.
DPD’s compliance rate for traffic stops is 98%, the same as in the last reporting period.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 46 frisks appearing on officers’ Daily Activity Logs. We found that 44 of the frisks met the requirement. There was one instance where the supervisor failed to review the Daily Activity log; however, the frisk conducted by the officers fell within policy. In the other case, the supervisor reviewed the log but failed to note that it did not describe reasonable suspicion for the frisk. There was no consent to frisk entries on the logs during this reporting period. Requesting consent from an individual to frisk (Terry Stop) by DPD does not meet the intent of the Consent Judgment.
On July 28, 2011, DPD issued an Administrative Message (Teletype #11-0925) to be read at 10 consecutive roll calls instructing supervisors how to address consent frisks by officers. Another Administrative Message (Teletype 11-1497) was issued on December 24, 2011 emphasizing the importance of officers describing the frisk and supervisors’ responsibilities completing the auditable form when required.
Officers are required to complete the “Recap of Activity” portion of the log to indicate their total daily activities and also mark the “Frisk” box in the narrative portion of the report. This is a tool for the supervisor to locate and review the frisks that occur by their subordinates. However, supervisors have not used this tool. We continue to find instances where the officer properly conducts a frisk but does not mark either of the appropriate boxes and the supervisors fail to discover the omissions.
During a previous site visit, the Parties held a meeting to discuss DPD’s request that consent searches (frisks) met the legal requirements of the Consent Judgment. We have observed no change resulting from that meeting.
During this reporting period, we found that all frisks were documented by the end of the officers’ shifts. The Department’s compliance rate for frisks during this reporting period is 96%.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 58 of 197 Pg ID 8741

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 57

September 28, 2012

In previous audits, to ensure compliance with the Department’s stop-and-frisk policies, the Audit Team recommended a number of steps, including retraining officers and reviewing all stop-andfrisk situations by supervisors and command personnel in a timely fashion. We have found that the emphasis DPD has placed on officers properly documenting investigatory stops and supervisory review has paid dividends towards compliance.
A review of in-car video of frisks by the training staff and commanders is helpful in ensuring that legal authority exists for the frisks. In our 11th Quarterly Report, we noted that supervisors conducted in-car video review of their subordinates’ investigatory stops and frisks. During other previous reporting periods, we reviewed auditable forms (Stop and/or Frisk Exception form, DPD UF-003, effective October 31, 2009) from supervisors indicating that they had challenged an improper investigatory stop-and-frisk. Supervisors should review all in-car video of investigatory stops/frisks when the legality of the stop is in question. As noted above, Administrative Message 11-0151, issued on January 28, 2011; Administrative Message 11-0477, issued on April 22, 2011; and a subsequent Administrative Message 11-1497, issued on December 22, 2011; emphasized the recording of investigatory stops and frisks by officers and supervisory review. We note that the Department continues to take corrective action as a response to previous DPD audits, including an audit for June 2011, indicating those supervisors and command officers who need to complete an auditable form or take action when the violations occur. We will review DPD’s internal Investigatory Stop/Frisk audit scheduled for completion during the next reporting period.
First-line supervisors must check their officers’ activity logs daily and complete the auditable form by the end of their shift. We found in a few cases where these forms were completed after they were requested by the Monitoring Team and reviewed by DPD personnel. First-line supervisors are the key personnel in ensuring that all investigatory stops are in compliance with policy. DPD’s compliance rate for frisks is 96%, an increase from the 91% we found during the previous reporting period. DPD’s overall compliance rate for all investigatory stops and frisks increased from 96% to 98% during this reporting period.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Witness Identification and Questioning Policies
CJ Requirement U46
The DPD shall revise its witness identification and questioning policies to comply with the revised arrest and investigatory stop policies. The DPD shall prohibit the seizure of an individual without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual and require that the scope and duration of any seizure be narrowly tailored to the reasons supporting the police action. The DPD shall prohibit the conveyance of any individual to another location without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 59 of 197 Pg ID 8742

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 58

September 28, 2012

Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U48; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U47
The DPD shall develop the revised witness identification and questioning policies within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The revised policies shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the revised witness identification and questioning policies within three months of the review and approval of the DOJ.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U48; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U48
The DPD shall document the content and circumstances of all interviews, interrogations and conveyances during the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD shall review in writing all interviews, interrogations and conveyances and document on an auditable form those in violation of DPD policy within 24 hours of the interview, interrogation or conveyance.27
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the last reporting period, we reviewed interviews and interrogations from the Eastern District, the Second Precinct (formerly the Southwestern District), the Northeastern District, and the Twelfth Precinct; and found them in Phase 2 compliance with these requirements.
On June 1, 2011, the Court issued an order relevant to a DOJ letter dated May 1, 2010, where an agreement was accepted for timelines required for the review of all interviews, interrogations,
27 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 60 of 197 Pg ID 8743

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 59

September 28, 2012

and conveyances. The Court order permits that supervisors can review all interviews, interrogations, and conveyances within 24 hours, compared to the 12 hours previously mandated by the paragraph.
To assess compliance with the requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed interviews and interrogations from the Homicide Command, the Sixth Precinct, the Tenth Precinct, and the Central District.
We reviewed the Homicide Command’s investigative files and reviewed a random sample of 131 witness/interrogation interviews. A total of 130 met the requirement, and contained the proper documentation and supervisory review within prescribed timeframes. On one of the witness/interview forms the date of the interview was not legible but contained all other required information. All commands have made adjustments during previous reporting periods to address the lack of timeliness in supervisory review, and progress is evident. During this reporting period, the Homicide Command achieved a compliance rate of 99% with this paragraph.
We reviewed a random sample of cases for the current reporting period from the Sixth Precinct, for a total of 53 interviews/interrogations. Fifty-two cases met the requirement. In one case, the interview was not in compliance due to no supervisory review. The Sixth Precinct’s compliance rate for this quarter is 98%.
We reviewed a random sample of 39 case files from the Tenth Precinct containing 83 interviews/interrogations conducted on the proper form. Sixty-one were in compliance; of the 16 exceptions, the same investigator – instead of a supervisor – approved and signed the Interview/Interrogation Form as the supervisor. The policy and this paragraph require supervisory review. We noted that a lieutenant in the precinct conducting spot checks of the interview forms caught four of the errors during a routine inspection; however, they were not within the required timeframe. The Tenth Precinct’s compliance rate for the reporting period is 81%.
We reviewed a random sample of 38 Central District case files that resulted in 67 interview/interrogation forms being completed. In one case, the supervisory review occurred 50 minutes past the 24-hour requirement, and is therefore not in compliance. The Central District’s compliance rate is 99%. We have reviewed all of DPD’s investigative operational units – many of them several times – during previous site visits. None, with the exception of the Homicide Command, were in compliance at the end of 2009. DPD has made progress in this area. The combined compliance rate for interviews/interrogations for the four investigative operational units during this reporting period is 94%, a decrease from the 96% that we found in the last reporting period.
We also reviewed all instances of conveyances to DPD facilities for the purposes of interviews during the current reporting period. There were 16 such conveyances, and one did not indicate a supervisory review. DPD’s compliance rate for conveyances is 94%.
The issues we noted above with the review of the Tenth Precinct’s interview/interrogation files skewed the results of this paragraph. DPD’s overall compliance rate is just above 94%; DPD has sustained the progress it has made in this area; the Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 61 of 197 Pg ID 8744

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 60

September 28, 2012

Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

D. Prompt Judicial Review Policies CJ Requirement U49 The DPD shall revise its policies to require prompt judicial review, as defined in this Agreement, for every person arrested by the DPD. The DPD shall develop a timely and systematic process for all arrestees to be presented for prompt judicial review or to be released. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U50; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U50
The DPD shall require that, for each arrestee, a warrant request for arraignment on the charges underlying the arrest is submitted to the prosecutor’s office within 48 hours of the arrest.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Due to a few case reports involving traffic, probation violations, and warrant arrests that are handled by other means, or where the arrestee is taken directly to court, we reviewed 89 case reports that eventually were submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office for arraignment. The documentation supporting this review included Crisnet reports, Warrant Verification Logs, Arraignment Sheets, Detainee Input Sheets, and Warrant Tracking Hold Forms. Of the 89 cases we reviewed where an arraignment warrant was submitted, all but three met the 48-hour requirement. One of the cases contained the required auditable form, and two did not. In another case, an auditable form was generated for “warrant not served” when it should have been marked for “failure to submit the warrant request to the prosecutor within 48 hours” and for the arraignment exceeding the 48-hour requirement. In this case, the detainee was arraigned on the initial charge. DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement is 97%, a decrease from the 98% in the previous reporting period.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 62 of 197 Pg ID 8745

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 61

September 28, 2012

Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U51
The DPD shall document on an auditable form all instances in which the request for an arraignment warrant is submitted more than 48 hours after the arrest. The DPD shall also document on an auditable form all instances in which it is not in compliance with the prompt judicial review policy and in which extraordinary circumstances delayed the arraignment. The documentation shall occur by the end of the shift in which there was: 1) a failure to request an arraignment within 48 hours, 2) a failure to comply with the prompt judicial review policy, or 3) an arraignment delayed by extraordinary circumstances.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with these requirements, we reviewed the same documents referenced in U50. Of the 104 arrest case reports we reviewed, there were 89 that began at the initial arrest and in which a warrant was submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office for arraignment. There were three cases where the warrant submittal was late, and only one auditable form was prepared. We excluded cases that involved warrant arrests, juvenile arrests, and traffic cases.
There were 41 cases where the arraignment occurred more than 48 hours from the time of the initial arrest. In all cases except one (see U50), an auditable form was completed in a timely basis. In the one exception, the lieutenant, while preparing documents for our review, noticed the omission and prepared an auditable form. As in the last reporting period, there were three instances where the warrant submittal to the prosecutor was late, and there were was only one auditable form completed by the OIC for this review. When the commanding officer reviews the auditable form, s/he must inspect the document to ensure that the OIC is dating or placing the time the event was recognized. On January 11, 2011, we reviewed a Departmental Message that indicated UF-004/007 had been combined and entered into MAS. The new form has a designated box for the OIC to place the date and time the form is generated. We have observed that the new form is being utilized properly and the before mentioned issues have been resolved.
DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement for the current reporting period is 95%, a decrease from the previous quarter’s 96%. In our previous reports, we determined that Department personnel occasionally delay completing the warrant submittal unnecessarily (although it is within the 48-hour timeframe), and thus arraignments are often delayed. Our reviews determined that occasionally a full workday (Monday through Friday) elapses prior to those documents being processed and forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office, or they are submitted at the last hour. Although we are seeing fewer unnecessary delays overall, DPD must strive to submit the documentation to the Prosecutor’s Office in a more timely fashion.
As we noted previously, the elimination of evening arraignments by the 36th District Court of the State of Michigan will continue to be problematic for DPD in its ability to arraign detainees in a timely fashion. On October 17, 2011 in a letter to DPD, the Court Administrator for the 36th District Court advised that effectively immediately, all copies of the arraignment packet from

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 63 of 197 Pg ID 8746

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 62

September 28, 2012

each district/precinct must arrive at the Court by 9:00AM daily. This further restricts DPD’s ability to arraign arrestees within the 48-hour mandate. DPD received an official correspondence from the 36th District Court Administrator on May 25, and May 29, 2012 indicating that the Court would be closed on those days due to excessive heat and humidity and an ineffective air conditioning system. The closing of the Court for these two days further hindered DPD’s ability to comply with the 48-hour arraignment requirement.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

E. Hold Policies
CJ Requirement U52
The DPD shall revise its hold policies to define a hold as that term is defined in this Agreement and require that all holds be documented. This policy shall establish a timely and systematic process for persons in DPD custody who have holds issued by a City of Detroit court to have those holds cleared by presenting the arrestee to the court from which the warrant was issued or the setting and posting of bond where applicable. The fact that an arrestee has not been arraigned or charged in the current arrest shall not delay this process.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U53; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U53
The DPD shall document all holds, including the time each hold was identified and the time each hold was cleared. The DPD shall document on an auditable form each instance in which a hold is not cleared within 48 hours of the arrest. The documentation shall occur within 24 hours of each instance of a hold not being cleared.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 64 of 197 Pg ID 8747

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 63

September 28, 2012

In previous reporting periods, DPD was not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, due to holds/warrants not being cleared and the auditable form not being prepared. In the last reporting period, the Department’s compliance rate with this requirement was 97%.
To assess compliance with the requirements, we reviewed 104 Detainee Input Sheets, and found a total of 57 holds/warrants listed on the forms. In our previous reports, we noted satisfactory completion of the auditable forms for those holds exceeding 48 hours and the detainee still in custody. Form (DPD UF004-007, revised June 2009) was created and contains appropriate indications for officers to identify more than one violation of the Prompt Judicial Review Policies. DPD personnel must be aware that if an arraignment occurs more than 48 hours after an arrest and the detainee has an outstanding hold/warrant, there is a likelihood that the warrant may not be cleared within the requirement and both boxes should be checked. There can also be an issue if the warrant submittal for the outstanding arrest is denied by the prosecutor and there is a hold on the detainee. In these cases, DPD has an expectation that the hold(s) will be addressed at the arraignment on the current charge; and if the warrant is denied, the detainee may be presented to the judge at the next available arraignment opportunity.
Our review of the data requested in our sample during this reporting period indicated a reversal of DPD’s previous progress. Of the 57 holds during the reporting period, eight of them were not in compliance. Of those eight, one was late in preparation and the other seven simply were not marked on the Warrant Tracking Form, when in most cases, the arraignment occurring after 48 hours from time of arrest was marked.
In our discussions with DPD personnel, we were advised that the commander of the precinct – or, in the absence of the commander, the lieutenant on duty – receives the Warrant Tracking Form only when violations occur and the form is completed and forwarded by the OIC or a supervisor. Reviewing command personnel do not receive the entire package, and assume all violations are properly indicated when they review and approve the forms. When the supervisors receive and review the form from the OIC, they must ensure that it is complete prior to forwarding it for command review.
On May 25, 2012 DPD issued Administrative Message (Teletype 12-0400) advising all personnel of the proper procedure to ensure that auditable forms for arraignments and holds/warrants exceeding the 48-hour requirement are processed according to DPD policy.
As we have noted previously, the lack of DPD personnel properly indicating the date and time that holds/warrants are identified/cleared and generating the required auditable forms for violations continues to be problematic for the Department. If personnel would properly complete the required information contained on the Detainee Input Sheet, the existing problems would be resolved. DPD’s compliance rate for this requirement remains at 86%, a decrease from the 97% registered during the last reporting period. Since DPD has previously been in compliance with this paragraph, the Department will remain in compliance unless we find the Department not in compliance during the next reporting period.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 65 of 197 Pg ID 8748

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 64

September 28, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

F. RESTRICTION POLICIES CJ Requirement U54 The DPD shall develop a policy regarding restricting detainee’s access to telephone calls and visitors that permits individuals in DPD custody access to attorneys and reasonable access to telephone calls and visitors. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U55; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U55
The DPD shall require that such restrictions be documented and reviewed at the time the restriction is issued and reevaluated each day in which the restriction remains in effect. The DPD shall document on an auditable form any violation of the restriction policy by the end of the shift in which the violation occurred.
Comments:
DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 104 arrest case files and did not identify any restrictions. DPD personnel advise us that restricting a detainee’s access to visitors, attorneys, and the use of telephone privileges rarely occurs. Personnel may impose a telephone restriction when a detainee makes threatening or harassing calls to individuals outside the facility. There are payphones in each holding facility for the detainees’ use. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 66 of 197 Pg ID 8749

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 65

September 28, 2012

G. Material Witness Policies CJ Requirement U56 The DPD shall revise its material witness policies to define material witness as that term is defined in this Agreement and remove the term “police witness” from DPD policies and procedures. Comments: DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent on the implementation of U57; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U57
The DPD shall obtain a court order prior to taking a material witness into DPD custody. The DPD shall document on an auditable form the detention of each material witness and attach a copy of the court order authorizing the detention.
Comments:
DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, we reviewed all of DPD’s requests to the Court for taking a material witness into custody for the period of April 1, through June 30, 2012. The auditable form, approved by a supervisor, was attached to the Court order in the four cases presented to the Court. The Court order was issued by a Judge in the 36th District Court of the State of Michigan prior to the witnesses’ detention. As a result of some issues discovered in the previous reporting period relating to where all material witness documentation should be held, DPD issued Teletype 12-322 (April 27, 2012) formalizing a process that ensures that the Office of Civil Rights will serve as the repository for these forms. DPD’s compliance rate is 100%.
Due to some issues occurring with the material witness documentation during our April 2012 site visit, DPD issued Roll Call Informational Bulletin (12-17) reinstructing personnel the required procedure for filing these forms.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 67 of 197 Pg ID 8750

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 66

September 28, 2012

H. Documentation of Custodial Detention
CJ Requirement U58
The DPD shall revise its arrest and detention documentation to require, for all arrests, a record or file to contain accurate and auditable documentation of:
a. the individual’s personal information;
b. the crime(s) charged;
c. the time and date of arrest and release;
d. the time and date the arraignment was submitted;
e. the name and badge number of the officer who submitted the arraignment;
f. the time and date of arraignment; was lodged and cleared, if applicable;
g. the time each warrant was lodged and cleared, if applicable; and
h. the individual’s custodial status, e.g., new arrest, material witness or extradition.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has been in compliance with this paragraph in all of the previous reporting periods. To assess Phase 2 compliance during this reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 104 arrest case files where a Detainee Input Sheet was completed that contained personal information about the detainee, charges, holds/warrants, and other supporting data. We used the 60 cases where an arraignment occurred to determine compliance due to all eight elements of this paragraph being included. The contained documents included Detainee Input Sheets, Warrant Verification Logs, Arraignment Logs, and Livescan forms. In the majority of instances, the: (a) individual’s personal information; (b) crime[s] charged; (c) date and time of arrest and release; (d) time and date the arraignment was submitted; (f) time and date of arraignment, if applicable; (g) time and date each warrant was lodged and cleared; and (h) individual’s custodial status; were listed on one of the applicable forms.
In three cases, the officers failed to include all relevant personal information (U58a) on the Detainee Input Sheet; and in one case, holding facility personnel failed to record the date and time of detainee release on the form. For the first time since the beginning of our tenure, personnel submitting the warrant request to the prosecutor included their names and badge numbers on the Daily Warrant Verification Log. All other required information was properly documented. We examined each case for compliance with the eight individual requirements, and found an overall compliance rate of 99%, the same as in the last reporting period.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 68 of 197 Pg ID 8751

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 67

September 28, 2012

I. Command Notification
CJ Requirement U59
The DPD shall require the commander of the precinct and, if applicable, of the specialized unit, to review in writing all reported violations of DPD arrest, investigatory stop and frisk, witness identification and questioning policies and all reports of arrests in which an arraignment warrant was not sought. The commander’s review shall be completed within 7 days of receiving the document reporting the event. The commander’s review shall include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In our previous reports, we did not find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement, noting the lack of auditable forms, the lack of documented reasonable suspicion for frisks, and an inadequate supervisory review of Officer’s Daily Activity Logs.
In our review of 104 arrests during this reporting period, we determined that all the arrests, with the exception of one, properly documented probable cause. An auditable form was not generated in this case. In those situations where a warrant is not sought or a warrant is denied on an arrestee, supervisors should scrutinize the arrest packets to ensure that the elements required for a valid arrest are documented.
We reviewed 46 frisks, and determined that 45 met the requirement; however, the supervisor did not complete the required auditable form in the one case found in violation of DPD policy. In the remaining case, the supervisor failed to approve the officer’s Daily Activity Log. In recent reporting periods, DPD has generated auditable forms for violations of this paragraph relating to frisks. In order to be lawful, a stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion and narrowly tailored in scope and duration to the reasons supporting the seizure. During a limited seizure, the officer may conduct a frisk if s/he has reasonable suspicion to believe that the suspect may have the means to do harm. While supervisors do review the officers’ Daily Activity Logs, they should also be challenging officers to articulate the reason for the stops/frisks. The officers, in some cases, are only noting the stops.
Our review of traffic stops determined that officers’ abilities to accurately describe the actions that led to the stop are compliant; however, there were no auditable forms generated for the eight traffic stops in which a form was required to be completed. Commanders are not receiving the forms due to supervisors not completing them.
There were 146 investigatory stops (excluding frisks and traffic stops), of which 145 were based on a documented investigatory purpose. One stop did not articulate reasonable suspicion; however, the supervisor completed the auditable form that was reviewed in a timely basis by the commander.
There were 159 cases where documentation was completed indicating that an arraignment warrant was not sought and an auditable form was completed and contained appropriate command review. In all cases, a commanding officer approved the form and attached his/her

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 69 of 197 Pg ID 8752

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 68

September 28, 2012

signature including the date of review. We have observed DPD’s progress with commanders’ oversight as it relates to warrants not served.
We reviewed 334 witness/interrogation interviews from the Homicide Command, the Sixth Precinct, the Central District, and the Tenth Precinct. There were 16 instances in one precinct where the reviewing supervisor was an investigator, not a supervisor; the paragraph requires supervisory review. In four instances, a lieutenant discovered the errors, but her review in each case exceeded the seven-day requirement. The lieutenant generated the auditable forms (DPD 103) in each instance. This paragraph has not been problematic for DPD in past reviews; the one precinct cited previously (U48), distorted the overall compliance for this reporting period. It is the commanders’ responsibility to ensure that these forms are completed.
The Department has made progress with commanders’ reviews of warrants not sought and witness identification and questioning policies. We reviewed 20 auditable forms (warrants not served, witness interviews and investigatory stops) under this paragraph that were sent to commanders for review or prepared by commanders. All reviews were timely, with the exception of the four auditable forms mentioned above. Under this paragraph, DPD commanders have seven days to review the requirements from time of receipt; compliance should not be an issue. Two consecutive reporting periods of non-compliance will remove DPD from compliance.
DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement for this reporting period is 80%, a decrease over the 98% registered in the last reporting period.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U60
The DPD shall require the commander of the precinct, and, if applicable, of the specialized unit, to review in writing all violations of DPD prompt judicial review, holds, restrictions and material witness policies on a daily basis. The commander’s review shall include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 104 arrest case reports, of which 89 were submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office and 60 went to arraignment. There were 41 cases where the arraignment occurred more than 48 hours after the arrest.
In all but three cases, the request for the warrant was submitted in a timely fashion. In one instance an auditable form was completed and command review occurred. There was no command review in the other two cases, as the auditable form had not been prepared.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 70 of 197 Pg ID 8753

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 69

September 28, 2012

In the 60 cases that went to arraignment, 41 of these were arraigned more than 48 hours after arrest, and auditable forms were completed. In one instance, a sergeant approved the review; and in another, the commander’s review was late. We noted previously that the Department sent Corrective Action Notices to commanders who failed to review the auditable forms within the allotted time constraints. DPD’s compliance rate for this portion of the requirement is 98%.
Of the 57 hold/warrants that we identified, there were 26 holds that were not cleared within the required 48 hours. In 19 instances, the Warrant Tracking Form was properly completed and forwarded to the commander for review; in seven cases, the “hold” box was not marked indicating a hold over 48 hours. In another instance, while preparing our document request, the commander completed the auditable form 17 days late. There were four material witnesses taken into custody during this reporting period, and all required auditable forms were completed.
Under this paragraph, there were a total of 46 auditable forms reviewed by the commander. In one instance, the commander completed the auditable form 17 days late; and in the other, the command review was signed off by a sergeant. The paragraph requires a commanding officer review. During a previous site visit, we met with the commanders and advised them of the issue with late reviews. In the event of a commander’s absence from the district or precinct, the onduty commanding officer (lieutenant or above) has the authority to review and sign off on the auditable forms. They serve as precinct commanders during that timeframe.
DPD’s overall compliance rate for this paragraph is 96%, an increase over the 89% that we found in the last reporting period. There were no restrictions placed on detainees during this reporting period.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
• The delay of warrant request to the Prosecutor’s Office often delays the arraignment for more than 48 hours; and thus, if there is a hold attached to the warrant, both the arraignment and the hold require an auditable form creating additional work for DPD personnel and the opportunity for failure. The Court Administrator for the 36th District Court has advised DPD that the time for submittals to the Court has been moved back to 9:00a.m., further impeding the Department’s ability to have detainees processed.
• The DPD Administrative Message (Teletype 10-04118) dated November 22, 2010 noted that several districts/precincts were delaying the faxing of prisoner information to Court Liaison just before the cutoff time, thus creating delays in arraignment. Timely preparation of the warrant submittal package to the prosecutor remains problematic for DPD.
• Our review of investigative stops found that officers often fail to articulate “reasonable suspicion” in accordance with DPD policy requiring written documentation of all

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 71 of 197 Pg ID 8754

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 70

September 28, 2012

investigatory stops and frisks. The supervisory monitoring of stops and frisks has improved considerably in the past year and must continue. During previous reporting periods, we received auditable forms for violations of the investigatory stop policies. Supervisors must carefully review officers’ Daily Activity Logs and complete auditable forms when they are required.
• District/precinct commanders must ensure that auditable forms are completed and forwarded promptly for their review, and advise their lieutenants that they have the authority to review and sign auditable forms under C60 in their absence.
• District/precinct commanders must not allow sergeants to review and approve auditable forms that the commander is required to review. During this reporting period, an investigator (not a supervisor) approved 16 witness interview forms; and in another case, a sergeant approved an auditable form for a violation of the prompt judicial review policy when command review is required.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Meet with DPD’s Civil Rights Integrity Bureau (CRIB) to discuss our investigatory stop concerns, and the timeliness of commanders’ reviews as it relates to auditable forms that require daily review. Completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of all reports and auditable forms continue to affect field units and the quality of administrative review. We will discuss issues remaining concerning personnel who are not authorized to review and approve forms.
• Review other investigative units to determine their compliance with interrogations, interviews, conveyances, and material witness policies. During our April site visit, DPD had drafted a plan to centralize its general investigative units; that plan was implemented during this reporting period and should resolve the issue of timeliness with command reviews of auditable forms.
• Observe personnel who are responsible for the detainee booking process; interview them regarding procedures for detailing when holds/warrants are identified and cleared; and inquire as to their role in ensuring how auditable forms are prepared in a timely fashion. Our review of documentation for this reporting period indicated a higher number of instances where holds exceeded the 48-hour requirement and where the Warrant Tracking Forms were not completed than in our previous reviews. We advised CRIB of this issue during our July site visit. Some of these delays occurred during May when the Court shut down for two days due to excessive heat and humidity.
• Meet with the commanders of each district and precinct to discuss issues relating to auditable forms and their role in ensuring compliance.
• Inquire with DPD if any additional processes have been enacted to address the dilemma that occurs when a hold has been previously placed on an arrestee, and the warrant request to the Prosecutor’s Office on the current charge has been denied. The concern

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 72 of 197 Pg ID 8755

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 71

September 28, 2012

for DPD in these instances creates a delay in presenting the hold for arraignment within 48 hours only on the basis of the hold. In our reviews, this issue has been and remains a problematic, in that holding cell personnel tend to utilize the time of release on clearing a hold – rather than simply writing in the date and time in the space provided on the form. In a few cases, we are finding that when an arraignment occurs more than 48 hours after the arrest and the OIC is completing the auditable form for the late arraignment, the OIC is failing to mark the box on the same form for a hold not being cleared. In some cases, a sergeant is reviewing the auditable form and not ensuring that the OIC (who prepared the document) is marking the holdover 48-hour box.

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

42

Define and prohibit arrest without probable cause

In Compliance

43 Review all arrests for probable cause

In Compliance

44 Revise investigatory stop-and-frisk policy

In Compliance

45 Written account of stops and frisks

In Compliance

46 Revise witness policies

In Compliance

47 Revise above in three months

In Compliance

48 Document content, etc. of interviews, etc.

In Compliance

49 Arrests receive prompt judicial review

In Compliance

50 Charges to Prosecutor within 48 hours

In Compliance

51 Document of late warrant requests

In Compliance

52 Revise hold policies

In Compliance

53 Documentation of all holds

In Compliance

54 Policy for restricting telephone access

In Compliance

55 Document and review such restrictions

In Compliance

56 Define material witness

In Compliance

57 Custody of material witnesses-court order

In Compliance

58 Arrests and detention record requirements In Compliance

59 Required written review of violations

In Compliance

60 Required written review of violations

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation
In Compliance
In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS
The stated mission of the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) is to assure the public’s trust and confidence in DPD by conducting thorough and impartial investigations into allegations of criminality and serious misconduct lodged against members of the Department, as well as other

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 73 of 197 Pg ID 8756

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 72

September 28, 2012

City of Detroit employees. IAD is charged with the prevention, discovery, and investigation of criminal allegations and allegations of serious misconduct against Department members and City employees who are assigned within the DPD; IAD is responsible for all external complaints alleging possible criminal misconduct.
Consistent with this obligation, IAD accepts information from any source; and requires that all officers and employees document all complaints filed in writing, verbally, in person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile, or by electronic mail.
During our most recent site visit, we examined the investigative procedures employed by IAD for consistency in the application of procedural fairness, timeliness, confidentiality, and the meticulous reporting of facts and results of an investigation. The IAD Standard Operating Procedures were revised in January 2011 to include Section 5-8, Case Tracking.
The Office of the Chief Investigator (OCI) is the investigative arm of the Board of Police Commissioners (BOPC). OCI is responsible for investigating non-criminal external complaints. The Board has plenary authority over citizen complaints. OCI operates independently of the Detroit Police Department and is led by a civilian Chief Investigator who is appointed by the BOPC. OCI is staffed with a combination of civilian and sworn investigators who assist in the investigation of citizen complaints. OCI’s mission is to provide meaningful and objective investigations of citizen complaints of police misconduct.
OCI investigates non-criminal allegations of misconduct against Detroit Police Department personnel for the following: Arrest; Demeanor; Entry; Harassment; Force; Procedure; Property; and Search and Seizure. OCI employees are required to accept complaints from any source and by any method of communication including in writing, verbally, in person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile, or by electronic mail. Members of the public may also file complaints at the BOPC office or at BOPC meetings.
During our most recent site visit, we met with the BOPC Staff, the Acting Chief Investigator, and supervising investigators assigned to OCI. We discussed the status of overdue investigations in general, and the implementation of the recently adopted backlog elimination plan. We also attended case review meetings with all investigative staff.

CJ Requirement U61
The DPD and City shall revise their external complaint policy to clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of OCI and the DPD regarding the receipt, investigation and review of external complaints. At a minimum, the plan shall specify each agency’s responsibility for receiving, recording, investigating and tracking complaints; each agency’s responsibility for conducting community outreach and education regarding complaints; how, when and in what fashion the agencies shall exchange information, including complaint referrals and information about sustained complaints.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 74 of 197 Pg ID 8757

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 73

September 28, 2012

The established policies and procedures set forth the jurisdictional responsibility of the DPD IAD and OCI.
IAD is charged with the prevention, discovery, and investigation of criminal allegations and allegations of serious misconduct against Department members and City employees who are assigned within the DPD. IAD is responsible for all external complaints alleging possible criminal misconduct.
OCI investigates non-criminal allegations of misconduct against DPD personnel in the following categories: arrest; demeanor; entry; harassment; force; property; search; and service. The established policies and procedures also provide guidance for receiving, recording, tracking, referring, and investigating complaints.
Both IAD and OCI track each open, pending, and closed case by the unique case identifier that is placed on all relevant documentation regarding the specific external complaint and provided to each citizen upon lodging a complaint. Each entity uses a computerized database to record data that is developed concerning external citizen complaints. OCI and IAD continue to enhance the databases; investigators and supervisors now have the ability to make case notes directly into the database. OCI is required to compile a summary of its investigations annually. These summaries are distributed throughout the DPD, to the Board of Police Commissioners, and to the public. In addition, the City displays informational posters in the public areas of all police facilities and public libraries. The City sponsors community meetings and runs public service announcements concerning how to file a citizen’s complaint against the police. Through OCI, the Board of Police Commissioners maintains a community outreach coordinator, who attends meetings and makes presentations at the request of community organizations or public forums. The Board of Police Commissioners website provides access to an OCI fact sheet on external police complaints. The BOPC website also allows the public to file complaints online.
The DPD and the City are in compliance with these requirements.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U62
The DPD and the City shall develop and implement an informational campaign regarding external complaints, including:
a. informing persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any DPD employee;
b. distributing complaint forms, fact sheets and informational posters at City Hall, OCI, all DPD precincts, libraries, on the internet and, upon request, to community groups and community centers;
c. broadcasting public service announcements that describe the complaint process; and

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 75 of 197 Pg ID 8758

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 74

September 28, 2012

d. posting permanently a placard describing the complaint process, with relevant phone numbers, in the lobby of each DPD precinct
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During previous site visits, we inspected Police Headquarters, the Office of the Chief Investigator, police facilities, libraries, and Neighborhood City Halls for compliance with this paragraph. All locations displayed, in a prominent location, permanent placards that described the complaint process. All desk personnel in the police facilities were able to produce citizen complaint brochures immediately, and were aware that they should not discourage citizens from filing a complaint.
During our most recent site visit, we inspected the Office of the Chief Investigator; the Northeastern and Eastern Districts; and the Second (formerly Schaefer Annex), Sixth, Eighth, and Twelfth Precincts. We found the appropriate citizen complaint posters, forms, and brochures in place. One poster was damaged, and Office of Civil Rights personnel took steps to insure a replacement while we were onsite. We contacted desk officers and field officers at each patrol site, and they were able to provide citizen complaint forms and brochures.
We also inspected eight libraries: Henry Chaney Branch; Thomas Edison Branch; Jessie Chase Branch; Sherwood Forest Branch; Duffield Branch; Frederick Douglas Branch; Elmwood Park Branch; and the Main Library. We found the appropriate posters on display, and adequate supplies of complaint forms and brochures. Employees were well versed on the process for securing replacements.
Both DPD and OCI conduct community outreach programs designed to inform citizens of the complaint process and the procedures for filing complaints. The Board of Police Commissioners website allows the public to file complaints against the police online. The City of Detroit broadcasts public service announcements that describe the complaint process. DPD provided us with the broadcast schedule for the week of our site visit. We also reviewed the July 2012 External Information Campaign Audit of All Districts, which was provided to us during our most recent site visit.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U63
The DPD shall require all officers to carry informational brochures and contact forms in their vehicles at all times while on-duty. The DPD shall develop a contact form within 60 days of the effective date of this Agreement. The contact form shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the contact form within 60 days of the review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall require all officers to inform an individual of his or her right to make a complaint, if an individual objects to an officer’s conduct. The DPD shall prohibit officers from discouraging any person from making a complaint or refusing to take a complaint.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 76 of 197 Pg ID 8759

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 75

September 28, 2012

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During previous site visits, we reviewed the audits conducted by the DPD Office of Civil Rights regarding citizen complaint informational brochures and contact forms carried in police vehicles, and we randomly selected officers during our field visits to police facilities and asked them to provide the brochures and forms for review. Each officer who we contacted provided the documents upon our request, and was aware of the requirements of the DPD policy concerning citizen complaints.
During this reporting period, we randomly selected both desk officers and patrol officers in the Northeastern and Eastern Districts; and the Second (formerly Schaefer Annex), Sixth, Eighth, and Twelfth Precincts; and asked them to produce complaint forms and brochures. They were able to do so in each case.
In April, 2012, DPD issued Teletype #12-0300, advising Department employees that the Citizen Complaint Report (CCR), DPD 512, was available in MAS, and that supervisors should no longer use hard copy versions of the report. The form in MAS is to be routed to the member’s inspector or commander, who will electronically approve the CCR and forward same to OCI. The teletype also requires that the supervisor taking the complaint document the complaint information in the “electronic desk blotter,” and that each command maintains a supply of paper forms in the event MAS becomes inoperable. Paper forms can only be used, however, in such circumstances.
This was our first opportunity to review the new system while it was fully operational. Personnel in at least three locations reported some minor difficulties with the new system as follows: Apparently, the CCR must be printed before being submitted; and once submitted, it cannot be retrieved to make amendments or print additional copies. Personnel also observed that the font in the printed version is very small and may be difficult for some citizens – especially the elderly – to read.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

A. Intake and Tracking
CJ Requirement U64
The DPD and the City shall revise their policies regarding the intake and tracking of external complaints to define complaint and misconduct as those terms are defined in this Agreement and require all officers and OCI employees to accept and document all complaints filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 77 of 197 Pg ID 8760

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 76

September 28, 2012

Our past reviews of IAD and OCI external complaint investigations determined that the complaints were filed using all of the communication facilities identified in this paragraph.
Our review of 24 IAD and 100 OCI investigations for this reporting period again found that complaints were filed using all of the communication methods identified in this requirement. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U65
The DPD and the City shall permit the intake officer or employee to include a factual account and/or description of a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but not an opinion regarding the complainant’s mental competency or veracity.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In our previous reviews, we found no instances where personnel accepting complaints reported any opinions regarding the mental capacity or veracity of the complainant.
We reviewed 24 IAD and 100 OCI cases for this reporting period. We again found no instances where personnel accepting complaints reported any opinions regarding the mental capacity or veracity of the complainant.
DPD and the City are in compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U66
The DPD and the City shall assign all complaints a unique identifier, which shall be provided to the complainant, and a description of the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy or improper search).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 78 of 197 Pg ID 8761

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 77

September 28, 2012

During previous reporting periods, we reviewed closed IAD and OCI external complaint investigations, and found that each investigative file contained a City of Detroit Citizen Complaint Report (CCR), and a letter acknowledging the receipt of the complaint with the name of the assigned investigator and the office contact number.
For this reporting period, we reviewed 24 IAD and 100 OCI investigations. All investigations contained the required information. The letters also provided case-specific identifiers for the complainant to reference when contacting either IAD or OCI. DPD and the City are in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. External Complaint Investigations
CJ Requirement U67
The DPD and the City shall revise its policies regarding external complaint investigations to:
a. provide that all complaints shall be referred for investigation and resolution by OCI or, if the complaint alleges potentially criminal conduct by an officer, by IAD;
b. permit the informal resolution of complaints alleging only inadequate service or the complainant’s innocence of a charge and require the investigation and formal resolution of all other complaints;
c. refer all complaints to the appropriate agency within five business days of their receipt;
d. require that the complainant shall be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation;
e. develop written criteria for IAD and OCI investigator applicants, including the applicant’s complaint and disciplinary history and investigative experience;
f. implement mandatory pre-service and in-service training for all IAD and OCI investigators, including intake, investigations, interviews and resolutions of external complaints;
g. require IAD and OCI to complete all investigations within 90 days of receiving the complaint and
h. require that: (1) upon completion of the investigation by a command other than OCI, the complainant shall be notified of its outcome and, if the complaint is sustained, whether disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action has been recommended; and (2) upon completion of an investigation by OCI the complainant shall be notified of its outcome

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 79 of 197 Pg ID 8762

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 78

September 28, 2012

and, if the complaint is sustained, its referral to the Chief of Police for appropriate disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.28
Comments:
Office of the Chief Investigator: For this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected OCI cases. Three cases were transferred to IAD, and one case was transferred to Force Investigations. The IAD cases involved allegations of improper search and theft, and all were appropriate referrals. The Force Investigations case alleged excessive force. There still appears to be communication difficulties between OCI and IAD/FI. In two of the IAD cases, both OCI and IAD were conducting investigations at the same time. It took OCI at least six months in each case to discover the duplication of effort and close the cases as transferred. Similarly, the force case was not transferred to FI until one of the involved officers advised during his Garrity interview (which took place 152 days after the complaint was filed) that he had already provided a statement to Force Investigations.
Three cases were transferred to Communications. They all involved demeanor allegations against Emergency Services Operators; and in each case, Communications supervisors conducted the investigation before OCI received the complaints.
Nine cases were resolved informally. One of the nine cases did not meet the criteria for an Informal Complaint Resolution (ICR), as it did not involve complaints of inadequate service or innocence of the charge. The complainant alleged a failure to return property, and also advised during his interview that officers acted inappropriately in the presence of a woman who was in the home when a search warrant was served. Despite the streamlined approach allowed by an ICR, four of the nine cases were not closed within 90 days. Three cases took over 195 days to close.
Twelve cases in our sample were administratively closed. We determined that three were inappropriately closed via this process. One involved missing property after the complainant was released from jail. While the complainant ultimately refused to cooperate, the complaint did not lack specificity; the property, date, time, location, and involved officers were provided. Another case stemmed from a complaint of illegal search and damage to property. Two officers were interviewed and then the case was inexplicably administratively closed. The third case involved a complaint of reckless driving on the part of a traffic officer. It was closed for lack of specificity, despite the fact that a date, time, location, and six of the seven digits in the vehicle’s identification number were provided. The OCI investigator claimed that she was unable to identify the vehicle; yet a sergeant in the Office of Civil Rights ascertained the involved vehicle with a few minutes of effort.
Only 37 of the 100 cases we reviewed were completed within 90 days. As in previous reports, we noted many had long gaps of time in which no apparent activity took place. In February, the City and OCI were required to submit a backlog elimination plan to the Court. This plan designates a Special Assignment Team (SAT) to work exclusively on backlogged cases, outlines specific oversight and case management practices to be applied to all investigators, and identifies

28 Amended by Court Order dated September 15, 2008

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 80 of 197 Pg ID 8763

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 79

September 28, 2012

monthly targets for case completion. As stated in our last report, OCI’s earnest efforts to address its older cases have resulted in the inordinate number of aged cases in our sample.
All of the 100 cases we reviewed were referred to OCI within five business days as required by DPD policy; most cases were transferred within one to three days. However, we noted the untimely transfer of cases from OCI to IAD or FI, as described earlier.
In all but five cases, we noted efforts to keep the complainant informed of case progress. Often, this correspondence involved attempts to encourage uncooperative complainants to participate in their investigations. In all applicable cases, the complainants were notified of the disposition of their cases, and if any allegations were sustained, they were advised that the case was referred to the Chief of Police for appropriate corrective action.
During our previous site visits, we verified ongoing in-service training for OCI personnel. Much of this training occurs in conjunction with other DPD employees. While we do not discourage this practice, we continue to encourage OCI to explore training specific to OCI’s responsibilities, in order to address knowledge and skill gaps that impact the quality of its investigations. We also verified that the newly hired investigators received appropriate pre-service training.
The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: IAD Standard Operating Procedures do not specifically permit or encourage informal resolution due the nature of their investigative jurisdiction of alleged criminality and/or serious misconduct lodged against Department personnel. Accordingly, IAD investigates and makes findings in each case.
IAD Standard Operating Procedures and OCI policy require that all complaints be referred to the appropriate agency within five business days of their receipt. Historically, we discovered significant delays in transferring appropriate cases from OCI to IAD. During the current reporting period, we reviewed 24 IAD cases, and determined that none had been referred by OCI.
The IAD Standard Operating Procedures contains criteria for investigator applicants and training. IAD is current in its training requirements.
In cases of prolonged investigations, IAD must provide an updated case status to complainants, and upon closure, notify them of the closure, finding(s), and action(s) taken, where appropriate.
Our review determined that IAD is in compliance with the notifications to complainants upon both the opening and the closure of all investigations.
During our current review of 24 investigations, four exceeded the 90-day time limit. Of those, the reviewer determined that one was delayed due to adjudication in criminal court, two were delayed awaiting response for warrant requests from Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, and one was delayed due to the collection and review of significant bank records. All delays were documented and approved by the supervisor. There were no cases that were inappropriately delayed during this period.
DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 81 of 197 Pg ID 8764

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 80

September 28, 2012

Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U68
The DPD and the City shall review and evaluate the external complaint review process to require:
a. the Chief Investigator or his/her designee to complete review of OCI investigations within 7 days of completion of the supervisor’s review;
b. the Board of Police Commissioners to complete review of OCI investigations within 45 days of completion of the Chief Investigator’s review;29 and
c. the Chief of Police or his or her designee to complete his or her review of external complaints within 7 days of completion of the BOPC’s review.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During our past two reviews, we noted that the external complaint review process was not completed within the appropriate timeframes. During this reporting period, the Acting Chief Investigator reviewed all investigations submitted to him within the prescribed seven-day period.
All Board of Police Commissioner reviews in our sample were completed in a timely manner. During our most recent site visit, we also reviewed correspondence between OCI and the Chief’s Office showing timely transfer of cases once the Board approves them.
The City is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U69 In addition to the investigatory report and evaluation requirements, each allegation in an administrative external complaint investigation shall be resolved by making one of the following dispositions:
a. “Unfounded,” where the investigation revealed no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred;
b. “Sustained,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur and the actions of the officer violated DPD policies, procedures or training;
29 Amended by Court Order dated July 18, 2003

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 82 of 197 Pg ID 8765

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 81

September 28, 2012

c. “Not Sustained,” where there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and
d. “Exonerated,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate DPD policies, procedures or training.
Comments:
During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected OCI cases. For purposes of this paragraph, we evaluated the determination of finding based on the information in each case file. We found six cases in which allegations did not receive appropriate dispositions. In these cases, we learned of the additional allegations by listening to the complainants’ interviews, as they were not mentioned on the original CCR. The allegations were not identified or addressed in the case summaries. As noted in our previous reports, we are concerned with the frequency of this, as we listen only to a small subset of interviews. This is what drives our insistence that supervising investigators either observe interviews conducted by their investigators or listen to recordings afterwards.
In one case, an allegation of force originally listed in the CCR went unaddressed by the investigator. The investigator wrote, “Because the complainant did not make any allegation of being punched or hit to this writer (during his interview), that information is not listed in the area of concern.” Failure to repeat the information provided in the original complaint is certainly no reason to drop an allegation.
We believe that four cases were improperly either administratively or informally closed. Therefore, findings were not reached in these cases. We do not concur with the findings assigned to one or more allegations in 13 cases. In one, a complainant’s allegation of excessive force was unfounded, in part, because he did not lodge his complaint until an hour after his arrest. In another case alleging excessive force, the audio recording from the in-car video tends to support the complainant’s version of events, and the allegation should have been sustained. In still another case, a demeanor allegation was exonerated, even though the subject officer’s partner corroborated the complainant’s statement and the allegation should have been sustained. In another demeanor case, one of the officers indicates that profane language was used, while the other officer admits that “choice” language was used; yet the demeanor allegation is not sustained. In still another demeanor case, the complainant alleged that during a phone call an officer hung up on her. The officer admitted to putting the complainant on hold because he believed the complainant was being rude, and he then waited on other citizens at his desk position before picking up the phone again. To the complainant, the result was the same as a hang-up, and the allegation should have been sustained.
OCI must not only make one of the findings specified above, but the findings must be consistent with the defined requirements. Accordingly, the City is not in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
In addition, we reviewed all 24 IAD cases – including internal and external complaints – that were completed during this reporting period. During earlier reviews, there were dispositions in each of the investigations. We did not always agree with the dispositions, especially those that were derived from faulty interviews and/or the failure to gather pertinent evidence. When we

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 83 of 197 Pg ID 8766

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 82

September 28, 2012

discussed this issue with IAD personnel, IAD advised that it was making efforts to correct the problems.
During this reporting period, all investigations contained the required dispositions. Included in the 24 investigations were 29 allegations of misconduct. The following is a breakdown of the dispositions of the 29 allegations: 10 sustained; six not sustained; one exonerated; and 12 unfounded. Based on our review of the investigative documents, we are in agreement with the dispositions. IAD is in compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

Critical Issues:
We examined 24 closed IAD cases and 100 closed OCI cases for the period of April 1, through June 30, 2012. Our review disclosed that the following issues continue to require attention:
• IAD Case Tracking: During the first quarter of 2011, IAD adopted a computer program to aid in tracking its cases. While the system does not alert the users to deadlines, it does allow for communication between the investigator and supervisor. The supervisor recently incorporated a computerized calendar into the process, which notifies her when an assignment date has been reached. Also, cases that are submitted to the Prosecuting attorneys are tracked, and updates are requested on a regular basis. IAD appears to have eliminated the backlog of overdue cases, with the exception of those cases that are awaiting disposition or prosecution at the Prosecutor’s Office.
• Timeliness of Investigations: The timeliness of OCI’s investigations had been steadily slipping since March of 2011, which resulted in the Court directing that the City submit a backlog elimination plan. That plan appears to have been successful in eliminating the backlog. Unfortunately, OCI does not have a history of staying current with its cases once significant backlogs have been eliminated. We are optimistic that the current leadership team and the systems it has put in place will result in sustainability in this area, but we will be monitoring closely for any signs of slippage.
• OCI Case Management: Similar to our last report, we noted several instances during this reporting period in which it appears that expediency took precedence over quality, most notably in OCI’s efforts to close its older cases. We must hold these cases to the same standard of review as cases that are more current. Now that the backlog has been eliminated, OCI must focus on addressing the issues of quality that are adversely affecting its compliance with the applicable Consent Judgment requirements.

Next Steps: During the next reporting period, we will:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 84 of 197 Pg ID 8767

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 83

September 28, 2012

• Review a sample of the cases closed by OCI and IAD for the months of July, August, and September 2012.
• Verify implementation of and adherence to the backlog elimination plan filed with the Court.

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 - Policy Phase 2 – Implementation

61 Revise external complaint policies

In Compliance In Compliance

62 Information campaign re complaints

In Compliance In Compliance

63 Officers carry information/contact forms

In Compliance In Compliance

64 Policy to define complaint intake/track

In Compliance In Compliance

65 Permit factual account, no opinion

In Compliance In Compliance

66 Unique identifier for complaints

In Compliance In Compliance

67 Revision of complaint investigations

In Compliance Not in Compliance

68 Time limits for review of investigations/complaints In Compliance In Compliance

69 Required finding categories specified

In Compliance Not in Compliance

VII. GENERAL POLICIES
This section of the Consent Judgment addresses a variety of issues in general terms. It seeks to ensure that when the DPD develops policies, all the terms used are clearly defined, and that prior to making policy revisions, the DPD posts the proposals on the DPD website to inform the community of the proposed revisions. It requires DPD to advise all of its officers that taking police actions in violation of DPD policies shall subject them to a variety of possible actions, to include disciplinary, criminal prosecution, or civil liability. This section also requires officers to report acts of misconduct by other officers, whether on or off duty. Additionally, this section required DPD to revise its policy regarding police actions by off-duty officers; and to revise the policies on how DPD handles prisoners, to include summoning first aid as necessary, summoning assistance if required, and prohibiting the accompanying of prisoners to the holding cell area. This section also required DPD to develop a foot pursuit policy and to plan for adequate distribution of manpower. DPD has developed the appropriate policies and has achieved implementation.

CJ Requirement U70 In developing and revising the policies discussed in this Agreement, the DPD shall ensure that all terms are clearly defined. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 85 of 197 Pg ID 8768

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 84

September 28, 2012

The DPD CRIB Planning Unit is responsible for reviewing and updating all current policies and for ensuring that revisions are consistent with the requirements of the Consent Judgment. With the effective dissemination of Directive 404.1, Definitions, it has ensured that all terms are clearly defined. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U71
The DPD shall continue to make available proposed policy revisions to the community, for their review, comment and education. Such policy revisions shall also be published on the DPD’s website to allow comments to be provided directly to the DPD.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The DPD 35th Quarter Status Report, issued June 30, 2012, reports that during the twelfth quarter, the following revisions to Consent Judgment-related directives were disseminated to all members: 101.1, Written Directive System, effective May 2, 2012; 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; 201.9, Animal Procedures, effective May 2, 2012; 305.1, Detainee Intake Assessment, effective May 2, 2012; and 305.8, Detainee Food Service/Hygiene Items effective May 2, 2012. The DPD did not present these directives to the BOPC or post them to its website, as the revisions were not substantive in nature.
On June 14, 2012, the DPD presented Directive 103.5, Secondary Employment, and Directive 305.2, Detainee Registration, to the BOPC for its review. In addition, the policies were posted on the City of Detroit’s website for public review and comment. The policy is pending the approval of the BOPC.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U72
The DPD shall advise all officers, including supervisors, that taking police action in violation of DPD policy shall subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 86 of 197 Pg ID 8769

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 85

September 28, 2012

To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for FY 11-12. As of June 30, 2012, 2,405 members (98%) received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with this requirement.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U73
The DPD and the City shall develop a plan for ensuring regular field deployment of an adequate number of supervisors of patrol units and specialized units that deploy in the field to implement the provisions of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the last two reporting periods, we found that 98% and 100%, respectively, of the randomly selected platoons and specialized units were in compliance with the required 1:10 ratio of supervisors to officers in patrol and specialized units on the dates surveyed.
During this reporting period, we again surveyed Daily Details for three days selected at random (Thursday, April 19, 2012; Friday, May 25, 2012; and Saturday, June 2, 2012). We found that of the 119 platoons deployed on the three days, 117 (98%) were in compliance with the required 1:10 span of control ratio.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U74
The DPD shall enforce its policies requiring all DPD officers to report any misconduct committed by another DPD officer, whether committed on-duty or off-duty.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data FY 11-12. As of June 30, 2012, 2,405 members (98%) received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with this requirement.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 87 of 197 Pg ID 8770

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 86

September 28, 2012

We reviewed no cases during this reporting wherein officer misconduct was or should have been reported. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U75
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to:
a. provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty DPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem;
b. prohibit off-duty officers from carrying or using firearms or taking police action in situations where an officer’s performance may be impaired or the officer’s ability to take objective action may be compromised; and
c. provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for FY 11-12. As of June 30, 2012, 2,405 members (98%) have received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with this requirement.
On January 19, 2012, the letter to the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police (MACO), requesting that member agencies notify DPD IAD of any off-duty actions involving DPD members in their respective jurisdictions was sent. A copy of the letter was provided to the Monitoring Team.
During this reporting period, there was one case submitted at the SIR level in which an off-duty officer was involved in an incident in DPD’s jurisdiction and which had exigent circumstances resulting in an immediate reaction by the involved officer. The officer was off duty and standing on a street corner speaking with friends. He was the victim of an armed robbery, after which the subject fired two shots at him; he returned fire, firing two shots that had no effect. Force Investigations assumed responsibility for this investigation. There was no indication that the officer had consumed alcohol or was otherwise impaired.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 88 of 197 Pg ID 8771

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 87

September 28, 2012

CJ Requirement U76 The DPD shall revise its policies regarding prisoners to:
a. require officers to summon emergency medical services to transport prisoners when the restraints employed indicate the need for medical monitoring;
b. require officers to utilize appropriate precautions when interacting with a prisoner who demonstrates he or she is recalcitrant or resistant, including summoning additional officers, summoning a supervisor and using appropriate restraints; and
c. prohibit arresting and transporting officers from accompanying prisoners into the holding cell area.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. To assess Phase 2 compliance for this report, we reviewed the training data for Fiscal Year 20112012. As of June 30, 2012, 2,405 members (98%) have received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with the enumerated requirements.
We also reviewed all 91 Command Level Investigations completed during this reporting period. None of the cases reviewed were in violation of these requirements.
DPD remains in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement U77
The DPD shall develop a foot pursuit policy to: a. require officers to consider particular factors in determining whether a foot pursuit is appropriate, including the offense committed by the subject, whether the subject is armed, the location (e.g., lighting and officer familiarity), whether more than one officer is available to engage in the pursuit, the proximity of reinforcements, and the ability to apprehend the subject at a later date;
b. emphasize alternatives to foot pursuits, including area containment, surveillance, and obtaining reinforcements;
c. emphasize the danger of pursuing and engaging a subject with a firearm in hand; and d. require officers to document all foot pursuits that involve a use of force on a separate,
auditable form, such as the use of force report. Comments:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 89 of 197 Pg ID 8772

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 88

September 28, 2012

The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During this reporting period, we reviewed the training data for FY 2011-2012. As of June 30, 2012, 2,405 members (98%) have received the use of force training, which incorporates the methods for dealing with the enumerated requirements.
We reviewed eight foot pursuits during this reporting period. There were six cases in which officers considered alternatives to foot pursuits. Two of the cases involved foot pursuits of individuals who had been armed, though each of the subjects discarded their weapons during the pursuit. All eight pursuits were documented on the appropriate Use of Force 002 Form.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
DPD remains in full compliance in this area, and we have observed no major issues that suggest concerns about the Department’s continuing that status.

Next Steps: During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to monitor relevant policy changes, including efforts to address the public’s interest in policy.
• Continue to heed the training requirements inherent in policy development in this area.

¶

Requirements

Phase 1 – Phase

2

–

Policy

Implementation

70

Clear definitions in policies

In Compliance In Compliance

71

Proposed policy changes open to comm.

In Compliance In Compliance

72

Advise officers policy violations disciplined In Compliance In Compliance

73

Adequate officer/supervisor ratio

In Compliance In Compliance

74

Enforce misconduct reporting requirements In Compliance In Compliance

75

Revise policies regarding off-duty officers In Compliance In Compliance

76

Revise prisoner-related policies

In Compliance In Compliance

77

Develop foot pursuit policy

In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 90 of 197 Pg ID 8773

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 89

September 28, 2012

VIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
This portion of the Use of Force Consent Judgment addresses several key management areas including the development of a risk management system, audit requirements, including in-car cameras, personnel evaluations, and the reduction of a backload of disciplinary cases. Thirteen of the 28 requirements in this section address the development and use of a comprehensive risk management system.
The DPD has made progress in instituting a workable mobile video system that supports both its important police mission and the management and oversight of its operations. In the past two years, it has repaired and deployed over 300 in-car MVS systems and begun to remedy deficiencies that that threaten its successful implementation. The wireless system, the most serious problem that prevents comprehensive upload of data, has now been upgraded. DPD has also begun to acquire and deploy new MVS units that are expected to provide both significantly improved reliability and enhanced management capabilities.
DPD has moved forward significantly in this area, but there is still more to do to ensure success. Officers still do not record either video or audio in their citizen contacts frequently enough to achieve Phase 2 compliance. As we observed in our last report, training the officers and supervisors who will work with the new equipment in the procedures and directives that pertain to its operation will be critical to success. The Department needs to devote the resources, both in personnel and equipment, necessary to complete the work on this important project.

A. Risk Management Database
CJ Requirement U78
The DPD shall devise a comprehensive risk management plan, including:
a. a risk management database (discussed in paragraphs 79-90);
b. a performance evaluation system (discussed in paragraph 91);
c. an auditing protocol (discussed in paragraphs 92-99);
d. regular and periodic review of all DPD policies; and
e. regular meetings of DPD management to share information and evaluate patterns of conduct by DPD that potentially increase the DPD’s liability.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
This paragraph provides an overview of the requirements for the development and implementation of the risk management system, which is described in detail in paragraphs U7999; and the other requirements relating to management and supervision. Progress in particular areas reflected in those requirements is noted in the separate assessments below.
In previous reports, a finding of pending compliance for this paragraph was associated with the need for DPD to norm its risk management data by taking into account the number of arrests made by officers in order to systematically identify outliers who pose the greatest risk to the

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 91 of 197 Pg ID 8774

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 90

September 28, 2012

department and their careers. Our last report noted progress in norming the data and reported pending compliance indicating that the next step would be to conduct the PEERS reviews that were supported by the norming process. Those reviews are being conducted as expected. With that, DPD achieves full compliance with this requirement. This has the effect of bringing all of the risk management-related requirements into compliance for the first reporting period.
Maintaining compliance will require the continued success with the collection and storage of data, its use, including normed data to identify outliers, competent reviews by supervisors, and appropriate use of monitoring and intervention consistent with the reduction in risk.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U79
The DPD shall enhance and expand its risk management system to include a new computerized relational database for maintaining, integrating and retrieving data necessary for supervision and management of the DPD. Priority shall be given to the DPD obtaining an established program and database. The DPD shall ensure that the risk management database it designs or acquires is adequate to evaluate the performance of DPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts; to manage risk and liability; and to promote civil rights and best police practices. The DPD shall regularly use this data for such review and monitoring.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Phase 2 compliance with this requirement was recognized following extensive testing of MAS, from which we concluded that the system was capable of meeting the risk management requirements as specified in the Consent Judgment. The Department has continued to make progress on system development and implementation. To support that conclusion, we reviewed the monthly MAS Status reports through the month of June. In this reporting period, we also reviewed the monthly command reviews documenting the use of MAS. We have also examined the results of PEERs reviews. As noted below, this material also included PEERs that were returned to supervisors as insufficient. For the current reporting period, we again examined the use of the system, including the input of data, the use of that data, and the identification and review of officers exceeding thresholds established in the system. Based on our review of the continued development and use of this system, we again recognize the achievement of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 92 of 197 Pg ID 8775

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 91

September 28, 2012

CJ Requirement U80
The new risk management database shall collect and record the following information:
a. all use of force reports and use of force investigations;
b. all canine deployments;
c. all canine apprehensions;
d. all canine bites;
e. all canisters of chemical spray issued to officers;
f. all injured prisoner reports and injured prisoner investigations;
g. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct” or “interfering with a city employee;”
h. all firearm discharge reports and firearm discharge investigations;
i. all incidents in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target;
j. all complaints and complaint investigations, entered at the time the complaint is filed and updated to record the finding;
k. all preliminary investigations and investigations of alleged criminal conduct;
l. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the City, or its officers, or agents, resulting from DPD operations or the actions of DPD personnel, entered at the time proceedings are initiated and updated to record disposition;
m. all vehicle and foot pursuits and traffic collisions;
n. all reports regarding arrests without probable cause or where the individual was discharged from custody without formal charges being sought;
o. all reports regarding investigatory stops and/or frisks unsupported by reasonable suspicion;
p. all reports regarding interviews, interrogations or conveyances in violation of DPD policy;
q. the time between arrest and arraignment for all arrests;
r. all reports regarding a violation of DPD prompt judicial review policy;
s. all reports regarding a violation of DPD hold policy;
t. all restrictions on phone calls or visitors imposed by officers;
u. all instances in which the DPD is informed by a prosecuting authority that a declination to prosecute any crime was based, in whole or in part, upon concerns about the credibility of a DPD officer or that a motion to suppress evidence was granted on the grounds of a constitutional violation by a DPD officer;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 93 of 197 Pg ID 8776

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 92

September 28, 2012

v. all disciplinary action taken against officers;
w. all non-disciplinary corrective action required of officers, excluding administrative counseling records;
x. all awards and commendations received by officers;
y. the assignment, rank, and training history of officers; and
z. firearms qualification information of officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our analyses continue to find that the expected information is present for all the mandated data categories. The totals for data entered during the reporting period for all relevant subtasks are presented below. Our review of MAS reports also supports the fact that these data are consulted and used in the risk management process. We continue to recognize the importance of sound data entry and retention practices and we anticipate further review of specific data elements each reporting period. The data below show that there is a general consistency in the numbers across most categories for the time periods shown.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 94 of 197 Pg ID 8777

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 93

September 28, 2012

U80 Data Requirements – Quarterly Department Totals

Subtask Text

10/1-12/31,

7/1-9/30, 2011

1/1-3/31,2012 4/1-6/30, 2012

2011

a use of force reports

278

254

237

334

a use of force investigation

132

100

95

118

b canine deployments

15

15

6

7

c canine apprehension

6

4

0

1

d canine bites

0

0

0

0

f injured prisoner reports

13

18

9

17

g injured prisoner investigations

13

18

9

17

g force and arrests for resisting arrest

116

99

101

120

g force and arrests for assault on an officer

58

36

43

65

g force and arrests for disorderly conduct

42

27

14

31

g force and arrests for interfering with city employee

32

11

5

16

h firearm discharge reports

7

6

10

8

h firearm discharge investigations

7

4

7

8

i officer draws a firearm & acquires target

18

12

30

43

j Complaints

307

264

272

232

k investigations of criminal misconduct by officers

15

0

10

0

l. criminal proceedings against members

0

2

1

3

l. all civil lawsuits

8

34

25

18

m vehicle pursuits

42

81

45

40

m foot pursuits

14

m traffic collisions

34

n reports of arrests w/o probable cause

2

n individuals discharged from custody w/o charges

N/A

o

investigatory stops and frisks w/o reasonable suspicion Frisks=146

St o p s=5 4

14 35 10 555 Frisks=63 St o p s=1 0

9 43 0 509 Frisks=21 St o p s=1 2

35 36 0 610 Frisks=13 St o p s=6

Interviews=33, Interviews=18, Interviews=11,

reports of interviews, interrogation, or conveyances Interrogation=1 Interrogation=10 Interrogation=6 Interviews=0,

p

in viol of policy

5

,

,

In t erro gat io n =0 ,

Conveyances=0

Conveyances=4 Conveyances=0 Conveyances=0

r reports of violations of prompt judicial review

891

841

848

829

s reports of violation of DPD hold policy

134

97

111

189

t reports of restrictions on phone calls or visits

27

1

15

18

u report of declination to prosecute due to police

0

0

0

0

conduct or suppressed evidence

v disciplinary action taken against officers

37

42

70

15

w non-disciplinary corrective action

188

299

463

131

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 95 of 197 Pg ID 8778

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 94

September 28, 2012

The quarterly review of these data provides a means by which the Department can assess DPD activity and also examine the quality of information entered into MAS. This analysis continues to indicate that the appropriate data are collected and entered into the risk management system.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U81
The new risk management database shall include, for each incident, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (including name, pension number, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (including race, ethnicity or national origin, sex, and age).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
As noted in our past three reports, DPD has resolved issues around reporting information regarding citizens connected with reported incidents. That data continues to be entered into MAS appropriately. The data on officers also continues to be reliably entered and maintained.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U82
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management database and addressing data storage. The Data Input Plan shall:
a. detail the specific fields of information to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise);
b. specify the unit responsible for inputting data, the deadlines for inputting the data in a timely, accurate, and complete manner;
c. specify the historical time periods for which information is to be input and the deadlines for inputting the data in an accurate and timely fashion; and
d. requires that the data be maintained in a secure and confidential manner.

Comments:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 96 of 197 Pg ID 8779

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 95

September 28, 2012

The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The Department’s revised Data Input Plan was approved by the Department of Justice in a letter dated June 9, 2011. Our observations and interviews with DPD continue to support the conclusion that the provisions of the Data Input Plan are reflected in the practices of the Department.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U83
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Report Protocol for the risk management database that details the types of routine reports the DPD shall generate and pattern identifications the DPD shall conduct. The Report Protocol shall:
a. require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria:
i. number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
ii. average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and
iii. identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
b. establish thresholds for the numbers and types of incidents requiring a review by an officer’s supervisor of whether the officer or group of officers is engaging in at-risk behavior (in addition to the regular reviews required by paragraph 84); and
c. require the database to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The Department’s revised Report Protocol was also approved by the Department of Justice in a letter dated June 9, 2011. Our observations and interviews with DPD continue to support the conclusion that the provisions of the Report Protocol are reflected in the practices of the Department. To consider this, we also examined command monthly reviews in MAS, and confirmed both the availability and use of the MAS data at the command level. As in previous quarters, during our most recent site visit, members of the Monitoring Team attended the Command Compliance Review Meeting and observed the use of information from MAS.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 97 of 197 Pg ID 8780

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 96

September 28, 2012

CJ Requirement U84
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Review Protocol for using the risk management database that addresses data analysis, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and auditing. The Review Protocol shall require:
a. that when an officer or group of officers pass a threshold established in the Report Protocol the officer’s(s’) supervisor shall review all information in the risk management database regarding the officer(s), together with other relevant information;
b. the reviewing supervisor to document whether he or she took non-disciplinary corrective action or recommended disciplinary action, the basis for this decision, and what corrective action was taken, if any;
c. supervisors to review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, database reports, together with other relevant information, to evaluate individual officer and unit activity for at-risk behavior;
d. precinct and unit commanders to review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, database reports, together with other relevant information, to evaluate individual supervisor’s assessment and analysis of information in the risk management database and the corrective action taken by supervisors;
e. appropriate DPD supervisors to review and evaluate, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, police performance citywide, using all relevant information from the risk management database and other relevant information and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all DPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents;
f. commanders and supervisors conducting such periodic reviews to take non-disciplinary corrective action when appropriate for individual officers, supervisors or units and document any such action in writing;
g. that the information in the database be accessible to commanders, supervisors and the BPC;
h. that the information in the database is considered when evaluating a DPD employee for transfer or promotion;
i. commanders and supervisors to promptly review records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units;
j. commanders and supervisors to be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management database to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk;
k. that a designated DPD unit be responsible for managing and administering the database, including conducting quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above; and
l. that aggregated information from the risk management database be shared on a regular and periodic basis with training and policy planning staff.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 98 of 197 Pg ID 8781

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 97

September 28, 2012

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The Review Protocol was revised, submitted for review and approved by DOJ on June 9, 2011. Interviews with staff assigned to MAS continue to support the conclusion that the review process is being implemented consistent with policy. To further assess that, we examined all Personnel Evaluation and Enhancement Review Sessions (PEERS) completed and signed off in the reporting period for the relevant quarter. The data comparing this reporting period to the previous reporting period are presented below.

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  PEERS	
  and	
  	
  Their	
  Outcomes

July-­‐Sept	
  2011 Oct-­‐Dec

Jan-­‐March	
  2012 April-­‐June

Total	
  PEERS

93

77

63

68

No	
  Action	
  Needed

65	
  (70%)

67	
  (87%)

53	
  (84%)

55	
  (81%)

Monitoring

10	
  (11%)

7	
  (9%)

8	
  (13%)

8	
  (12%)

Other/Pending

18	
  (19%)

4	
  (5%)

2	
  (3%)

5	
  	
  (7%)

PEERS	
  returned	
  for	
   correction	
  or	
  

N/A

9	
  supervisors	
   12	
  supervisors	
   3	
  supervisors	
  

completion

33	
  reviews 13	
  reviews 5	
  reviews

In 68 completed PEERS, supervisors and command staff found no need for action in 55 (81%) of cases. They assigned officers to be monitored in eight (12%) of cases. They did not report taking informal action (training recommendations, additional review) in any cases. Five cases had not completed the process during the reporting period. Overall, the outcomes of the PEERS are similar to those of the last reporting period. Recommendations for monitoring were the result of approximately the same percentage of reviews across the three reporting periods.
The figures above continue to make it clear that MAS is being utilized. Our review of PEERS indicated that many supervisors appear to be thorough in their reviews, and command personnel appear to scrutinize PEERS decisions appropriately. As part of the quality control process, the Risk Management Unit continuously examines the PEERS processes for delays, incomplete reviews and insufficient detail or inappropriate outcomes. When concerns arise, the unit issues corrective action notices (CANs) to supervisors. We reviewed corrective action notices for 51 reviews that were sent to supervisors for inadequate or incorrect PEERS that they conducted over the past three reporting periods. As shown above, the number for each reporting period seems to be falling, suggesting the impact of the feedback. The overall numbers indicate that oversight of this process is taking place and is effective. The risk management unit also critically reviews reports of monitoring that result from PEERS reviews. They identify inadequate interventions or documentation and seek corrections. We expect that the numbers of PEERS returned for corrective action will be reduced over time. We will continue to monitor this review process.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 99 of 197 Pg ID 8782

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 98

September 28, 2012

In our last report, we expressed our concern that the volume of cases where no intervention is needed could indicate that the system is not sufficiently efficient at identifying officers engaged in high-risk behavior. Those concerns are being addressed as the Department moves forward with the selection of officers for review based on normed data and moves away from using a set number of indicators as the selection criteria.
All of the above data indicate the system is heavily used and carefully administered in a manner consistent with risk reduction goals. We continue to be pleased to see the ongoing efforts to improve this process, including production of regular reports on risk management and the development of new types of risk analyses, such as focusing on low-activity officers. The use of risk management data through the command accountability meeting process illustrates the value of this system to the daily management of DPD.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U85
The DPD shall seek to ensure that the risk management database is created as expeditiously as possible. As part of this effort, the DPD, in consultation with the DOJ, shall organize the risk management database into modules in developing the Data Input Plan, the Report Protocol, the Review Protocol and the Request for Proposals and in negotiating with contractors, such that difficulties with one aspect of the risk management database do not delay implementation of other modules.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the current reporting period, there have been no changes that would affect the compliance status with this requirement. The Department continues its processes of development and improvement of the risk management system in a manner consistent with expectations. It produces regular reports of the system status and any revisions or improvements that have been made. These are discussed during our site visits.
DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 100 of 197 Pg ID 8783

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 99

September 28, 2012

CJ Requirement U86
Where information about a single incident is entered into the risk management database from more than one document (e.g., from a complaint form and a use of force report), the risk management database shall use a common control number or other equally effective means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has addressed the need for a common control number or other equally effective means of connecting information across reports of a single incident by developing an algorithm to link documents in the database. The system now links documents using as many as nine variables. These include such elements as identifying information on officers and civilians involved in the incident, the date of the event, and the Crisnet number. DPD also incorporated a box to check to retrieve “related documents” directly on the appropriate MAS computer screens. This has proven a successful solution to this technical problem.
DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U87
The City shall maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management database during the officer’s employment with the DPD and for at least five years after separation. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in the risk management database.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The Phase 2 compliance finding for this requirement remains unchanged. The required data are accessible through MAS, and the five-year retention policy on personal information is in place.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U88
The new risk management database shall be developed and implemented according to the following schedule:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 101 of 197 Pg ID 8784

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 100

September 28, 2012

a. By January 24, 2008, the City shall have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management database consisting of: 1) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the City and DPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary database software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the information system completed, including historic data. The DOJ and the Monitor shall have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using new and historical data and test data created specifically for the purposes of checking the risk management database.
b. The risk management database shall be operational and fully implemented by July 24, 2008.
c. The parties and the independent monitor shall meet on a monthly basis to discuss what actions have been taken during the previous month toward development of the new risk management database.
d. The defendant shall present to the plaintiff and the independent monitor, on a monthly basis, evidence of satisfactory progress sufficient to justify a conclusion that completion of the new risk management database by August 11, 2008 remains feasible. If at any time the plaintiff concludes that successful completion of the project within the timeframes described in this paragraph is unlikely, the plaintiff shall so notify the Court and the defendant. Within sixty days after receipt of such notice, the defendant shall issue an RFP to develop or complete development of the new risk management database as was required by 88c. of this Consent Judgment before it was amended. In that event, the requirements of paragraphs 88.d., 88.e., 88.f., and 88.g. of this Consent Judgment before it was amended shall be enforced, with dates adjusted as follows: the Review Protocol (paragraph 88.d.) shall be issued within five months after issuance of the RFP; the defendant shall select the contractor (paragraph 88.e) within seven months after issuance of the RFP; the beta version (paragraph 88.f) shall be ready for testing within fifteen months after issuance of the RFP; and the risk management database shall be operational (paragraph 88.g) within twenty-six months after issuance of the RFP.30
e. By May 31, 2004, the DPD shall select the contractor to create the risk management database.
f. By June 30, 2005, the City shall have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management database consisting of: i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the City and DPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary database software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the information system completed, including historic data. The DOJ and the Monitor shall have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using new and historical data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management database.

30 Amended by Court Orders dated November 9, 2007, and July 22, 2008

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 102 of 197 Pg ID 8785

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 101

September 28, 2012

g. The risk management database shall be operational and fully implemented by December 31, 2005.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
All of the timeframes and dates specified in the original Consent Judgment and later extended by the Court have expired. Currently, DPD files MAS update reports on a monthly basis. These reports document continued progress in the development and implementation of the risk management system. The schedule set by this requirement is recognized as obsolete; and its original intention has been met and is monitored through the monthly MAS reports produced by the Department.
Accordingly, DPD is, again, in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U89
Prior to implementation of the new risk management database, the DPD shall develop an interim system to identify patterns of conduct by DPD officers or groups of officers. The interim system shall require periodic reviews of relevant information, but no less than monthly, and evaluations of whether an officer or group of officers is engaging in at-risk behavior. This interim system shall collect and analyze the following information: citizen complaint reports and investigations; use of force investigations; shootings; vehicle chases; injured prisoner investigations; traffic collisions; canisters of chemical spray issued to officers; firearms qualifications; training; prompt judicial review; disciplinary action; arrest without probable cause; all reports regarding investigatory stops and/or frisks unsupported by reasonable suspicion; and all reports regarding interviews, interrogations or conveyances in violation of DPD policy in a format that facilitates entry into the final risk management database, to the fullest extent possible.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In accordance with the Consent Judgment, DPD developed and used the Interim Management Awareness System (IMAS) that later developed into the current system (MAS). With progress on the current system, the need for IMAS was superseded. Therefore, DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 103 of 197 Pg ID 8786

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 102

September 28, 2012

CJ Requirement U90
Following the initial implementation of the risk management database, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the DPD may propose to subtract or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and subtract or modify standardized reports and queries. The DPD shall submit all such proposals for review and approval by the DOJ before implementation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The Department has revised the key documents required for the risk management system. It submitted the revised Data Input Plan, Review Protocol, and Report Protocol to the Department of Justice and the changes were approved as noted in a letter from DOJ dated June 9, 2011. With that, the Department demonstrated compliance. We will continue to monitor the risk management system to ensure that any other significant changes are handled in a manner consistent with this requirement. DPD is currently incorporating descriptions of its data norming process in the relevant policies. These will be reviewed in our next report.
The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Performance Evaluation System CJ Requirement U91 DPD shall ensure that performance evaluations for all DPD employees below the rank of Deputy Chief occur at least annually and include, but are not limited to, consideration of the following:31
a. civil rights integrity; b. adherence to law, including performing duties in a manner consistent with the
requirements of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution and the Civil Rights laws of the United States; and c. supervisor’s performance in identifying and addressing at-risk behavior in subordinates, including their supervision and review of use of force, arrests, care of prisoners, prisoner processing, and performance bearing upon honesty and integrity. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
31 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 104 of 197 Pg ID 8787

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 103

September 28, 2012

DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for the past eight reporting periods. To verify continued compliance for the current reporting period, we again examined a random sample of 125 evaluations drawn from all a list of all personnel. Our review verified that more than 94% of reviews were current and properly completed with original narratives, references to “no change in status,” or references to material in MAS. Four evaluations were excluded since they were not completed due to the probationary status of the employees or extended leave. Four evaluations were not accounted for in the final sample.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Oversight
CJ Requirement U92
The DPD shall develop a protocol for conducting annual audits to be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol shall establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all DPD units and commands. The annual audit period for conducting the audits required by paragraphs 93 to 97 for the first year shall end on August 31, 2004. The subsequent annual periods shall end on July 17, 2005, and every year thereafter.32
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Phase 2 compliance is dependent on compliance with the requirements of U93-97. The audit protocol is in place following revision last July and all audits are scheduled and moving toward completion. They are governed by the most recent protocol revision. Accordingly, the DPD continues in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U93 The DPD shall issue a report to the Chief of Police on the result of each audit and examine whether there is consistency throughout the DPD. The DPD shall also provide the reports to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized
32 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 105 of 197 Pg ID 8788

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 104

September 28, 2012

unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. All audits contain the appropriate sign-offs by unit commanders. We verified the review by the Chief through examination of the summary audit briefing signoffs dated February 27, and 29, 2012. New audits and resulting corrective action reports were completed according to the Audit Protocol schedule. Annual audits are once again scheduled for July completion and will be reviewed in our next report.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U94
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits, covering all DPD units and commands that investigate uses of force, prisoner injuries, and allegations of misconduct. The audits shall include reviewing a statistically valid sample of command, IAD, and Homicide Section investigations; evaluating whether the actions of the officer and the subject were captured correctly in the investigative report; and evaluating the preservation and analysis of the evidence and the appropriateness of the investigator’s conclusions.33
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Audits on use of force, prisoner injuries, and allegation of misconduct were completed in January and were followed by corrective action reports. As part of the audit protocol, new audits are scheduled for July 2012 and January 2113.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U95 The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits covering all precincts and specialized units that review a statistically valid sample of findings of probable cause, stop and frisk reports and witness identification and questioning documentation. The audits shall include evaluating
33 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 106 of 197 Pg ID 8789

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 105

September 28, 2012

the scope, duration, content, and voluntariness, if appropriate, of the police interaction. The audits shall include a comparison of the number of arrests to requests for warrants and a comparison of the number of arrests for which warrants were sought to judicial findings of probable cause.34
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. Stop and frisk audits were completed on schedule and corrective action reports were completed. New audits are scheduled for completion on an annual basis. Audits completed in July will be reviewed in our next report.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U96
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits covering all precincts and specialized units that examine custodial detention practices. The audits shall include reviewing the length of detention between arrest and arraignment and the time to adjudicate holds.35
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. Custodial detention audits of all relevant facilities were completed on schedule and were reviewed for this report. Corrective action reports were reviewed.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U97 The Chief Investigator of OCI shall designate an individual or entity to conduct regularly scheduled annual audits that examine external complaints and complaint investigations. The
34 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004 35 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 107 of 197 Pg ID 8790

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 106

September 28, 2012

audit shall include reviewing a statistically valid sample of complaints that were resolved informally, reviewing a sample of OCI investigations of complaints, and contacting the complainants to evaluate whether the actions and views of the complainant were captured correctly in the complaint report and/or investigation. The Chief Investigator shall review all audit reports regarding officers under OCI command and, if appropriate, shall take nondisciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.36
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The Department has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. In the most recent audit cycle, all audits were completed on schedule and corrective action reports and plans were completed based on the audits. A new round of audits is currently underway and will be examined in our next report.
The Department remains in compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U98
The DPD shall conduct and document periodic random reviews of scout car camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes. In addition, the DPD shall require periodic random surveys of scout car video recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During our most recent site visit, we interviewed the Chief Information Officer (CIO), the MVS Project Manager, and members of their staff. We reviewed videos and records relating to the installation and maintenance of MVS in DPD’s fleet of patrol cars.
In previous reports, we have noted that DPD supervisors have performed a large number of random reviews of MVS by simply randomly selecting and viewing an event that has been recorded. We have observed that while such reviews are helpful in confirming that the equipment is operational and that, to some extent, it is being used, a better review technique would be for supervisors to select an event that occurred during the shift that requires video to be recorded and confirm that it was, in fact, recorded. On March 9, 2012, a roll call message specified that the segment reviewed shall be one that reflects officer and citizen contact as indicated on the officer’s activity log. This change is a positive step in the supervision of the mobile video program.

36 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 108 of 197 Pg ID 8791

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 107

September 28, 2012

During the current reporting period, CRIB implemented a trial review process in which it selected three citizen-officer contacts in the Northeastern District and directed commanders to have the appropriate supervisors review the videos for the specific incidents. The three video reviews produced quality results. In one review, the supervisor noted no issues or deviations from policy. But in the second review, the two involved officers were determined to have made several mistakes and deviations from DPD policy. Both officers failed to activate their microphones for the full duration of the event, and both officers were found to have made serious mistakes that adversely affected their safety. In the third review, the supervisor also found several policy violations and safety concerns. The reviews were productive in ensuring that mistakes and departures from policy were identified and addressed. We commend the DPD for the demonstration of a more effective random review.
We sampled three precincts (Sixth, Southwest, and Twelfth) on three different dates (Thursday, April 19; Friday, May 25; and Sunday, June 2, 2012) to determine how many cars with operational video units had actually been deployed and how many had random reviews had been conducted. We found that 162 equipped units were deployed in the three districts on the three days in our survey. A total of 138 video reviews were recorded. This reflects only 85% of the MVS equipped cars. It is current DPD policy to review at least one video for every equipped car deployed on patrol, and this is the first reporting period in which less than 94% has been detected. DPD has discussed altering the policy on random reviews to require a less frequent but more focused review of the sort described above in the CRIB trial; we believe that this would be a positive development. The following chart reflects the results of our survey.

Sixth

Southwest

Twelfth

DEPLOYED EQUIPPED
VIDEO REVIEWED DEPLOYED EQUIPPED
VIDEO REVIEWED DEPLOYED EQUIPPED
VIDEO REVIEWED

DATE

Thursday, April 19, 2012 13 12 12 33 30 26 23 20 17

Friday, May 25, 2012

16 14 14 24 24 6 16 16 16

Sunday, June 2, 2012

12 11 12 26 26 26 12 9 9

Totals

41 37 38 83 80 58 51 45 42

The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 109 of 197 Pg ID 8792

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 108

September 28, 2012

CJ Requirement U99
The DPD shall ensure regular meetings with local prosecutors to identify issues in officer, shift or unit performance.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. To verify continued compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we reviewed the minutes of the May 16, 2112 quarterly meeting involving DPD and members of the Prosecutor’s Office. A wide range of topics discussed is reported in the meeting minutes including arrestee identifiers, date of arrest vs. date of incident, codis, property room and evidence, use of in-car video, warrant requests, open Internal Affairs cases, and the operation of virtual precincts. The next meeting is scheduled for August 8, 2012.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
D. Use of Video Cameras
CJ Requirement U100
The DPD shall repair or replace all non-functioning video cameras.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
MVS equipment, particularly older units, is subject to breaking down and requiring repair. As a result, the total number of operational units at any one time varies. DPD estimates that it has 303 MVS units operational. The complement of MVS equipment actually installed and operational has remained the same, 303 vehicles, since July 2011.
During our January 2012 site visit, we found that work on the wireless network upgrade had not been completed. The infrastructure work had been completed on five DPD buildings, and new MVS units had been installed in five vehicles that were being tested as prototypes. We were informed that DPD encountered no significant problems that it was not able to resolve, and it expected to install new units in 40 more vehicles to be placed in service.
During our April 2012 site visit, we found that the projected installation work on the wireless system had been completed and was operational throughout the DPD. All MVS systems were uploading much more smoothly. Videos were being transmitted and stored on the server and available on a timelier basis. Two wireless LANs had been implemented; one for the old MVS system and a second for the new equipment that had been procured. The installation of the new

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 110 of 197 Pg ID 8793

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 109

September 28, 2012

system had been completed in 50 cars (including five prototypes, five retrofitted cars, and 40 new cars). Since only two microphones per car have been acquired, officers were still required to place the microphones in chargers in their cars and remember to put them on their uniforms as they exited the vehicle. DPD was awaiting City approval of its request to acquire microphones for every officer. During our most recent site visit, we found that the DPD had acquired 625 of the new microphones and was beginning to issue them to the officers.
The wireless system – which had initially performed well – was seriously disrupted when a mechanical control arm on the digital tape back-up system broke and prevented the off-loading of older videos from the main hard disk storage system. When the back-up system became unavailable, the main hard disk storage became overloaded, uploading from patrol cars was disrupted, and the cars’ on-board storage filled to capacity. The solution to the problem was to repair the broken control arm and remove and replace the storage chips in the cars that had become overloaded. The repairs and replacements were made and the back-up capacity was increased from 200 terabytes to 400 terabytes. The data on the storage chips that were replaced was downloaded directly into the system.
During the three-month period ending on May 31, 2012, the DPD IT Bureau responded to 238 requests for repair service. Our review found that 225 (95%) of the requests for service were successfully resolved or were actively being resolved.
The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U101
The DPD policy on video cameras shall be revised and augmented to require:
a. activation of scout car video cameras at all times the officer is on patrol;
b. supervisors to review videotapes of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits and external complaints; and
c. that the DPD retain and preserve videotapes for at least 90 days, or as long as necessary for incidents to be fully investigated.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During our past site visits, we found:
a. The DPD MVS cameras are set to operate 100% of the time on patrol. Full video is 2430 frames per second; MVS units are set to capture one frame of video per second at all non-emergency times. The equipment is set so that whenever the emergency lights are activated, the units switch to full-video mode and capture 28 frames per second.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 111 of 197 Pg ID 8794

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 110

September 28, 2012

b. While supervisory review of videotapes involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits, and external complaints is required, DPD has made strides in providing these data for our review but has not yet been able to provide comprehensive data identifying all such incidents. We have calculated the data that was provided, and it is set forth in the chart below (Use of Force).
c. DPD preserves and retains videos, as required by U101c.
U101b requires that video be activated for each of the incidents specified and that supervisors conduct a review of the video where one is available. We found the following during our most recent site visit:
• Pursuits: DPD was able to produce reports that identified 75 pursuits during the period from March 1, through May 31, 2012. The report is believed by DPD to be comprehensive. Fifty-six of the 75 were determined to have operational MVS systems in their cars. Of these, DPD was able to locate video for 42 (75%) pursuits where the car was equipped with operational video; audios were found for 23 (41%). This is a slight decline from our last review, when we found 79% of videos recorded. Further, we note that while in most other areas where we measure video, audio recording is a critical aspect that must reach >94% for compliance, pursuits are the category where audio is not always critical. We will expect that audio will be collected when, at the end of a pursuit, the officers exit their vehicle; or in situations where it would have been important to collect it.
• Uses of Force: DPD provided several lists from which instances of use of force can be derived. During this site visit we reviewed a total of 111 cases for the months of March, April, and May, 2012. When all of the cases that did not contain SIRs were eliminated, there were 91 cases remaining. Of these, there were 72 cases that could be considered for video/audio review; the other 19 had no equipment assigned to the units. Of the 72 cases, 17 cases had video reviews from DPD holding facilities or business/casino cameras, not from the scout cars. This left 55 cases where there should have been scout car video/audio recordings. Twenty-five (45%) of the cases had video/audio recordings.
A second list of uses of force was derived from stop and frisk reports. DPD produced a list of 90 stops in the three-month period from March 1, through May 31, 2012. In 80 cases, cars were not equipped with MVS systems, or the stop occurred beyond the range of the video system, leaving nine cases in our sample. Of these cases, three (33%) contained video. Overall, of 64 instances involving uses of force, 28 (44%) were found to have video.

Activity UOF Investigations

Tech Fail

or # Not

Video &

# Cases Equipped # Considered Audio

%

111

56

55

25

45%

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 112 of 197 Pg ID 8795

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 111

September 28, 2012

Stop & Frisk Total

90

80

9

3

33%

201

136

64

28

44%

• Injuries: DPD was unable to produce a report that identified a comprehensive list of incidents involving injuries to officers or subjects in which MVS should have been recorded.
• External Complaints: DPD provided a list of 14 Internal Affairs Division investigations that were reviewed and would have been expected to have video recorded that were closed during the current reporting period. In nine of the 14 cases, video should have been available and was requested. In six of those cases (67%), video and audio were produced and reviewed.

IAD CASES CLOSED

Month April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 Total

# Cases
6 4 4 14

# Video Expected
5 2 2 9

# Video Received & Reviewed
4
2
0
6

% 80% 100% 0% 67%

We were not provided data for OCI cases for the period of March 1, through May 31, 2012. The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with U101a and U101c. It is not in compliance with U101b, and is therefore not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U102
The DPD policy on video cameras shall require officers to record all motor vehicle stops, consents to search a vehicle, deployments of a drug-detection canine, or vehicle searches.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During this reporting period, we selected a random sample of more than 100 traffic stops for each of the three months in the reporting period (March 1, 2012 through May 31, 2012). We have encountered difficulty in the past in obtaining data for the last month of the reporting period. We did not receive the data for May 2012 in time for it to be included in this report. In

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 113 of 197 Pg ID 8796

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 112

September 28, 2012

this review and future reviews, we will examine traffic stop data for a three-month period beginning four months before the review.
• Traffic Stops: We examined 250 traffic stops selected at random for the period of March 1, 2012, through May 31, 2012. Overall, 208 of the traffic stops involved cars with operational MVS systems. A total of 158 (76%) of these traffic stops contained video, and 91 (58%) contained audio. These results showed mild improvement over the last reporting period, when 73% were found to contain video and 57% audio. The results are depicted on the following chart.

Month March 2012 April 2012 May 2012
Totals

Traffic Stops, March and April 2012

# with

Operational

# Records

MVS

# Video % Video # Audio % Audio

125

102

64

63%

35

34%

125

106

94

89%

56

45%

NO DATA

250

208

158

76%

91

58%

• Vehicle Searches and Canine Deployments: Finally, 11 canine deployments were considered. Eight of these events did not involve cars equipped with MVS systems. Of the remaining three equipped cars, two (67%) contained video and audio.

Activity Canine Deployments

Tech Fail

or # Not

#

Video &

# Cases Equipped Considered Audio

%

11

8

3

2

67%

Despite the progress the Department has made in this area, DPD is not yet in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

E. Discipline
CJ Requirement U103
The City shall ensure that adequate resources are provided to eliminate the backlog of disciplinary cases and that all disciplinary matters are resolved as soon as reasonably possible.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 114 of 197 Pg ID 8797

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 113

September 28, 2012

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 95 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. There is no backlog of cases and case flow is being managed sufficiently, as noted below. During the current reporting period, a total of 178 new disciplinary cases were opened. This includes a significant number of cases received from OCI as that office has taken steps to deal with its accumulation of cases. We also established that all previously noted resources remain in place to support compliance with this requirement at this time.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U104
The DPD shall schedule disciplinary hearings, trials, and appeals at appropriately frequent intervals, to prevent a disciplinary backlog from developing. As part of determining how often to schedule such hearings, the DPD shall establish guidelines dictating the maximum period of time that should elapse between each stage of the disciplinary process.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 95 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. All disciplinary proceedings met the established timelines and were consistent with this requirement. As of the end of June, there are no cases remaining open that predate 2011. For 2011, a total of 21 cases remained open, down from 92 cases during the last reporting period; and 120 cases were open from this year (2012) at the end of this reporting period. The status of all open cases is tracked by the disciplinary unit and reported quarterly. All open 2011 and 2012 cases reflect appropriate scheduling and steps toward closure.
As noted in our last report, the disciplinary unit began a new process of assessing cases and, when viewed as appropriate, sponsoring the mediation of those cases. That process is continuing and the unit is now also considering implementation of a restorative justice model intended to provide a way of addressing patterns of lower level problematic behavior.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 115 of 197 Pg ID 8798

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 114

September 28, 2012

CJ Requirement U105
The DPD shall create a disciplinary matrix that:
a. establishes a presumptive range of discipline for each type of rule violation;
b. increases the presumptive discipline based on both an officer’s prior violations of the same rule as well as violations of other rules;
c. requires that any departure from the presumptive range of discipline must be justified in writing;
d. provides that the DPD shall not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix calls for the imposition of discipline; and
e. Provides that the DPD shall consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action also is appropriate in a case where discipline has been imposed.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 95 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. The disciplinary matrix is provided for use at disciplinary trial boards. All decisions this reporting period fell within the matrix and were consistent with this requirement. DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 78 Comprehensive Risk Management Plan 79 Improve risk management system 80 Database requirements (a-z) 81 Database to include officer information 82 Data Input Plan (a-d) 83 Report Protocol for database (a-c) 84 Review Protocol for database (a-l) 85 Use modules to ensure work progress 86 Common control number required 87 Data retention 88 Database schedule (expired)

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 116 of 197 Pg ID 8799

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 115

September 28, 2012

89 Interim database (rescinded) 90 Change process needs DOJ approval 91 Annual officer review criteria specified 92 Protocol for conducting audits 93 Audit results to Chief and commanders 94 Annual audits-use of force 95 Annual audits-probable cause/stop-and-frisk 96 Annual audits-detention practices 97 Annual audits-external complaints 98 Random reviews of in-car camera videos 99 Regular meeting with local prosecutors 100 Replace/repair video cameras 101 Revision of video camera policy 102 Record all vehicle stops, searches, etc. 103 Elimination of disciplinary case backlog 104 Scheduling of disciplinary cases 105 Disciplinary matrix of responses/sanctions

In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

IX. TRAINING
During our most recent site visit, we visited the Detroit Police Training Center and interviewed the Training Commander and key members of the training staff. The Training Commander who guided DPD Training since we commenced our monitoring of the Judgments was rotated to a Patrol Command position and a new commander was appointed to lead training. We reviewed a variety of memoranda and policy material for use during the 2012-2013 Training Year (July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013).
DPD continues to make progress in addressing the Consent Judgment training requirements. For the past two years, the Department has achieved compliance with all training-related requirements and, as we have noted in our recent reports, DPD should now take steps to ensure that the changes it has made are institutionalized and accepted throughout the organization.

A. Oversight and Development
CJ Requirement U106
The DPD shall coordinate and review all use of force and arrest and detention training to ensure quality, consistency and compliance with applicable law and DPD policy. The DPD shall conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually, and produce a report of such reviews to the Monitor and the DOJ.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 117 of 197 Pg ID 8800

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 116

September 28, 2012

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The required review was conducted in June 2012, and documented in a DPD report entitled, “Training Oversight and Development Report – Semi-Annual Review, July 2012.” This report – the seventh such report to be issued – contained the evaluation of use of force, arrest, and detention training; and covered all elements of this requirement. The report is prepared twice each year, and the next such report will be produced in December 2012.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U107
The DPD, consistent with Michigan law and the Michigan Law Enforcement Officers Training Council standards, shall:
a. ensure the quality of all use of force and arrest and detention training;
b. develop use of force and arrest and detention training curricula;
c. select and train DPD officer trainers;
d. develop, implement, approve and oversee all training and curricula;
e. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
f. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that training governing use of force and arrest and detention are responsive to the knowledge, skills and abilities of the officers being trained.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we met with the new Training Director and staff and reviewed training records. DPD training complies with the Michigan Law Enforcement Council’s standards and Michigan law. With regard to subparagraphs a-f, during the past year we found as follows:
a. We reviewed the revised lesson plans that are now being used in the 2012-2013 training cycle. In addition, during our last site visit, we reviewed the two new use of force scenarios that are being deployed; and the report entitled, “Training Oversight and Development Report – Semi-Annual Review,” dated July 2012, which documents the DPD’s semi-annual review and evaluation of its training. Use of force and detention training are adequate.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 118 of 197 Pg ID 8801

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 117

September 28, 2012

b. As noted above, we reviewed the lesson plans for the Use of Force and Arrest and Detention training that are being used in the current training year (July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013), and found them to be adequate for the training required.
c. DPD selected no new trainers during the second quarter of 2012.
d/e. As we have observed in past reviews, DPD policy, curricula, and lesson plans address these provisions.
Directive 304.5-3.4 places responsibility on the Commander of Training to conduct a training needs assessment. As noted in our last report, in July and December 2011, the DPD conducted and documented training needs assessments. Senior officers and midlevel managers representing critical areas of the DPD participated in the process. Over the past year, such needs assessments have identified several “performance gaps” that could be addressed through training. DPD has initiated new training and modified inservice training in order to address many of the deficiencies identified in the needs assessments. Using this process, Training determined that DPD supervisors and investigators needed improvement in conducting interviews. A four-hour training block for supervisors and investigators designed to address these weaknesses was implemented in April 2012. We reviewed the Training Needs Assessment that documented the results of the DPD assessment conducted in the second quarter of 2012. The assessment identified two “performance gaps” that could be addressed through training. The gaps were in preservation of crime scenes and in peer intervention. In the latter, Training is implementing a course entitled “Thinking Responsibly” that involves a five-step program that introduces the “Responsibility Process” as a tool to use to educate others to be more effective and create a culture of responsibility. The new course is to be offered first to executives, then to mid-level managers, and then to officers.
The Needs Assessment did not evaluate the impact of the training that was introduced during the past year in order to correct deficiencies that were identified in previous needs assessments. The needs assessment process should not only identify Departmental performance weaknesses, but it should assess the success or failure of training that has been implemented in the past to address significant performance weaknesses.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U108
The DPD shall create and maintain individual training records for all officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training completed for all training conducted on or after the effective date of this agreement.
Comments:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 119 of 197 Pg ID 8802

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 118

September 28, 2012

The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD captures data relating to its in-service training, and records it on a spreadsheet. Since the spreadsheet is used by the Department to determine if all of its officers have attended the required in-service training sessions, we have conducted audits of its accuracy during the current and past reporting periods. We randomly selected 100 officers who were listed on the spreadsheet as having received and completed in-service training during the period of April 1, through June 30, 2012. In order to complete their in-service training, these officers would have to attend and sign attendance sheets for four courses: Legal; Use of Force; PR-24; and Firearms Qualification. DPD was able to locate all 400 of the expected signatures. In addition, the 19 records on our randomly selected in-service list that were supervisors were all found to have attended the required Leadership and Accountability in-service.
During our previous reviews, we found that the Department committed to recording training data in the MITN System, a part of the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) data system. Training has now entered all DPD training records for years 2003 through the present. During this reporting period, we selected at random 100 records relating to Use of Force training, and checked the MITN system to see if they had been recorded. Ninetynine (99%) were found to have been entered into MITN.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U109
The DPD shall ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors and that instructors engage students in meaningful dialogue regarding particular scenarios, preferably taken from actual incidents involving DPD officers, with the goal of educating students regarding the legal and tactical issues raised by the scenarios.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD training directives and lesson plans properly direct and instruct on the relevant provisions of the Consent Judgment. During the last reporting period, we found that DPD developed three new scenarios utilizing DPD Internal Affairs incidents, and accepted them for incorporation into the Legal block of training. We reviewed all three and found them acceptable. The Department has 16 scenarios it can employ to support this training. We have reviewed all the lesson plans that were updated for the 2012-2013 Training Year and found them to be adequate.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 120 of 197 Pg ID 8803

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 119

September 28, 2012

Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U110
The DPD shall meet with the City Law Department on a quarterly basis concerning the conclusion of civil lawsuits alleging officer misconduct, information gleaned from this process shall be distributed to DPD risk management and training staff. Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The DPD met with the City Law Department pursuant to this requirement on June 19, 2012. Meetings are held quarterly. The DPD remains in compliance with U110. Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U111
The City and the DPD shall distribute and explain this Agreement to all DPD and all relevant City employees The City and the DPD shall provide initial training on this Agreement to all City and DPD employees whose job responsibilities are affected by this Agreement within 120 days of each provision’s implementation. Thereafter, the DPD shall provide training on the policies contained in this Agreement during in-service training.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Recruits receive this training, which is conducted by CRIB, after they complete their state certification exams and before they graduate from the Academy. The 33 recruits received Consent Decree training in their Basic Training class on April 18, 2012. The four new civilian employees hired during the reporting period received the training from CRIB in two-hour sessions conducted on May 9, 2012.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Use of Force Training CJ Requirement U112

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 121 of 197 Pg ID 8804

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 120

September 28, 2012

The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers, and supervisors with annual training on use of force. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. The DPD’s use of force continuum; proper use of force; decision making; and the DPD’s use of force reporting requirements;
b. The Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including recent legal developments;
c. Examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper use of force decision making, including the use of deadly force;
d. The circumstances in which officers may draw, display, or point a firearm, emphasizing:
i. Officers should not draw their firearm unless they reasonably believe there is a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or another person;
ii. The danger of engaging or pursuing a suspect with a firearm drawn; and
iii. That officers are generally not justified in drawing their firearm when pursuing a subject suspected of committing only a misdemeanor;
e. The proper use of all intermediate force weapons;
f. Threat assessment, alternative and de-escalation techniques that allow officers to effect arrests without using force and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units or even letting a subject temporarily evade arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation, even when the use of force would be legally justified;
g. Interacting with people with mental illnesses, including instruction by mental health practitioners and an emphasis on de-escalation strategies;
h. Factors to consider in initiating or continuing a pursuit;
i. The proper duration of a burst of chemical spray, the distance from which it should be applied, and emphasize that officers shall aim chemical spray only at the target’s face and upper torso, and
j. Consideration of the safety of civilians in the vicinity before engaging in police action.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During our most recent site visit, we assessed training policy directives, curricula, lesson plans, special orders, training needs assessment and teletypes, among other materials that were prepared to address the requirements of U112 during Training Year 2012-2013 (July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013). Our review showed that the course content requirements of U112 and all of its subparagraphs were met for all recruits and in-service trainees.
During this review we found that 98%, or more, DPD officers available to train attended and completed the in-service blocks in which the requirements for U112 are fulfilled. The specific numbers that attended and the percentages of officers available to train are listed in the following sections.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 122 of 197 Pg ID 8805

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 121

September 28, 2012

The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Firearms Training
CJ Requirement U113
The DPD shall develop a protocol regarding firearms training that:
a. Ensures that all officers and supervisors complete the bi-annual firearms training and qualification;
b. Incorporates professional night training, stress training (i.e., training in using a firearm after undergoing physical exertion) and proper use of force decision making training in the bi-annual in-service training program, with the goal of adequately preparing officers for real life situations;
c. Ensures that firearm instructors critically observe students and provide corrective instruction regarding deficient firearm techniques and failure to utilize safe gun handling procedures at all times; and undergoing physical exertion) and proper use of force decision making training in the bi-annual in-service training program, with the goal of adequately preparing officers for real life situations;
d. Incorporates evaluation criteria to determine satisfactory completion of recruit and inservice firearms training, including:
e. Maintains finger off trigger unless justified and ready to fire;
f. Maintains proper hold of firearm and proper stance; and
g. Uses proper use of force decision making.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The requirements specified in U113 are addressed in the Department’s firearms training, which officers are required to attend and qualify in every six months. During the previous six-month firearms qualification period (July 1, through December 31, 2011), 99% of the officers available to train attended firearms and qualified.
On the June 30, 2012, end of the most recent six-month firearms qualification period (January 1, through June 30, 2012), 2,394 (98%) of the 2,454 officers available to train attended firearms and qualified. The officers who did not attend and/or qualify were listed for CRIB for action to remove their weapons and to be placed in a “no gun” status.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 123 of 197 Pg ID 8806

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 122

September 28, 2012

Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

D. Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training
CJ Requirement U114
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on arrests and other police-citizen interaction. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. The DPD Arrest, Investigatory Stop and Frisk and Witness Identification and Questioning Policies;
b. The Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including:
c. Advising officers that the “possibility” that an individual committed a crime does not rise to the level of probable cause;
d. Advising officers that the duration and scope of the police-citizen interaction determines whether an arrest occurred, not the officer’s subjective, intent or belief that he or she affected an arrest; and
e. Advising officers that every detention is a seizure, every seizure requires reasonable suspicion or probable cause and there is no legally authorized seizure apart from a “Terry stop” and an arrest; and
f. Examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper police-community interactions, including scenarios which distinguish an investigatory stop from an arrest by the scope and duration of the police interaction; between probable cause, reasonable suspicion and mere speculation; and voluntary consent from mere acquiescence to police authority.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force, Search, and Detention training were taught in the eight-hour Use of Force inservice training and, until the current year, in the four-hour Arrest Procedures in-service training. The Arrest Procedures session has been discontinued as a separate course, and is now being addressed in the Use of Force and Legal blocks of instruction. Annual training is provided by DPD in its in-service training program for officers and supervisors. During the last training year (July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011), the Department trained 99% of its available members in its Use of Force in-service training.
We found that 2,405 (98%) of DPD’s 2,454 officers available to train attended the Use of Force in-service training during the first three quarters of the new training year. In addition, 2,431 (99%) attended the Legal in-service block of instruction. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 124 of 197 Pg ID 8807

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 123

September 28, 2012

Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

E. Custodial Detention Training
CJ Requirement U115
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on custodial detention. Such training shall include DPD policies regarding arrest, arraignment, holds, restrictions, material witness and detention records.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD developed appropriate policies and lesson plans to comply with this provision, as well as a protocol to train all recruits, sworn members, confinement officers, investigators, and supervisors. All officers who attend the Use of Force and Legal in-service training receive the detention training specified by this requirement. Officers who serve in the detention cell areas are required to receive additional annual detention officer training, which is more specifically related to detention responsibilities. (See C73.)
During the training year that ended on June 30, 2011, 99% of DPD members attended the Use of Force and Legal in-service training sessions and received this training. As noted in U114, 98% of DPD officers attended the Use of Force training, and 99% attended the Legal training, during the recently concluded training year.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U116
The DPD shall advise officers that the DPD arraignment policy shall not be delayed because of the assignment of the investigation to a specialized unit, the arrest charge(s), the availability of an investigator, the gathering of additional evidence or obtaining a confession.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has incorporated these training requirements into its Use of Force lesson plan. During the 2010-2011 training year, the Department trained 99% of its officers in its Use of Force in-service training session. DPD remains in compliance, and has trained 98% of officers available to train during the recently completed 2011-2012 training year that ended on June 30, 2012.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 125 of 197 Pg ID 8808

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 124

September 28, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U117
The DPD shall advise officers that whether an individual is a material witness and whether that material witness should be committed to custody is a judicial determination.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Material witness training has been incorporated into the Use of Force lesson plan. As noted above (see U115), the DPD trained 99% of its officers in the Use of Force in-service training during the 2010-2011 training year that ended on June 30, 2011; we found that DPD trained 98% of its officers in the 2011-2012 training year that ended on June 30, 2012.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

F. Supervisory Training
CJ Requirement U118
The DPD shall provide supervisors with training in the appropriate evaluation of written reports, including what constitutes a fact based description, the identification of conclusory language not supported by specific facts and catch phrases, or language that so regularly appears in reports that its inclusion requires further explanation by the reporting officer.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD fulfills Consent Judgment requirements U118-122 through its annual Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training that is required for both supervisors and investigators. During the training year that ended on June 30, 2011, the Department trained 99% of its supervisors in its Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training session.
On June 10, 2011, DPD Training approved a new three-hour block of instruction entitled, “Supervisory Report Writing – SIR Report.” This block of instruction is designed to provide procedures for proper documentation for the following situations in which:
• A use of force was employed
• A firearm was drawn and a target acquired

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 126 of 197 Pg ID 8809

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 125

September 28, 2012

• An injury to detainee(s) occurred
• Allegations of injuries while in DPD custody were made The three hours have been incorporated into the Supervisory Leadership and Accountability inservice training. During the training year (July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012), 511 (98%) of the 519 supervisors who were available to train attended the Leadership and Accountability inservice training.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U119
DPD supervisors shall receive leadership and command accountability training and learn techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training shall be provided to all DPD supervisors within 30 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities and shall be made part of annual in-service training.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD did not promote any personnel to the supervisor rank during the past reporting period. As noted in U118, during the Training Year that ended on June 30, 2012, the DPD trained 98% of its supervisors and investigators at its annual Supervisory Leadership and Accountability inservice training. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U120
The DPD shall provide training on risk assessment and risk management to all DPD supervisors, including the operation of the risk management database.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The Department’s Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training session addresses this requirement. During this reporting period, we found that DPD had provided this training to 98% of its supervisors during the training year that ended on June 30, 2012. The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 127 of 197 Pg ID 8810

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 126

September 28, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

G. Investigator Training
CJ Requirement U121
The DPD shall provide training on appropriate burdens of proof, interview techniques and the factors to consider when evaluating officer, complainant or witness credibility to all officers who conduct investigations to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform and legally appropriate.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The training required by U121 is delivered in the DPD Supervisory and Leadership Accountability in-service training, which is attended by both supervisors and investigators. In the training year that ended on June 30, 2012, the Department trained 98% of its supervisory staff and investigators. The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U122
The DPD shall provide all supervisors charged with accepting external complaints with appropriate training on handling external complaints that emphasizes interpersonal skills. The DPD shall provide training on the DPD external complaint process, including the role of OCI and IAD in the process, to all new recruits and as part of annual in-service training.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The training required by U122 is delivered in the DPD Supervisory and Leadership Accountability in-service training, which is attended by both supervisors and investigators. In the training year that ended on June 30, 2012, the Department trained 98% of its supervisory staff.
The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 128 of 197 Pg ID 8811

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 127

September 28, 2012

H. Field Training
CJ Requirement U123
The DPD shall develop, subject to DOJ approval, a protocol to enhance the FTO program within 120 days of the effective date of this Agreement. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting and removing the FTOs and for training and evaluating FTOs and trainees.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD conducted a training class for its Field Training Officers in April 2011, in which it trained three new FTOs and recertified another. The Department has not conducted a certification or recertification class since April 2011. DPD currently has 118 FTOs assigned throughout the Department.
As we noted during our previous on-site review, 33 probationary officers graduated on April 13, 2012, and entered the FTO Program. These officers remain in the FTO Program for one year from the date of their graduation from the Police Academy, or 18 months from their date of hire, whichever is shorter. Since the DPD has 118 FTOs, additional FTOs are not needed at this time. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 106 Coordination and review of training 107 DPD will meet state training standards 108 Maintain individual training records 109 Train from approved objectives and plans 110 Quarterly meetings with Law Department 111 Distribute and training on the agreement 112 Annual use of force training required 113 Develop firearms training protocol 114 Annual arrest, citizen interaction training 115 Annual training on custodial detention 116 Prohibition of arraignment delays 117 Material witness custody

Phase 1 - Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 129 of 197 Pg ID 8812

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 128

September 28, 2012

118 Supervisory training-report evaluation 119 Supervisory training-leadership 120 Supervisory training-risk management 121 Investigator training-procedures 122 Supervisory training-external complaints 123 Enhance the FTO program

In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

SECTION THREE:
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT
This Consent Judgment sets forth procedural and operational requirements relating to the confinement facilities maintained and operated by the Detroit Police Department. The Judgment requires the revision and implementation of policies and practices that are safe, respectful, and constitutional in the areas of fire safety, emergency preparedness, medical and mental health, prisoner safety, environmental health and safety, persons with disabilities, food service, and personal hygiene. In addition, the Judgment sets forth requirements relating to the use of force in detention facilities, as well as procedures for the investigation of the use of force and complaints relating to other events occurring in these facilities. The Judgment also establishes requirements for management and supervision, the auditing of internal practices, and the training of personnel who are assigned detention responsibilities.
During our first site visit in November 2009, we reviewed required directives, supporting logs, forms, and documentation relating to the operation of the detention facilities. Accompanied by key members of the DPD Office of Civil Rights personnel, we conducted our first tour of the Detroit Police Department’s five facilities with holding cells and the Detroit Receiving Hospital.37 We have repeated our tours and inspections of some or all of these facilities during each of our subsequent site visits, and have interacted with command and key detention staff at each facility.
In addition, we have met with key CRIB command staff, Audit Team personnel, and the designated health care professional to conduct a thorough review of all requirements, DPD directives, forms, logs, and documentation relating to and required by this Judgment. Our review disclosed the need for the DPD to revise various health-related directives and to have them reviewed and approved by a health care professional. This was accomplished. In addition, we met with DPD Training staff regarding training issues, which were promptly addressed.
37 Facilities with holding cells are located in the Northeastern, Eastern, and Southwestern Districts; Sixth and Twelfth Precincts.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 130 of 197 Pg ID 8813

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 129

September 28, 2012

During our visits to and inspections of the various facilities with holding cells, we are always accompanied by CRIB staff, and assisted by the cell block supervisors and compliance officers. These inspections included our entering and examining every holding cell, interviewing detention staff, and reviewing forms and logs. When we find errors, omissions or violations during the inspections we advise facility and CRIB staff immediately of our observations.
We have worked with DPD holding facilities staff to streamline reporting mechanisms and to offer alternatives to ensure that requirements are met and are consistent with policy.
We have been advised by CRIB that in the near future the duties of the cell block supervisor (CBS) and the desk supervisor will be merged into one position. Since the implementation of the virtual precinct concept earlier in 2012, citizens can report many more crimes by telephone rather than requiring that officers either respond to the scene or citizens travel to a District or Precinct. The virtual precinct reduced the number of police reports that the desk supervisor previously had to review thus freeing the position up for other responsibilities. We will monitor this change during our next report period.
Prior to forwarding documents requested for our quarterly reviews, CRIB personnel routinely review the documents before they are forwarded to us. During this review, CRIB typically identifies errors and/or omissions and forward corrective action notices to the various commands. Written responses are required. If appropriate supervisory review occurred and errors/omissions were initially identified and corrected at the District/Precinct level, that action would have a positive bearing on compliance.
The Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment is comprised of several different categories relating to the confinement facilities maintained and operated by DPD.

III. FIRE SAFETY POLICIES
CJ Requirement C14
The DPD shall ensure that all holding cells, and buildings that contain them, achieve and maintain compliance with the Life Safety Code within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. The City shall ensure that the Detroit Fire Marshal conducts regular and periodic inspections to evaluate whether the conditions in DPD holding cells, and buildings that contain them, are in compliance with the Life Safety Code.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The Fire Marshal Division of the Detroit Fire Department conducted its annual review and approved the Fire Safety Program (FSP) and the Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP) for all DPD buildings containing holding cells on June 7, 2012. The next semiannual inspection is due to be completed on July 31, 2012; and will be reported upon in our next quarterly report.
The next Fire Marshal’s inspection is due in May 2013.
Accordingly, DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 131 of 197 Pg ID 8814

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 130

September 28, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C15
The DPD shall develop and implement a comprehensive fire detection, suppression and evacuation program for the holding cells, and buildings that contain them, in accordance with the requirements of the Life Safety Code and in consultation with the Detroit Fire Department.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the second reporting period.
During this reporting period, we reviewed DPD 716, Fire Extinguisher Monthly Inspection/Inventory, and DPD 703, Fire Drill Documentation Forms, for all of the districts/precincts with holding cells; and determined that all facilities are in compliance with these requirements. We also examined a sample of the fire extinguishers at each holding facility, and found them all to be fully charged.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C16
The fire safety program shall be developed in consultation with, and receive written approval by, the Detroit Fire Department. As part of developing the fire safety program, the Detroit Fire Department shall evaluate the need for and, if necessary, the DPD shall install: fire-rated separations, smoke detection systems, smoke control systems, sprinkler systems and/or emergency exits for the holding cells and buildings that contain them. The fire safety program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of the Agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Following the development of the Fire Safety Plan, the DPD made required structural changes to districts/precincts’ holding facilities, including the updating and/or installation of sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, and fire-rated doors. During our inspection of the district/precinct holding cells, we found the presence of all three.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 132 of 197 Pg ID 8815

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 131

September 28, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C17
The DPD shall implement the fire safety program within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the plan.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has developed and implemented the required Fire Safety Plan.
During our most recent site visits to each district/precinct that maintains holding cells, we found documentation of the Fire Marshal’s inspections. The most recent inspections were conducted and documented on June 7, 2012. The next Fire Marshal’s inspection is due in May 2013. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C18
The DPD shall take immediate interim fire safety measures in all buildings that contain holding cells. At a minimum, these interim measures shall:
a. Ensure that the activation of any individual smoke alarm sounds an alarm throughout the building;
b. ensure that prisoners in holding cells have an adequate means of reporting emergency conditions to DPD staff immediately;
c. ensure that automated back-up power systems exist for all buildings containing holding cells that are capable of providing immediate power for emergency lighting, exit signs, fire alarm and smoke detection systems in the event of an electrical power failure through batteries or an emergency generator; and
d. reduce the likely spread of smoke and fire throughout the buildings by means of stairwells, garages, hazardous rooms and exposed pipes, such as ensuring that fire doors in stairwells are closed.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 133 of 197 Pg ID 8816

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 132

September 28, 2012

The DPD has been in full Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the first reporting period.
As previously noted, we visited each district/precinct that maintains holding cells, and determined that the DPD has made the required structural, electronic, and mechanical upgrades within the facilities. We also noted that Fire Systems of Michigan and the Fire Marshal conducted and documented inspections of suppression systems on June 7, 2012. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C19
The DPD shall ensure that fire safety equipment is routinely tested, inspected and maintained, including the sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, manual fire extinguishers, emergency lighting and exit signs, and self-contained breathing apparatuses.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the second reporting period.
The Fire Safety Plan places responsibility for ensuring the required testing, inspections, and maintenance of the various systems, fire extinguishers, emergency lighting and signs, and equipment with the DPD Office of Facilities Management.
Fire Systems of Michigan and the Fire Marshal conduct the required inspections, which were last conducted in June 2012.
Because sprinkler heads are often broken by detainees in the holding cells – requiring the shutdown of the water delivery system – the DPD added language to the CEPP/FSP, under the auspices of the Fire Marshal, requiring that the detention staff perform visual fire inspections as an alternative when the fire detection system is disabled or not functioning.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C20
The DPD shall enforce immediately its no-smoking policy in the holding cells or provide ashtrays and ensure that all holding cell areas are constructed and supplied with fire-rated materials.
Comments:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 134 of 197 Pg ID 8817

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 133

September 28, 2012

The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the first reporting period. During our most recent inspection, we did not find any persons smoking in unauthorized areas. Also, during our review of all of the monthly inspections on DPD 715 - Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells, we found no documentation that any smoking had been observed in the facilities.
DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C21 The DPD shall insure immediately that all flammable and combustible liquids in holding cell areas and the attached and nearby DPD buildings are stored properly. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Our inspection of the holding facilities found that each district/precinct was equipped with at least one yellow storage cabinet, located in the garage area, for flammable and combustible liquids. We checked the cabinets, and found flammable materials and gas storage containers. DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C22
The DPD shall remove immediately all highly-combustible kane fiber ceiling tiles from buildings that contain holding cells.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in continued compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph since 2005 when it closed some of the facilities where kane fiber ceiling tiles were in place, and it removed the tiles from the remaining facilities. DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 135 of 197 Pg ID 8818

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 134

September 28, 2012

Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

14 Holding Cell Life Safety Code compliance In Compliance

15 Fire detection, suppression, and evacuation In Compliance

16 Fire Department consultation/evaluation

In Compliance

17 Implementation of fire safety program

In Compliance

18 Immediate interim fire safety measures

In Compliance

19 Routine testing of fire safety equipment

In Compliance

20 Enforce no smoking in holding cells

In Compliance

21 Proper storage of flammable liquids

In Compliance

22 Remove combustible cane fiber tiles

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

IV. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES CJ Requirement C23 The DPD shall ensure a reasonable level of safety and security of all staff and prisoners in the event of a fire or other emergency. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. As noted previously, Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of C24-25; DPD is now in compliance with C25. Accordingly, we now find this paragraph in compliance. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C24
The DPD shall develop a comprehensive emergency preparedness program that is approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department. This program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the programs within three months of DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the plan. At a minimum, the emergency preparedness program shall:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 136 of 197 Pg ID 8819

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 135

September 28, 2012

a. include an emergency response plan for each building that contains holding cells identifying staff responsibilities in the event of fire-related emergencies and other emergencies, including notification responsibilities, evacuation procedures and key control procedures (discussed below); and
b. require performance and documentation of fire drills for all buildings containing holding cells on all shifts every six months (documentation shall include the start and stop times of each drill, the staff members who participated in the drill, a summary of the drill, and an evaluation of the success of the drill).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CEPP identifies staff responsibilities in the event of a fire emergency to include notifications, evacuation, and key control procedures. (See C15.)
The DPD achieved full compliance in the second and subsequent reporting periods as it increased the frequency of fire drills to the 100% level required by policy. During this reporting period, we determined that the fire drills were again conducted according to policy at the 100% level.
Following our recommendations that the detention evacuation equipment be stored in the immediate vicinity of the holding cells so that it is readily accessible to officers, we found, during the last reporting period, that the shackles were fully accounted for and placed individually in crates, allowing for easy access. During our most recent inspection, we found that the shackles were easily accessible. We determined that the detention officers had sufficient handcuffs and/or shackles for use in the event of an evacuation, and that all of the detention officers that we interviewed were aware of DPD policy to retain the assigned holding cell keys on their persons.
The DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C25 The DPD shall develop and implement key control policies and procedures that will ensure that all staff is able to manually unlock all holding cell doors in the event of a fire or other emergency. At a minimum, the key control policies and procedures shall:
a. provide for emergency identification of keys by touch; b. and require routine inventory, testing and maintenance of keys and locks. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 137 of 197 Pg ID 8820

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 136

September 28, 2012

During our first site visit, we recommended that each officer working in a cell block be issued a complete set of keys. Following this recommendation, we were informed that two extra sets of keys were distributed to each district/precinct with holding cells, bringing the total at each to five – three in the cell block, one with the sergeant assigned to the public lobby, and one in the emergency key box in the lieutenants’ and sergeants’ office.
During our two previous inspections, we found that each district/precinct had, at the minimum, five sets of keys – three in the cell block, one with the sergeant assigned to the public lobby, and one in the emergency key box in the lieutenants’ and sergeants’ office. Teletype #11-0989, Holding Cell Facility Keys – Required Documentation, regarding inventory and assignment of keys by the cellblock supervisor, had been distributed. This policy directed the cellblock supervisor to conduct an inventory of the keys at the commencement and the conclusion of his/her tour of duty and document same in the MAS Desk Blotter.
During a previous site visit, we found that CRIB had distributed Department Teletype #1101395, which thoroughly explained the procedure for documenting the inventory and security of keys. When interviewed, the detention supervisors and officers appeared to have an understanding of their responsibility for key control. However, another set of keys was lost in December 2011. This required lock changes for all exterior doors at the precinct.
During our most recent site visit, we determined that the supervisors and officers that we interviewed appeared to understand the process for inventory and control of the keys. The MAS Desk Blotter indicated that key inventories were entered in a timely manner. In reviewing a random sample of key control inventories, we found that a set of keys had been taken home by one of the detention officers. This was discovered and properly documented, and the officer returned the keys to the district within the hour.
DPD is now in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

23 Ensure reasonable safety in emergency

In Compliance

24

Develop

comprehensive

preparedness program

emergency In Compliance

25 Implementation of key control policies

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

V. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES
CJ Requirement C26
The DPD shall ensure the appropriate identification of, and response to, prisoner’s medical and/or mental health conditions.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 138 of 197 Pg ID 8821

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 137

September 28, 2012

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During previous reporting periods, we found DPD not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
During the previous reporting period, we reviewed DPD’s Audit Team’s report of its findings of the Holding Cells released on July 31, 2011. We noted at that time that progress had been made to address the deficiencies described in the report.
Our inspections and review of the quarterly detainee file folders demonstrated progress in most areas; however, documentation of detainee medical information and release of medication continue to be problematic. There still exist a few issues and deficiencies in this area, including not properly completing the Detainee Intake Form, DPD 651, by not including the typed name of the arresting and transporting officers or transferring medical information acquired from the arresting or transporting officers. We have found in a few instances where the processing officer writes this information on the form by hand after the fact, and it is therefore not entered into the database. While clerical errors have been reduced, they still exist.
During our most recent site visit, while reviewing active detainee file folders, we noticed that one of the detainees had requested to go to DRH 24 hours earlier (Medical Referral Log) and had not yet been sent. We returned the next day and examined the same detainee file folder; and noticed that after 48 hours, the detainee had not yet received medical attention. Personnel advised us that the detainee had changed his mind and no longer wished to go for treatment. The Medical Referral Form did not contain any information indicating the detainee’s change of mind. It is imperative that personnel document such occurrences on the proper form.
Medical referrals and the thoroughness of medication logs have also sustained improvement during this and the three previous reporting periods, and the documentation of the exchange of health information between shifts has been in compliance for some time. In previous reviews, holding cell personnel did not adequately list the medical needs of the detainees on the Platoon Daily Detail Summary (PDDSL) and the shift preparing or receiving the log failed to place the date or the time on the form. DPD has rectified this problem, and those forms are now complete, with the exception of completing the new medications portion of the form that was recently added. While some facilities are completing this form correctly, others are having difficulty.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed and inspected a random sample of 221 detainee file folders and observed personnel. We found that a few personnel are still not properly implementing these procedures in accordance with the DPD directives. We continue to note a few clerical errors and incomplete or missing documentation of medical referral and medication logs.
In order to assess compliance with this paragraph we reviewed those issues that had a direct impact on identification and response to a detainee’s medical or mental health conditions. We found 16 instances where the detainee processing time did not meet the requirement, no release of medication was indicated, no transfer of medical/mental health information transferred to the Detainee Information Form, failing to provide the discharge instructions or the conveying officer failing to indicate their name or the date/time of the conveyance back to the holding facility from DRH.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 139 of 197 Pg ID 8822

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 138

September 28, 2012

We were inside one of the holding facilities reviewing active detainee file folders when we discovered a Medical Referral Form where a detainee had just returned from DRH. It lacked the date and time of the transport officer back to the facility. We showed the transporting officer the error, and he claimed that he did not know that he was required to complete that information. There was another instance where the conveying officer transporting to DRH from the holding facility failed to list the time of the transport, so we do not know if it was timely.
The three critical issues for DPD to address at this time for compliance purposes with the Medical and Mental Health Care Policies (C26-33) are: sanitary conditions of the holding facilities and documenting cleaning procedures; the capture of the medical/mental health information initially obtained by the arresting officers being entered properly (typed) into Livescan; and ensuring that remaining medications at the time of detainee release are either given to them or transferred with them to another facility. At this point, DPD needs to fill out the required forms completely to be in compliance with this paragraph. Compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon compliance with C27-C33.
DPD’s status for this paragraph is deferred until compliance with C27-C33 is obtained.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Deferred

CJ Requirement C27
The DPD shall develop a comprehensive medical and mental health screening program (CMMHSP) that shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals. This program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the program within three months of DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least every year and prior to any revisions to the programs. At a minimum, the comprehensive medical and mental health screening program shall include prisoner screening procedures and medical protocols.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our most recent site visit, the DPD Health Authority completed the review and approved the CMMHSP policies and directives. The DPD provided us with documentation indicating that the CMMHSP was approved on February 17, 2012, and the mental health portion was approved on February 29, 2012. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 140 of 197 Pg ID 8823

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 139

September 28, 2012

CJ Requirement C28
The prisoner screening procedure, at a minimum, shall:
a. enable the DPD to identify individuals with medical or mental health conditions, including infectious diseases, chronic conditions, including disabilities, ambulatory impairments, mental health conditions, and drug/alcohol withdrawal;
b. identify persons who are at risk of committing suicide, persons who have been on heightened observation for suicide risk at any time during a past incarceration and persons who have any medical contraindications for the use of chemical sprays,
c. require that the DPD follow a standard intake procedure for each individual entering DPD custody;
d. require that intake screening be conducted within two hours of intake and through a verbal exchange between the DPD and prisoners; and
e. incorporate all health information pertaining to a prisoner acquired by the arresting or transporting officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During previous reporting periods, we found DPD not in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. We observed deficiencies, including clerical errors and incomplete or incorrect completion of required forms. Occasionally an arrestee is taken directly to DRH from the scene, and the two-hour screening mandate from time of arrest to processing does not meet the requirement. DPD processes detainees for Wayne State University Police, Detroit Public Schools Police, and the Michigan State Police. We have noted that many times DPD is late processing these detainees, due to the other agencies not presenting them to the holding facilities until the two hours from the time of arrest has passed. Any instance in which a detainee is screened more than two hours from the time of the arrest the processing officer should so indicate the reason on the face sheet of the DIF. In every case except one, staff had transported to DRH detainees needing medical attention within a reasonable time of the request.
During our most recent site visit, we discovered a detainee who had active TB and was transported to a holding facility when she should have been conveyed directly to DRH. We reported this situation to CRIB.
There were 18 instances where the intake screening took more than two hours; however, in eight of these cases, the arrestee was transported to DRH or another hospital directly from the scene. The staff did not follow DPD policy in the remaining nine cases. In one case, the processing officer indicated a backup of detainees to be processed as the cause for the delay; in two cases, the arrest was made by Wayne State University Police; one detainee refused processing, and in five cases, the processing was late and the reason for this was not documented. CRIB issued Corrective Action Notices for several of the violations. Many of these issues would be resolved if personnel would complete all the information the forms require and the OIC approving the form investigate those in violation of the two-hour requirement at the conclusion of the detainee

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 141 of 197 Pg ID 8824

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 140

September 28, 2012

processing and address those issues immediately. Compliance for processing detainees within the two-hour requirement is 98%.
The Medical/Mental High Risk Logs (DPD 661) for this reporting period revealed that high-risk detainees were observed by staff and were compliant. We reviewed five DPD 661 Forms for detainees who were maintained on suicide watches and all of them properly specified “constant supervision.” Four of the forms met the requirements for constant supervision as required by DPD policy. In one district, the detainee was placed on constant observation with the reason for the watch “prior suicide attempt,” without indicating when the previous attempt occurred. The policy change indicated below clarifies why this information is critical. With the exception of the one case, all facilities met or exceeded the required >94%.
There had been confusion among DPD personnel as to how to classify detainees who have had previous ideations of suicide or suicide attempts. DPD policy 305.1-3.9, Detoxification/Safety Cell, indicates that a detoxification/safety cell is an observation cell temporarily used to detain chemically impaired persons or a person who may be a suicide risk (constant observation). As the policy was previously written, any previous suicide attempt required constant supervision. This policy was revised and renumbered (now 305.1-3.14) on February 29, 2012 to provide more clarity to DPD personnel; it also eliminates the conflict that previously existed on page 3 of the Detainee Information Form: “If only #10 is marked yes and suicide attempt is over one year ago, monitor (15 minute). If attempt is less than one year ago, place detainee on constant supervision.”
In some cases, medical professionals at DRH may recommend placing a detainee on constant watch or remove them from the watch. In these cases, DPD personnel need to indicate these changes in the comment section of the High Risk Log or on the form when they have returned to the holding facility. There were five detainees placed on constant watch in the sample for this reporting period, and all were in compliance, which indicates that DPD has addressed the abovenoted problems. This is the third consecutive reporting period in which we have found DPD in compliance with C28b.
During this reporting period, we continued to find some of the problems we observed in the past. These deficiencies included missing or incorrect dates/times on forms and logs; forms and logs not filled out completely and handwritten documentation that was not entered in LiveScan. We have continued to recommend to CRIB that it develops and implements a process so that when a detainee’s medical or mental health status changes, detention staff update the documents accordingly. Once detainee information is initially entered into LiveScan, the system does not allow additional information to be updated electronically; in the few cases where updating is required after the initial processing, the processing officer may enter the information in by hand so that subsequent shifts will be aware of any new medical information discovered.
Overall, we found that DPD had a 96% compliance rate with this paragraph due to the compliance of C28e (C28a, b, and c had previously been in compliance). There were 56 instances where the Detainee Input Sheet indicated that the arresting or transporting officer listed a mental or medical issue with the detainee. In 54 cases, the processing officers in the facilities transferred this information to the Detainee Information Form; and in two cases, the processing officers failed to transfer the medical/mental information as required by policy. In three of the cases, the processing officer listed the medical/mental information from the Detainee

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 142 of 197 Pg ID 8825

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 141

September 28, 2012

Information Sheet to the Detainee Information Form by hand. CRIB has advised that there has been an ongoing technological issue with capturing information from the Detainee Information Sheet into the database. CRIB also advised that it is exploring a hard-copy report that would help to resolve these issues. On November 11, 2011, DPD issued an Administrative Message (Teletype #11-1392) that advised commands for all detainee registrations to use the revised Detainee Input Sheet, effective December 1, 2011. DPD’s compliance rate for the quarter is 96%.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C29
The medical protocols, at a minimum, shall:
a. identify the specific actions the DPD shall take in response to the medical information acquired during prisoner screening or detention, including the need for emergency care, hospitalization, prescription medication and/or intensive monitoring; and
b. require prior supervisory review and written approval, absent exigent circumstances, of all decisions made in response to acquired medical information.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD was not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph in previous reporting periods.
During this reporting period, we reviewed a sample of 171 detainee file folders, and inspected each of the districts/precincts that maintain holding cells and the Detroit Receiving Hospital. We continue to find that staff did not follow policy in several key areas, including:
• There were 64 referrals of detainees in need of medical or mental health care to the Detroit Receiving Hospital, and all except one were within policy.
• There were 5 cases in which intake screenings were not conducted within the two-hour timeframe.
• Detainees not receiving medications prescribed by the Detroit Receiving Hospital in a timely manner. Forty-four detainees had medications disbursed; and in six instances, the dosages were not administered according to schedule. DPD administered several hundred dosages to detainees during this quarter with Corrective Action Notices prepared for the two that were not in compliance.
• There were 56 instances where detainee medical information was listed by the arresting officer on the Detainee Input Sheet and in two cases the processing officer did not transfer that information to the Detainee Information Form. In three cases, the processing

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 143 of 197 Pg ID 8826

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 142

September 28, 2012

officer, by hand, wrote in the medical information, therefore, the health information was not being entered in Livescan.
• There were 64 detainees who went to the Detroit Receiving Hospital; all but three discharge instructions were included in the detainee file folders.
• Written prior supervisory approval was issued for all decisions made in response to acquired medical information.
Overall, we found that 97% were in compliance with this paragraph – a slight increase from the 96% we found during the last reporting period. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C30
The DPD shall develop and implement policy regarding infectious disease control (IDC) in consultation with medical health professionals. The policy shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical health professionals at least every year after implementation and prior to any revisions to the policy. At a minimum, the policy shall:
a. establish appropriate housing for prisoners believed to have infectious diseases; and
b. mandate measures the DPD shall take to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, including proper handling and disposal of bio-hazardous material.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our previous site visits, our inspections of the Detroit Receiving Hospital and the five DPD facilities that maintain holding cells disclosed satisfactory levels of sanitation in similar degrees at all of the sites with a trend toward improvement. In our most recent site visit, we found all facilities once again compliant, with the exception of documenting the cleaning and sanitation practices.
We found, in prior visits, that some of the facilities maintained adequate sanitary conditions in the cell areas, and others needed to take additional measures to ensure proper sanitation. During our most recent site visit, we inspected all districts/precincts with holding cells and the DRH; and found that the cell and processing areas were satisfactory. While in one of the facilities we discovered a female detainee with active TB who was transported to a holding facility when she should have been conveyed directly to the Detroit Receiving Hospital or some other facility that handles contagious diseases. Our findings were reported to CRIB staff.
We found that the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) kits were in order and included an adequate supply of the required contents. Our inspection of the first aid kits found that the contents were satisfactory, as we have observed improvement by the detention staff in this area.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 144 of 197 Pg ID 8827

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 143

September 28, 2012

We continue to recommend that detention staff open the first aid kits on a regular basis to verify that the contents have not expired.
An effective infectious disease control plan must account for the sanitation and maintenance of all plumbing and equipment; physical plant cleanliness; and documentation that a plan to maintain the physical plant is being implemented in the holding cell areas and holding cells. The DPD Infectious Disease Policy 403.2, Section 403.2-6.3, Statements 1-6, Department Equipment, vehicle or facility, affirms the importance of building maintenance and cleaning and decontamination of the facility.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C31
The DPD shall develop and implement a protocol for updating and exchanging prisoner health information. At a minimum, this protocol shall;
a. require that prisoner’s health information is recorded at intake and thereafter immediately readily available to all relevant medical and transporting personnel in a manner consistent with the relevant federal and state confidentiality statutes;
b. require that prisoner health information is continually updated to incorporate any additional relevant information acquired during his or her detention;
c. require that relevant prisoner health information is documented and communicated between consecutive shifts, such as whether a prisoner is taking medication or has a medical condition; and
d. require that prisoner health information travel with prisoners who transferred to another facility.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During previous reporting periods, our reviews of DPD form 661, Detainee Medical/Mental Health Monitoring and form 659a, Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Form; indicated that required detainee health information – such as whether a detainee is taking medication or has a medical condition – was not always being documented and communicated between consecutive shifts. Issues remain with staff properly documenting medications on the new reporting form.
As noted above our reviews of these documents is important to ensure that the detainees’ health needs are met, and for the purposes of staff safety. This information must be documented, updated, and communicated between the initial shift receiving the detainee and the subsequent shifts until the detainee is released. It is critical for the oncoming shift to indicate the date and

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 145 of 197 Pg ID 8828

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 144

September 28, 2012

time they receive the Platoon Daily Detainee Summary and to acknowledge its accuracy to assure the continuity of health monitoring for detainees requiring it.
We reviewed DPD log 659a, Platoon Daily Detainee Summary, in the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells; and found fewer errors than in our previous reports. Of the errors we found, the most prevalent is the failure of DPD personnel to mark the prescribed meds column and the Medicine Cabinet checkbox on the form. It should be noted that form DPD 659a was amended during the ninth reporting period to indicate for each detainee whether medications are prescribed. It is apparent from our observations that staff is not, in some cases, completing this section of the form and supervisory personnel are not catching the omissions. DPD’s ability to capture information and list the medical/mental needs of the detainee on the form is exceptional in almost every case. DPD is in compliance for C31a, b, and d. (See C36). The Second Precinct (formerly Southwestern District), Northeastern District, and the Sixth Precinct’s logs were exceptional. The overall compliance rate (C31c) for all holding cell facilities is 94%, a decrease from the previous 96%.
We reviewed copies of DPD Form 661 that required a 15-minute watch. The entries were made in a timely fashion with few exceptions. We attribute this improvement in part to the revised and combined DPD form 661/661a; DPD needs to continue to ensure that its detention personnel complete the forms correctly. All facilities except the Eastern District met or exceeded the compliance standard. The integrity of the Medical/Mental Health Monitoring Logs (DPD 661) in the Eastern District is disturbing, as severe issues regarding health and safety issues of detainees emerged. There were serious issues involving overlap of monitoring times between shifts, and two of the staff monitoring the same detainee at the same time listing different activities at the time by the detainee – e.g., one officer listed the detainee awake, while the other listed the detainee to be asleep).
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C32
The DPD shall develop a prescription medication policy in consultation with qualified medical and mental health professionals that ensures prisoners are provided prescription medication as directed. The policy shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals and shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the policy within three months of the DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the policy shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least annually and prior to any revisions to the program. At a minimum, the policy shall:
a. indicate when the DPD shall convey prisoners taking prescription medication to the DRH or other treating hospital for evaluation;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 146 of 197 Pg ID 8829

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 145

September 28, 2012

b. require the DPD distribute to prisoners only medications that have been prescribed at the DRH or other treating hospitals;
c. require that the DPD distribute medications as prescribed and not rely on inmates to identify their need for medication;
d. require that all prisoner medications be stored in a secure location near the holding cells and travel with prisoners that are transferred;
e. require the DPD to record relevant information regarding the administration of prescription medication on an auditable form;
f. require that injected medications are administered as prescribed and in a safe and hygienic manner; and
g. require that unused mediations prescribed at the DRH or other treating hospitals are provided to prisoners upon their release.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During all of the previous reporting periods, at the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, we found Medication Logs missing critical detainee and staff information. In prior reviews detainee dosages, dosing times, signatures, the names of the persons administering the medications, and prescription release information did not always appear on the logs. Those issues have been addressed with the exception of C32g, prescription release information. As a result, we found the DPD not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
During the current reporting period, in our review of 221 detainee file folders, we found a few instances where the DPD failed to record essential detainee and staff information. We noted, for example, that the medication logs on detainees who had been released showed that those detainees were not given their unused medications; although just above where the detention officer signs the form is a box that should be checked indicating the release.
There were 44 cases where medications were disbursed to detainees. In seven instances, it was unknown if the remaining medication was released to the detainee or transferred with them to another facility due to personnel not indicating the status on the form. There were two Corrective Action Notices issued in the Northeastern District for the two violations. In another facility, the violation was by a sergeant who did not complete the form correctly. Three of the seven violations occurred in the Sixth Precinct and in the Twelfth Precinct; the proper release of medications was documented in every instance. We examined the Platoon Daily Detainee Summary logs, which are used to ensure that detainee health information is exchanged and communicated between shifts. During a previous reporting period, DPD included a section on the PDDSL to indicate if detainees on a monitoring status were taking medications. This serves as an immediate alert for the CBS at the beginning of the shift that informs him/her if any detainees are on medication.
During our most recent site visit, we checked all active detainee file folders in all facilities for those detainees who were on medication or on a monitoring status. Each of the medication disbursement logs were reviewed and matched with the medication contained in the medication

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 147 of 197 Pg ID 8830

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 146

September 28, 2012

storage cabinet. We found that the prescribed medication for each detainee was properly stored. We did not find any medication left in the cabinet from detainees who had already been released as we had found in previous inspections. Our inspection of medication cabinets and medications for detainees at the districts/precincts maintaining holding cells revealed that all was satisfactory in the location of the cabinets and storage of medications.
Based on the noted improvements in our last quarterly report, we found DPD in pending Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. However, due to DPD’s failure to address the requirements of C32g, the Department is not in compliance with this paragraph at this time. The Department must address the concerns related to the documentation of medication disbursements; C32a through 32f are in compliance. The compliance rate for C32g is 87% compared to the 79% we found in the last reporting period.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Pending Compliance

CJ Requirement C33
The DPD shall provide appropriate clothing, such as paper gowns or suicide smocks, to all prisoners placed under suicide precautions.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During previous reporting periods, we found that detention personnel were generally familiar with where the appropriate clothing items, paper gowns and/or suicide smocks, were stored. Our inspections revealed ample inventory of appropriate clothing.
During our most recent inspections in all five districts and precincts with holding cells, we found sufficient inventory of paper gowns and/or suicide smocks. The staff we interviewed were knowledgeable regarding the use of the clothing and where the appropriate clothing was stored.
We find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C34 The DPD shall remove or make inaccessible all suicide hazards in holding cells including exposed pipes, radiators and overhead bars. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 148 of 197 Pg ID 8831

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 147

September 28, 2012

During all of our previous site visits, we conducted comprehensive inspections of each of the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, as well as the Detroit Receiving Hospital cells. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 26 Prisoners’ medical/mental health conditions 27 Medical/mental health screening program 28 Medical/mental health screening procedures 29 Medical protocols 30 Infectious disease policy required 31 Prisoner health information protocol required 32 Prescription medication policy required 33 Clothing-suicide prevention 34 Removal of suicide hazards

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation Deferred In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Pending Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VI. PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES CJ Requirement C35 The DPD shall ensure a reasonable level of safety of staff and prisoners through the use of appropriate security administration procedures. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of staff and inmate safety measures required by C36-38; accordingly, the DPD is in compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C36
The DPD shall develop and implement a prisoner security screening program for all buildings containing holding cells. At a minimum, the program shall:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 149 of 197 Pg ID 8832

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 148

September 28, 2012

a. establish protocols based upon objective, behavior-based criteria for identifying suspected crime partners, vulnerable, assaultive or special management prisoners who should be housed in observation cells or single-occupancy cells; and
b. require that security screening information is documented and communicated between consecutive shifts.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
DPD Form 659A (Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Log [PDDSL]), revised August 2011, is used to record information on detainees with medical conditions or special needs. During this reporting period, we reviewed Eastern District logs that contained 705 entries. While we continued to find serious deficiencies in the “Prescribed Meds” column, we also noted numerous errors dealing with Suspected Crime Partners (SCPs). These errors included instances of SCPs being housed in the same cell, errors in identifying the correct cell housing a SCP, failures to identify a SCP, and failures to identify the correct SCP. We note that Eastern District completes its PDDSLs electronically and when an error is made in the initial entry, it frequently carries over onto successive shifts’ logs, thereby compounding the error. Other errors included improper or missing alert markers. The Eastern District’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 87%, a 3% decrease from the last reporting period.
We reviewed Northeastern District logs containing 475 entries. Errors involved failure to mark the prescribed meds column and the improper marking of alert boxes. The Northeastern District’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 96%, the same we found during the last reporting period.
We reviewed Sixth Precinct logs containing 761 entries. The Sixth Precinct’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 96%, a 2% decrease from the last reporting period.
We reviewed Twelfth Precinct logs containing 457 entries. One detainee was not listed on the May 10, 2012 Platoon 3, PDDSL, even though she was being monitored, as noted on DPD 661. Another detainee was listed on the May 11, 20212 Platoon 3, PDDSL, as being suicidal, but no Orange Alert was assigned. The detainee was also being monitored on DPD 661. The Twelfth Precinct’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 92%, a 5% decrease from the last reporting period.
We reviewed Second Precinct (formerly Southwestern District) logs containing 565 entries. The district’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 98% for this reporting period, a 1% decrease from the last reporting period.
The average for all districts/precincts during this reporting period is 94% compliance for the 2,963 log entries. The failure of holding personnel to mark the “Prescribed Meds” column and Suspected Crime Partner errors were the major factors in preventing satisfactory compliance with this portion of the Consent Judgment.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. However, additional effort is needed to correct excessive recording errors in the Twelfth Precinct and the Eastern District. Eastern District has fallen below the 94% compliance requirement for the last three reporting periods.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 150 of 197 Pg ID 8833

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 149

September 28, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C37
The DPD shall develop and implement procedures for the performance, documentation and review of routine cell checks in all holding cells to ensure safe housing. At a minimum, the procedures should:
a. require that cell checks on the general population are performed at least twice per hour and that cell checks of prisoners in observation cells and DRH holding cells are performed every 15 minutes, unless constant supervision is required; and
b. require detention officers to document relevant information regarding the performance of cell checks in an auditable log.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The duties of cell block supervisors (CBS) and detention officers relating to well-being checks are established by DPD policy. Supervisors are required to walk through the holding cell areas four times per shift to check on the well-being of the detainees. Detention officers are required to make similar visual checks every 30 minutes (or every 15 minutes for high-risk detainees). Their observations are documented on the Detention Cell Check Log (DPD 659).
At the Detroit Receiving Hospital (DRH), 15-minute well-being checks are entered on the DPD 659 Form when holding cells are occupied. The review of the DPD 659 forms from DRH this reporting period indicated an apparent compliance rate of 100%. Credit was given for sheets missing from Platoons 2 and 3 for April 1, 2012. A misconduct report is pending. Also, time stamps were illegible on some of the June documentation. This has been an ongoing problem in other sites for the last three inspections. Beginning with the next quarterly inspection, no credit will be given for unreadable documentation. General population well-being checks are entered on the DPD 659 Form every 30 minutes at the districts/precincts. Detainees held in observation cells are monitored every 15 minutes on DPD Form 661 (Mental Health High Risk Monitoring). During the current reporting period, our review of 270 Detention Cell Check Logs (DPD 659) for the general detainee population from the districts with holding cell facilities reflected a 100% compliance rate for the second consecutive reporting period. During each tour of duty, detention officers are required to make cell checks every 30 minutes (16 checks daily), and supervisors every two hours (four checks daily).
The integrity of the Medical/Mental Health Monitoring Logs (DPD 661) in the Eastern District is of major concern. Two serious issues regarding the safety and well-being of detainees have surfaced during this cycle. The continuity of monitoring and the accuracy of documentation appear to have been compromised in various observation logs from April and May that were submitted this Quarter. Following are examples of findings in the logs:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 151 of 197 Pg ID 8834

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 150

September 28, 2012

1. There are at least eight instances of one shift of monitoring ending one hour prior to the next shift beginning. Therefore, on these eight documented occasions, there was no record of detainee monitoring between 1500 and 1600 hours. Detainee CB Number & Dates of non-compliant monitoring, 1500-1600 hours:
• CB 201206797 4/2/12 • CB 201206797 4/3/12 • CB 201206836 4/3/12 • CB 201207083 4/6/12 • CB 201207083 4/7/12 • CB 201207098 4/6/12 • CB 201207090 4/6/12 * Monitoring ended 1500 hrs. Supv. close-out states 1600. • CB 201207115 4/8/12 * No monitoring documented 1445 – 1600. 2. There are several instances of an overlap in monitoring where one shift begins an hour prior to the previous shift ending. It is unclear why the duplication of monitoring exists. However, the issue that has arisen due to the duplication in monitoring is the errancy in the documentation. Very blatant discrepancies in detainee behaviors are recorded on the monitoring logs during these overlapping hours. For example, observation codes for the same detainee, where monitoring overlapped between Platoon 3 and Platoon 1 for the same hour contradicted each other as follows:
• CB 201206836 4/2/12 2300-0000 asleep 2300-0000 awake, quiet, (feeding at 2315)
• Same detainee 4/3/12 2300-0000 monitored but no observations 2300-0000 awake
• CB 201206901 4/3/12 2345-0000 asleep 2345-0000 awake
• CB 201207083 4/6/12 2300-0000 asleep 2300-0000 awake
• CB 201207115 4/6/12 2300-0000 asleep

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 152 of 197 Pg ID 8835

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 151

September 28, 2012

2300-0000 awake
• Same detainee 4/8/12
2300-0000 asleep
2300-0000 awake
There were other instances of gaps in monitoring. For example, there were logs that were marked to continue to the next platoon, with no additional documentation; there was a log that was marked to end monitoring due to a detainee being released from custody, yet was monitored for three more shifts. These aberrations not only violate the requirements of the Consent Judgment, but they greatly increase the liability of the Department; and in instances of gaps in monitoring, could present risks to detainees. The Department needs to thoroughly investigate these issues and promptly take corrective action.
During this reporting period, the Twelfth Precinct also had several potentially serious errors. These errors dealt with gaps in monitoring for three of the seven detainees on 15-minute watches during the reporting periods.
For the periods of April 1-6, May 9-14, and June 25-30, 2012, we reviewed 44 detainees who required a 15-minute watch, including those detainees on medication. Only one log was submitted from the Northeastern District – a possible error.
All districts met or exceeded the required >94% compliance standard for cell checks. However, it is questionable if DPD is in compliance with the Court’s intent of this section of the Consent Judgment, given the number and gravity of the issues discussed above. DPD should pay particular attention to correcting errors in the Eastern District and the Twelfth Precinct on the DPD 661 logs. These two Districts were also cited in the previous report. While DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement at this time, continued errors of the types discussed above may remove the Department from compliance in the next reporting period.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C38
The DPD shall record in a written policy and implement a procedure that requires detention officers to provide continual direct or on site remote observation of all observation cells while they are occupied.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the current reporting period, of the five DPD 661 Forms (for detainees who were maintained on suicide watches) that we reviewed, all of them specified “constant supervision.” Four of the forms met the requirements for constant supervision as required by DPD policy. In the Northeastern District, a detainee was placed on constant observation watch, with the reason

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 153 of 197 Pg ID 8836

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 152

September 28, 2012

for starting being “prior suicide attempt.” There was no indication of when the prior attempt took place, and the detainee was not evaluated at the hospital. DPD Policy 305.1-3.26 (revised February 29, 2012) clearly defines the criteria for classifying a suicidal detainee. As the policy is written, there is no leeway in making a determination if a detainee should be placed on constant watch. A constant watch should only be used when a detainee meets one or more of the criteria listed in DPD 305.1-3.26. All other mental health issues should be assigned a 15-minute watch unless medical orders specify otherwise.
With the exception of the one case in the Northeast District, all districts met or exceeded the required >94% compliance standard. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 35 Security procedures to ensure safety 36 Prisoner security screening program 37 Procedures for cell checks required 38 On-site remote observation of cells

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES
CJ Requirement C39
The DPD shall ensure that all holding cells are cleaned immediately and thereafter are maintained in a clean and sanitary manner.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During this reporting period, we evaluated all districts/precincts for general cleanliness and sanitation. The cleanliness levels in most areas were satisfactory. Eastern District had very dirty floors around the toilets in the cells. Additionally, the concrete benches have corroded over time and are no longer capable of adequate cleaning and disinfecting. The Sixth Precinct also had cleanliness issues in one of their observation cells. This cell was not occupied at the time due to an inoperable toilet. Southwestern had been freshly power washed and painted just prior to our visit.
Documentation of holding cell cleaning was below compliance standards during this reporting period. The Twelfth Precinct achieved only a 64% compliance rating for the months of April and May. There was no documentation of toilets being cleaned on Platoon One for the period of April 2-6, 2012, and there was no record of cleaning benches, sinks, and toilets, on Platoon One for five of the six reporting days in May. Additionally, there was no record of cleaning on Platoon Two on May 13, 2012, a day when detainees were present in the facility. During this

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 154 of 197 Pg ID 8837

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 153

September 28, 2012

reporting period, we reviewed 30 Holding Cell Cleaning Logs from the five facilities, for the months of April and May, with six days on each log, for a total of 180 days. DPD’s compliance rate with this paragraph declined to 94% during this reporting period, due primarily to the low rate from the Twelfth Precinct. All other districts achieved a compliance rate of 97% or higher for the two-month period.
In June, the Department instituted a new reporting system for the cleaning of holding cell areas. Effective June 7, 2012, the cleaning of holding cell areas is documented electronically on the Department’s Desk Blotter, by the Cell Block Supervisor in each holding cell facility. While the new system appears to be well-received by the majority of personnel, the documentation in the new system for the June reporting dates is still very much a work in progress. A separate analysis was conducted for the five holding cell facilities for the month of June. The Northeastern District was the only district to meet acceptable compliance reporting standards with a 94% compliance rate. The other districts ranged from 80% in the Second Precinct to 25% in the Sixth Precinct, with an overall average of 60% for all five districts.
Because the Department instituted a new reporting system approximately two weeks before the June reporting period, which did not allow sufficient time for training personnel and adjusting to the new system, the Department is in deferred Phase 2 compliance for this reporting period.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Deferred

CJ Requirement C40
The DPD shall design and implement a cleaning policy for all holding cells. The policy shall require routine cleaning and supervisory inspection of the holding cells and nearby areas.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
DPD Directive 305.4 (effective September 30, 2011) is the relevant document for this section; this document is reviewed on an annual basis. Additional documents have been issued to command staff for guidance purposes to ensure consistency in cleaning methods and procedures. The Holding Cell Compliance Committee (HCCC) has issued detailed cell block cleaning instructions that cover procedures, schedules, and documentation. Cleaning chemicals are ordered through City of Detroit; therefore, the holding facilities have no control over what chemicals are supplied by the City. The cleaning chemicals and supplies received by the holding facilities continue to be dependent upon what the City has in stock when the order is submitted.
During our most recent inspection, we noted that the holding cell facilities appeared to have adequate amounts of cleaning chemicals, but we continued to see a variety of different types of cleaning chemicals. Best practices dictate a standardized procurement and distribution system for chemicals used in the various holding facilities. The chemical needs of all of the holding facilities are the same, and an uncontrolled supply of chemicals in a detention facility represents a safety and security hazard to staff and detainees alike. It is impossible to properly train staff in

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 155 of 197 Pg ID 8838

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 154

September 28, 2012

the proper mixing and application of chemicals when different chemicals are randomly supplied to the sites. Therefore, the chemicals supplied to the sites should be standardized and preferably supplied by a single vendor, who may be willing to install automated dispensing systems in each site. These systems frequently result in cost savings to facilities through automated mixing, reduced spillage, and employee theft. A sole-source provider should also be expected to provide signage and instructions for proper use to personnel. We provided additional information and made recommendations regarding this issue to senior personnel during our most recent visit.
This requirement addresses the design and implementation of a cleaning policy for all holding cells. It also requires the routine cleaning and supervisory oversight of cleaning of the cells and nearby areas. The policy is in place and is adequate. The application of this policy has improved since our April site visit, but improvements in the chemical aspects of the cleaning operations are still needed.
Despite this, DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C41
The DPD shall design and implement a maintenance policy for all holding cells that requires timely performance of routine maintenance and the documentation of all maintenance requests and responses in an auditable log.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The Platoon 1 Cell Block Supervisor is responsible for conducting a weekly maintenance inspection and for documenting discrepancies in the Facilities Maintenance Log (DPD 702). The Platoon 1 Cell Block Supervisor is required to submit repair orders via e-mail to the Facilities Maintenance Department.
Based on the Holding Cell Facility Logs (DPD 702), OCR prepares a monthly spreadsheet listing all current outstanding repairs and their status. Items on this spreadsheet are reviewed monthly by the HCCC. During this reporting period, HCCC meeting agendas were reviewed and confirmed that current facility repairs were being discussed.
During our evaluation of this reporting period’s Facility Maintenance Logs, we reviewed all logs from each of the five districts/precincts that maintain holding facilities and matched those repair requests to the master tracking log maintained by OCR. This section of the Consent Judgment requires “timely performance of routine maintenance.” Compliance with this requirement remains challenging due to the age of the facilities and furnishings and the lack of availability of replacement parts. We continue to find satisfactory response times in addressing repair issues.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 156 of 197 Pg ID 8839

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 155

September 28, 2012

Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C42
The DPD shall provide adequate heating and ventilation for all buildings containing holding cells.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our most recent inspection of all five facilities, outside temperatures reached the mid- to upper 90s, creating challenges to the HVAC systems in the holding cell areas. As we toured the holding cells each day, we checked the temperatures in the cell areas, and found the temperatures in each of the holding facilities to be within the limits established by the Department (between 66°F and 85°F). Measured temperatures in the cell blocks ranged from 69°F at mid-morning in the Northeastern District to 86.5°F in the Sixth Precinct. Humidity readings were captured in the Sixth Precinct and measured 56% to 61%. Numerous ventilation ducts continue to be heavily clogged with dust, debris, drink containers, etc., that impede the flow of air into the holding cells. The resulting lack of fresh air into the cell areas contributes to elevated temperatures and increased levels of humidity and carbon dioxide (CO2). A recent air quality investigation of the five holding cell facilities, conducted in May 2011, and in February, March, and May, 2012, by the Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Promotion, Environmental Health and Safety Division, found elevated levels of CO2 in the Eastern District, Second Precinct, Northeastern District, and the Twelfth Precinct. The Department was advised by DDHWP to increase the ventilation in the cell block areas in order to reduce the CO2 levels. Increasing the ventilation can be most economically and effectively improved by thoroughly cleaning and maintaining the existing ventilation ductwork and grates.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C43
The DPD shall repair all broken or malfunctioning lighting, toilets, sinks and windows in holding cells and observation cells.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our most recent inspection, we found only isolated instances of malfunctioning lights, toilets, and sinks, than would be expected in facilities of this type. The facilities and the equipment are old and outdated. It can be difficult to locate replacement parts for some of the

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 157 of 197 Pg ID 8840

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 156

September 28, 2012

toilet and sink units. When these malfunctions occur in the holding cells, the cells should be taken out of service and signage should be posted on the front of the cell to prevent usage until repairs are completed. Staff are posting signage on cells that have been taken out of service.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C44
The DPD shall ensure that lighting in all cell block areas is maintained at an appropriate level for all tasks related to the housing of DPD detainees, including but not necessarily limited to, security, safety, cleaning and disinfection of housing areas.38
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our most recent site visit, lighting levels were determined to be marginally sufficient in the cell areas. In the Eastern District, the toilet areas are particularly dark; these areas were not adequately cleaned at the time of this inspection. If sanitation levels do not improve in these areas, it may become necessary to consider building modifications to ensure better lighting conditions in these areas. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph at this time.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C45
The DPD shall provide all prisoners with reasonable access to toilets and potable water 24 hours-a-day.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Our inspection of the district/precinct holding cells during this reporting period determined that all prisoners had access to toilets and potable water at all times. Cells with plumbing deficiencies were not being used and signage was posted accordingly. Based on the published directive and our observations of conditions of the physical plant in the district/precinct holding cells, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

38 Amended by Court Order dated April 23, 2012

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 158 of 197 Pg ID 8841

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 157

September 28, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C46 The DPD shall ensure that all Hepa-Aire purifiers comply with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Agency standards. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. All Hepa-Aire purifiers have been permanently removed from the district/precinct holding cell areas. DPD is in full compliance with the requirements of this Consent Judgment paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 39 Clean and maintain holding cells 40 Holding cell cleaning policy required 41 Holding cell maintenance policy required 42 Provide adequate heating and ventilation 43 Repair broken/malfunctioning cell elements 44 Insure sufficient cell lighting 45 Provide reasonable access to toilets and water 46 Hepa-Aire purifiers comply with standards

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation Deferred In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VIII. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
CJ Requirement C47
The DPD shall ensure that persons with disabilities are provided with reasonable accommodations.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The Northeast District is the designated ADA-compliant holding facility. All detainees with disabilities requiring special accommodations are housed in this facility. During our most recent inspection, we found that detention staff in the districts/precincts continue to demonstrate

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 159 of 197 Pg ID 8842

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 158

September 28, 2012

competency in the use of Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD). In addition, the TDD equipment was working properly. This has been accomplished by the development of an effective testing protocol. DPD detention staff are now required, per policy, to conduct tests on a monthly basis that ensures the equipment is working properly and confirms that detention staff can demonstrate the use of the equipment.
Accordingly, we find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C48
The DPD shall develop and implement a policy concerning the detention of individuals with disabilities in consultation with qualified medical and mental health professionals. The policy shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least every year and prior to any revisions to the program.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The provisions of this requirement are covered in DPD 305.1, Detainee Intake, and DPD 305.5, Detainee Health Care. An annual review of these policies was conducted on February 17, 2012, and approved by qualified medical and mental health professionals.
Accordingly, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 47 Reasonable accommodation for disabled 48 Detention of persons with disabilities

Phase 1 - Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

IX. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES CJ Requirement C49 The DPD shall ensure food is stored and served in a sanitary manner and in compliance with state and local health codes. Comments:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 160 of 197 Pg ID 8843

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 159

September 28, 2012

The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Our review of food storage and serving procedures at the five holding facilities found the DPD in compliance with all requirements. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C50
The DPD shall develop and implement a food service policy that shall be approved in writing by a qualified sanitarian. At a minimum, the food service policy shall:
a. require that the meal plan is initially approved in writing by a qualified dietician and, hereafter, is reviewed and approved in writing by a qualified dietician at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the program;
b. require that all food is stored and handled in a sanitary manner;
c. ensure that all prisoners are provided with an alternative meal if they are unable to eat the standard meal for religious or dietary reasons; and
d. ensure that food service is provided to all prisoners who are held over six hours.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. DPD’s Detainee Food Service and Hygiene Items Policy 305.8, was reviewed and approved by the Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Promotion, dated March 22, 2012.
In June, the Department instituted a new reporting system for documenting the feeding of detainees. Effective June 7, 2012, meal service is documented electronically on the Department’s Desk Blotter, by the Cell Block Supervisor in each holding cell facility.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed Daily Detainee Meal & Hygiene Logs, DPD form 663, for the periods of April 1-6, May 9-14, and June 25-30, 2012. As with the new holding cell cleaning documentation, the new food service documentation procedures have not been in effect long enough to allow personnel to become proficient in their use. A review of the districts’ use of the new forms revealed compliance rates ranging from 100% in the Northeastern District to 25% in the Eastern District, with an overall compliance rate of 65% for the month of June. Many forms were not completed at all or contained information that was entered incorrectly. A major entry error was the failure to indicate “a.m.” or “p.m.” when entering feeding times; an entry of “5:58” could be a morning or evening feeding. The Department must institute a standardized entry for recording feeding times, using “a.m.” or “p.m.” designations, or use the 24-hour military reporting method.
Because of the recent implementation of the reporting system, the Department is in deferred Phase 2 compliance for this reporting period.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 161 of 197 Pg ID 8844

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 160

September 28, 2012

The Detention Refrigeration Log, DPD form 655, was revised to capture daily refrigerator temperatures and weekly cleaning and sanitization information on a monthly, instead of weekly, basis. The revised form was implemented on June 7, 2012, Department-wide. The new form is simple to use and reduces staff input time. During this reporting period, we found that in every instance, the refrigerators had been cleaned weekly and refrigerator temperatures were satisfactory. Expiration dates on the food were up to standard. All districts were 100% compliant with the new refrigeration logs.
For this reporting period, we defer our Phase 2 assessment for this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 49 Ensure sanitary food storage and service 50 Food service policies and practices

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance Deferred

X. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES
CJ Requirement C51
The DPD shall ensure that personal hygiene items should include; soap, toothbrushes, toothpaste, toilet paper, a comb, deodorant, and feminine hygiene products. The DPD shall implement this provision within one month of effective date of this Agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
In the current reporting period, we inspected each area where the hygiene kits are stored to determine if the kits were readily available, and found that in all five facilities there were an adequate number of hygiene kits to distribute to detainees when needed. Feminine hygiene products were also available in all sites. Our interviews with the PDOs demonstrate an understanding of the importance of providing personal hygiene items to the detainees on a daily basis.
The DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement is 100%. Accordingly, we find the Department in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

Phase 2 – Implementation

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 162 of 197 Pg ID 8845

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 161

September 28, 2012

51 Make available personal hygiene items

In Compliance

In Compliance

CJ Requirement C52
The DPD shall require that any use of force on prisoners in holding cells complies with the DPD’s use of force policies and procedures.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the last reporting period, we reviewed 12 incidents occurring at detention facilities. Five of the cases were attempted suicides, and one was a detainee injury in which no force was utilized. One of the attempted suicides evolved into a use of force in which several officers engaged in attempting to subdue a detainee. Nine of the cases reviewed had video available for review, but only eight had details of the reviews (67%).
During this reporting period, we also examined 14 SIRs regarding incidents occurring at detention facilities. Two of the cases were attempted suicides, and one was a detainee injury in which no force was utilized. Thirteen of the 14 cases should have had video reviews; eight had sufficient reviews utilizing facility and handheld camera recordings (62%).39 Four had no reviews or poor reviews. One is unknown, as the SIR was not submitted.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement C53
The DPD shall revise and augment its policies regarding prisoners to require that:
a. Officers utilize appropriate precautions when interacting with a prisoner who has previously demonstrated he or she is recalcitrant or resistant, including: summoning additional officers; summoning a supervisor; and using appropriate restraints;
b. absent exigent circumstances, officers notify a supervisor before using force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell; and
c. the supervisor assesses the need to use force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell, direct any such use of force and ensure the incident is videotaped.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

39 The detainee injury was removed from the base, leaving 13.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 163 of 197 Pg ID 8846

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 162

September 28, 2012

All districts/precincts that maintain holding cells are equipped with some level of videotaping/digital recording equipment that is linked to a camera system that monitors hallways and common areas as well as most, but not all, cells. In addition to the mounted video equipment, the detention districts/precincts have been issued handheld cameras that can be used for planned extractions. Our visits to the various holding facilities found that supervisors were aware of the handheld cameras and had received some training in their use. All supervisors contacted during the site visit were aware of the cameras location. In our previous report, we found that there were 12 SIR investigations of incidents occurring in detention facilities cases; only two of these cases could be evaluated against C53a.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 14 cases occurring in DPD detention facilities. Of the 14 cases, two were attempted suicides and one was a detainee injury. In one case, the SIR was not submitted for review. Of the 13 cases reviewed, only two involved cell extractions. The others occurred either in the garage, as personnel attempted to bring detainees into the processing area; or in the processing area, as personnel attempted to place a detainee into a cell; or as personnel attempted to place a detainee into a transport unit. The two cell extractions were the attempted suicides. Both had good facility video with detailed reviews by the supervisors; neither utilized the handheld camera due to the exigent circumstances of the attempted suicide.
With respect to C53(a), there were six cases in which officers were dealing with subjects who had previously demonstrated that they were recalcitrant or resistant; none were cell extractions. Of those six cases, three had additional officers present (50%) and a supervisor was present in five of the situations (83%).40 DPD is not in compliance with U53a. With respect to U53 (b), and U53 (c), there are two cases, both attempted suicides, that were cell extractions and therefore are covered by these provisions: one in April and one in May. There were no extractions reported in March.41
In neither of the attempted suicides was there prior knowledge and exigent circumstances precluding the preplanning envisioned for cell extractions. The officers reacted appropriately as soon as they observed the situation and requested assistance once they had provided some relief to the detainees. In one of the cases in which the detainee utilized a belly button piercing ring to cut her wrists, there was a brief struggle to remove the ring from her hands. Both of these incidents were recorded, and the supervisory review included sufficient detail. In restricting our comments to cell extraction cases solely, DPD would be in compliance with 53 b and 53 c.
In their review of this incident, the inspector and commanders noted the difficulties of locating unobservable body piercings. We recommend that DPD pursue this issue further to determine what procedures or processes could be instituted to preclude a recurrence of an injury, either to a detainee or an officer, caused by an unobservable body piercing.

40 There were other incidents at which additional officers were present and at which supervisors may have also been present; however, they do not meet the criteria of being cases where a prisoner has previously demonstrated he or she is recalcitrant or resistant.
41 The remaining uses of force involved incidents in which detainees were being moved from the processing area to be placed in a cell.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 164 of 197 Pg ID 8847

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 163

September 28, 2012

In reviewing the remaining cases involving uses of force on detainees, we find that they are primarily instances in which force is used on detainees who are being removed from vehicles in the garage or being placed in their cells from the processing area. These are incidents that mostly occur spontaneously; and consequently, do not allow for preplanning. There are instances, however, in which the detainee’s behavior during the processing is such that supervisors should be notified; and plans should be made to have sufficient officers present to move the detainee into a cell with the minimum force possible.
Video was available and reviewed in eight of the 13 cases, including four in which the handheld camera was utilized (63%).
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph as substantial compliance must be achieved in all three subcategories.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement C54
The DPD shall not handcuff prisoners to benches for longer periods of time than are necessary.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found the DPD in deferred Phase 2 compliance status during the first reporting period, and in Phase 2 compliance during subsequent reporting periods.
During our visits to detention facilities during the most recent site visit, we did not observe any prisoners handcuffed to benches or fixed objects. Our review of DPD 715 forms (Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells), question 22 (“Were any detainees observed handcuffed to an object?”) and Office of Civil Rights monthly inspections, revealed four instances during the reporting period in which detainees were handcuffed to fixed objects. In each instance, the prisoner was using a phone and being secured in this manner was appropriate.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 52 Use of force policies 53 Revise policy re use of force with prisoners 54 Handcuffing of prisoners to benches

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 165 of 197 Pg ID 8848

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 164

September 28, 2012

XII. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW CJ Requirement C55
The DPD shall require that all uses of force, injuries to prisoners and in-custody deaths occurring in the DPD holding cells are investigated in compliance with the DPD’s general incident investigation policies. Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. We found the DPD out of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during all of the previous reporting periods. During the last reporting period, we reviewed 12 incidents involving uses of force in holding cells and five attempted suicides. All 12 cases had SIR investigations completed. One missed the 10-day requirement, and two missed the 30-day requirement. Nine (75%) of the 12 cases included video reviews. During this reporting period, we requested 14 cases. Two were attempted suicides and one was a detainee injury. One of the cases that we requested was not submitted. Four of the cases missed the 10-day requirement, and five missed the 30-day requirement.42 Eight (57%) of the 14 cases included acceptable video reviews. As with the SIR investigations involving uses of force outside of the detention facilities, we continue to encourage staff to conduct more critical reviews of the investigations. There were no in-custody deaths in the cell block areas. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance
CJ Requirement C56 The DPD shall require that all uses of force occurring in the DPD holding cells are reported and investigated in compliance with the DPD’s use of force investigation policies. Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. During the last reporting period, we commented on the video reviews, noting that nine of the 12 cases had opportunities for video recording and reviews. Three incidents occurred in an area that had no recording equipment. Of the five cases with some level of recording, we found that three had sufficient reviews of the available videos. One included a review of facility and handheld
42 The cases with missed dates includes the missing case, the date of which is unknown.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 166 of 197 Pg ID 8849

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 165

September 28, 2012

camera videos, but lacked detail. One noted that there was no download of the video available; the report noted that it is a recurring issue in that district. Of the nine cases with recordings, one was blurry, but the rest were clear with detailed explanations of the contents on the part of the supervisors.
During this reporting period, we found that 13 of the 14 cases had opportunities for video recordings and reviews. Eight (62%) contained acceptable reviews; four contained no reviews or poor reviews. One is unknown, as the SIR was not submitted.43 Our review of the SIR investigations found that they suffered from the same deficiencies identified in the field SIR investigations.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement C57
The DPD shall require that all injuries to prisoners occurring in DPD holding cells are reported and investigated in compliance with the DPD’s prisoner injury investigation policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the last reporting period, we investigated five attempted suicides and a detainee injury.
During this reporting period, we reviewed two attempted suicides and a detainee injury. One of the attempted suicides required minimal force to remove a belly ring piercing that the subject used to cut her wrists. That incident was captured on video with a sufficient supervisory review of the recording. The other attempted suicide and the detainee injury were both investigated in conformance with the requirements in C57.
The detainees involved in the two attempted suicides were promptly transported to DRH for treatment.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:

43 One was a detainee injury that was not videotaped and was not required to be videotaped.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 167 of 197 Pg ID 8850

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 166

September 28, 2012

• The issues that impact the quality of use of force investigations as described in the Use of Force section of the Consent Judgment are applicable to the use of force investigations of incidents occurring in the cell block area. The remedies we have recommended in those areas remain constant for the Conditions of Confinement requirements. Timely and thorough investigations, coupled with critical command level reviews, are the keys to achieving compliance. We have noted improvements in video review and the use of the handheld portable cameras.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to review all force, injury, and complaint incidents originating from detention facilities.
• Monitor the supervisory review of video captured in the detention areas, and, where appropriate, monitor the use of handheld cameras in each detention facility.
• Conduct field visits to various detention facilities to verify the Department’s adherence to policy requirements.

¶ Requirements 55 Use of force investigations 56 Use of force investigations 57 Injury to prisoner investigations

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance

XIII. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS
CJ Requirement C58
The DPD shall ensure that it accepts and processes all external complaints regarding incidents occurring in holding cells consistent with the DPD’s external complaint policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during all of the previous reporting periods.
During this reporting period, the Department closed four complaints originating from detention facilities: one in April; one in May; and two in June. All complaints were accepted and processed in accordance with DPD policy. All contained demeanor-related allegations, two also involved procedure allegations, and another alleged force. OCI retained investigation of all of the cases. While there were issues associated with the investigation of these complaints (see C59), DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 168 of 197 Pg ID 8851

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 167

September 28, 2012

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C59
The DPD shall ensure that all external complaints it receives regarding incidents occurring in holding cells are investigated and reviewed consistent with the DPD’s policies concerning external complaint investigations and review.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during the first reporting period, but not in compliance during successive reporting periods.
OCI closed four complaints originating from detention facilities during the reporting period. Only one was completed within 90 days. The rest took over 200 days to complete. In one case, a detainee complained that he did not receive his medications while in custody. This allegation, put forth in his OCI interview, was never documented or investigated.
In summary, the detention cases exhibited many of the issues delineated in CJ requirements U2733, impacting DPD’s compliance with this requirement. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

Critical Issues:
• The issues that impact the quality of use of force investigations and OCI investigations, as outlined in CJ requirements U27–33 and U61–69 are also evident in the cases reviewed for requirements C58–59. As these issues are addressed Department-wide, we hope to see a positive impact on the subset of cases originating from detention facilities.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to review all force, injury, and complaint incidents originating from detention facilities.
• Check, in applicable cases, for the appropriate use of handheld cameras, now that they are deployed in all detention facilities.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 169 of 197 Pg ID 8852

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 168

September 28, 2012

• Conduct field visits to various detention facilities to verify members’ knowledge of and the Department’s adherence to policy requirements.

¶ Requirements 58 Receipt of external complaints 59 Investigation of external complaints

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance Not in Compliance

XIV. GENERAL POLICIES CJ Requirement C60 In developing, revising, and augmenting the policies discussed in this Agreement, the DPD shall ensure that all terms are clearly defined. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. We found the DPD in Phase 2 compliance in all of the previous reporting periods. That status continues in this reporting period. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C61 The DPD shall continue to make available proposed policy revisions to the community, for review, comment and education. Such policy revisions shall also be published on the DPD’s website to allow comments to be provided directly to the DPD. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. See U71. The DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 60 Clearly define all terms in policies 61 Policy changes available to community

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 170 of 197 Pg ID 8853

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 169

September 28, 2012

XV. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
CJ Requirement C62
The DPD shall routinely evaluate the operation of the holding cells to minimize harm to staff and prisoners.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During this reporting period, CRIB staff inspected all of the facilities with holding cells and the DRH each month and documented their findings on Form 715 Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells. Upon review of the completed forms we found that all forms contained critical findings e.g. broken toilets and sprinkler heads, inoperable video cameras and an open fire door due to the building overheating. Requests for repairs had been made and were documented on the maintenance log. All 715 forms were complete with all of the required signatures. .
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance
CJ Requirement C63
The DPD shall operate the holding cells in compliance with DPD’s comprehensive risk management plan including implementation of:
a) the risk management database;
b) the performance evaluation system;
c) the auditing protocol;
d) regular and periodic review of all DPD policies; and
e) regular meetings of the DPD management to share information and evaluate patterns of conduct by DPD that potentially increase the DPD’s liability.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Phase 2 compliance with this requirement is unchanged since the last report. With regard to personnel evaluations, requirements to sustain Phase 2 findings in U91 are also relevant here. Evaluations of detention personnel are included in our sample drawn for regular review. Procedures requiring audits of holding facilities are also included under the general audit requirements (U92-99). Findings of Phase 2 compliance in these areas, therefore, also apply to the related subsections of this requirement (sections b, c). Likewise, requirements regarding regular policy review (section d) and meetings to evaluate potential liability risk (section e) are met by monthly command review meetings.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 171 of 197 Pg ID 8854

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 170

September 28, 2012

Under the Use of Force Consent Judgment, U78-90 establish the standards for the Phase 2 requirements of the risk management system. Since norming of data by arrest is not relevant to holding cell operations, we found DPD in compliance with this paragraph in the last reporting period. That logic continues to govern, and now DPD is in full compliance on U78; therefore, DPD is also in compliance on the related portion of this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C64
The DPD policy on video cameras shall be revised and augmented to require:
a. the installation and continuous operations of video cameras in all prisoner processing areas of the DPD holding cells within one year of the effective date of this Agreement;44
b. supervisors to review videotapes of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force and external complaints;
c. that the DPD retain and preserve videotapes for at least 90 days, or as long as necessary for incidents to be fully investigated; and
d. that the DPD conduct and document periodic random reviews of prisoners processing area camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes and conduct periodic random surveys of prisoners processing area video recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our previous inspections of holding cells, we observed the operation of video cameras in all processing areas and throughout the holding facilities. We noted that CRIB and/or detention staff conducts monthly random reviews of videos in processing areas as well as specific reviews when a use of force incident occurs.
During our January 2011 site visit, the Parties determined that video cameras were not required outside of the processing areas. During our two previous two site visits, the video cameras in all of the districts/precincts that maintain holding cells were operational in the processing areas. DPD has purchased handheld video cameras to achieve compliance with C53, subparagraph c, which states: “The DPD shall revise and augment its policies regarding prisoners to require that: c. the supervisor assesses the need to use force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell, direct any such use of force and ensure the incident is videotaped.” Personnel in the five facilities were able to activate the handheld cameras. This equipment should be routinely checked to ensure its operability.
44 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 172 of 197 Pg ID 8855

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 171

September 28, 2012

During this reporting period, as in the previous reporting period, we reviewed eight cases, within or at the holding facilities that involved a use of force or a prisoner injury. In six of the cases, video was reviewed; in the two cases where video was not available, a detainees’ suicide attempt occurred inside a cell and was not subject to the view of a camera and in the other case, a detainee was outside the facility being forcefully removed from a police vehicle when efforts to coax here to compliance with commands failed. In this case the officers could have contemplated retrieving the handheld camera from the cell block desk to record the extraction. In previous reporting periods, we noted issues with canvassing/interviewing witnesses; however, canvassing and witness statements were taken in every case, except one (no other witnesses available) that we reviewed during this reporting period. All initial reports were completed in a timely fashion. Commanding officers are taking a more active role in addressing use of force and prisoner injuries in the facilities.
We reviewed DPD Form 713, effective April 2010, that requires personnel working in the five holding facilities to conduct random reviews of holding cell processing areas for training and integrity purposes, and found the reviews timely. We reviewed 30 Supervisory Detainee Processing Area Video Review Forms; all indicated the DPD members on duty at the time of the video review, any unusual circumstances occurring, and supervisory review. In the tenth reporting period, the Northeastern District did not provide any forms for review, as CRIB advised the district was experiencing many technical issues due to its exclusive installation of the new in-car video equipment. We were able to review the Northeastern District during the eleventh and twelfth reporting periods. Technical issues remain at this location.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C65
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled semiannual audits, covering all DPD units and commands that investigate uses of force, injuries to prisoners and allegations of misconduct in holding cells, including;
a. reviewing a statistically valid sample of command, IAD, and Homicide Section investigations;
b. evaluating whether the actions of the officer and the subject were captured correctly in the investigative report;
c. evaluating the preservation and analysis of the evidence;
d. examining whether there is consistency in use of force and injured prisoner investigations throughout the DPD;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 173 of 197 Pg ID 8856

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 172

September 28, 2012

e. evaluating the appropriateness of the investigator’s conclusions; and f. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.45
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its Combined Use of Force and Allegations of Misconduct in Holding Cells Investigations Audit for the audit period ending January 31, 2012. We reviewed the audit for that reporting period; and found that the Audit Team conducted a comprehensive audit regarding uses of force, injuries to prisoners, and allegations of misconduct in holding cells. The respective command staff were notified of the deficiencies and responded to the Command Action Notices with non-disciplinary corrective action and/or training as appropriate. The next semi-annual audit will have been completed by July 31, 2012; and will be discussed in our next quarterly report.
Accordingly, we continue to find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C66
The DPD shall create a Holding Cell Compliance Committee that is responsible for assuring compliance with requirements of this Agreement. The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate compliance with fire detection, suppression and evacuation program, including:
a. testing a sample of smoke detectors and sprinklers;
b. testing the back-up power systems;
c. reviewing a sample of fire equipment testing and maintenance records; and
d. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
45 Amended to reflect the below stipulated language contained in the Court order of April 15, 2009:
The audits required by paragraphs 65 to 71 in this Agreement shall be submitted on a semiannual basis with the first and second semiannual periods ending on January 31 and August 31, 2004. Subsequent semiannual periods shall end on January 31, 2005, and every six months thereafter. Each of these audits may be conducted on an annual rather than a semiannual basis when the Monitor concludes that the most recently submitted audit for the same topic is compliant, and the remaining requirements of this paragraph have been met for the prior audit of that topic. The DPD shall issue all audit reports to the Chief of Police and also provide copies to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take nondisciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 174 of 197 Pg ID 8857

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 173

September 28, 2012

The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that meets monthly and collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB audit team conducted the semi-annual Fire Safety Practices and Policies Audit that was completed for January 31, 2012. The next audit is scheduled to be completed on July 31, 2012.
During this reporting period, we inspected the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, and examined the policies and practices related to Departmental fire safety. Our current findings are documented in C14-22.
Accordingly, we continue to find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C67
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled audits in all buildings containing holdings cells to evaluate emergency preparedness, including;
a. reviewing a sample of key and fire equipment maintenance and inventory records; interviewing selected detention officers about their participation in fire drills and on their responsibilities under emergency preparedness program and testing their ability to identify keys necessary to unlock all holding cell doors; and
b. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit team completed the Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program audit for the period ending January 31, 2012. We confirmed that the DPD met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for July 31,2012.
The DPD developed and published a Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP) addressing safety and security, as required. The CEPP includes an emergency response plan for each district/precinct (see C24) and a key control system requirement (see C25).
During our most recent inspection of all districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, we examined the policies and practices related to the Emergency Preparedness Program. Our findings are discussed above in C23-25.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 175 of 197 Pg ID 8858

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 174

September 28, 2012

The DPD has conducted and documented fire drills, as required. Accordingly, we continue to find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with these requirements of this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C68
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate the medical/mental health programs and policies, including:
a. reviewing a sampling of hospitals referral forms in comparison to prisoner intake forms to evaluate the accuracy of the intake screening and whether appropriate action was taken;
b. observing intake screening interviews to assess thoroughness;
c. reviewing a sampling of the prescription medication log to ensure that medications were administered as prescribed and that their distribution was accurately recorded; and
d. issuing a written report regarding the finding of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The most recent semi-annual audit was completed for January 31, 2012. The audit is comprehensive and addresses the deficiencies by issuing Command Action Notices to the appropriate command staff. Included in the audit are the responses from the commanders, indicating training or issuance of non-disciplinary or disciplinary notices. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for July 31, 2012.
During this reporting period, we visited the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, and examined the policies and operational practices related to the Medical and Mental Health Program. Our findings are discussed above in C26-34.
We conclude that the DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 176 of 197 Pg ID 8859

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 175

September 28, 2012

CJ Requirement C69
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate detainee safety programs and policies, including;
a. reviewing a sampling of security screening records, including written supervisory approvals, to ensure that prisoners are being properly screened and housed;
b. reviewing a sampling of the cell checks logs to ensure that checks are being accurately and regularly performed and that cell checks logs are receiving supervisory review and written approval; and
c. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its audit results for the Detainee Safety Program on January 31, 2012. We reviewed the current audit independently, and found that many of the deficiencies founded are similar to our findings during our inspections. The audit noted deficiencies at all districts/precincts relating to C35, and C36(a) and (b) – areas that were also marked as deficient during the last semi-annual audit. Command Action Notices were issued and responses were received by February 15, 2012. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for July 31, 2012
Additionally, we independently reviewed the operational implementation of policies and practices related to the Detainee Safety Program during our visits to all five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells and the DRH. Our findings are discussed in C35-38.
We conclude that the DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of the requirements of this paragraph. Accordingly, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C70
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate the environmental health and safety programs, including:
a. inspecting holding cells and surrounding areas to ensure that they are clean and clear of debris and that the lighting, sinks, and toilets are operable;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 177 of 197 Pg ID 8860

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 176

September 28, 2012

b. reviewing a sampling of cleanings and maintenance logs to ensure they are properly maintained and reflected the scheduled performance of the requisite cleaning and maintenance tasks;
c. reviewing the systems in place for assuring that all prisoners have reasonable access to potable water and toilets 24 hours a day;
d. observing whether holding cells are free of any potential suicide hazards; and
e. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team completed its first combined semi-annual audit of the Environmental Health and Safety Program, Detainee Food Services and Personal Hygiene Policies and issued their findings on January 31, 2012. The audits were combined for efficiency reasons. They cover C70-71 and focus on Paragraphs C34, C39-45, and C49-51. Additionally, CRIB staff conducts monthly audits of the elements of this paragraph and documents the results on DPD Form 715 Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells. We reviewed all of the team’s results, and found them to be comprehensive. We continue to conduct inspections separately on operational implementation of policies and practices of the five districts/precincts with holding cells and the DRH. Our findings for the paragraph are discussed above in C39-46. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for July 31, 2012.
DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C71 The Holding cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled semiannual audits of all building containing holding cells to evaluate the food service program, including:
a. reviewing a statistically valid sample of food service documentation to evaluate whether prisoners who are held over six hours receive regular and adequate meals;
b. assuring that food is handled in a sanitary manner; and c. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 178 of 197 Pg ID 8861

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 177

September 28, 2012

The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its command-specific audit on the DPD food service program and hygiene practices on January 31, 2012. This was the first combined audit that also included Personal Hygiene Policies and Environmental Health and Safety Policies. We found the audit to be comprehensive and meeting the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this and the previous paragraph, C70.
We continue to visit the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells. We examined the implementation of the policies and practices related to the food service program and hygiene practices. Our findings are discussed in C49-50.
The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for July 31, 2012.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C72
The audits required by paragraphs 65 to 71 in this Agreement shall be submitted on a semiannual basis with the first and second semiannual periods ending on January 31 and August 31, 2004. Subsequent semiannual periods shall end on January 31, 2005, and every six months thereafter. Each of these audits may be conducted on an annual rather than a semiannual basis when the Monitor concludes that the most recently submitted audit for the same topic is compliant and the remaining requirements of this paragraph have been met for the prior audit of that topic. The DPD shall issue all audit reports to the Chief of Police and also provide copies to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.46
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CRIB is mandated under this Consent Judgment paragraph to provide written reports for the Chief of Police and specified commanders. In previous reporting periods, we found that the various reports and field responses were unacceptable, in that these reports were specific to the district/precinct and did not receive sufficient attention. The CRIB conducted a review of the audit process, and subsequently changed the audit process to focus on individual commands. These command-specific audits were anticipated to result in clearer command accountability and increased awareness to issues that are identified through the audit process.
46 Amended by Court Order dates April 15, 2009

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 179 of 197 Pg ID 8862

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 178

September 28, 2012

For the last reporting period, we received and reviewed the command-specific audits for the period ending January 31, 2012. The audits included are Medical and Mental Health Program and Policies; Combined Environmental Health and Safety; Detainee Food Service and Personal Hygiene Practices; Fire Safety Practices and Policies; Allegations of Misconduct in Holding Cells and Uses of Force in Holding Cells Combined; and Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program. We also reviewed the Corrective Action Notices from the commands that were submitted prior to February 15, 2012. The next set of audits is due to be completed by July 31, 2012. We will report on these audits in our next quarterly report. Although we find the audits to be comprehensive and accurate, we cannot recommend that they be conducted on an annual basis due to the excessive number of repeat deficiencies that continue to be discovered.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 62 Evaluation of holding cell operation 63 Operate cells in compliance with risk plan 64 Augment policy regarding video cameras 65 Quarterly audits required 66 Fire safety audits required 67 Emergency preparedness audits required 68 Medical/mental health program audit 69 Detainee safety audits required 70 Environmental health/safety audits 71 Food service program audits required 72 Audit results to Chief and Commanders

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

CJ Requirement C73
The DPD shall provide comprehensive pre-service and in-service training to all detention officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During past site visits, we have conducted surveys to evaluate the comprehensiveness of training provided to detention officers, and determine the Department’s compliance with its policies requiring that officers who are assigned detention duties have been afforded detention training.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 180 of 197 Pg ID 8863

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 179

September 28, 2012

DPD steadily improved in this area. In our January 2011 review, we found for the first time that DPD was in compliance with this requirement. The Department continued throughout 2011 in compliance; over 99% of the officers who were assigned to detention duties in 2011 had been trained in detention as required.
During this reporting period, we again randomly sampled three days (Thursday, April 19; Friday, Saturday, May 25; and June 2, 2012) and found that 215 (95%) of the 225 officers who worked in detention duties on those three days had completed the Detention Officer Course. We also found that all (100%) of the supervisors specifically designated on the Daily Details as responsible for the cellblock had received detention training.
As we noted in our two previous reviews, supervisory authority over the cellblock area in the Central District is not clearly defined on the Daily Details. Again we found in nine Central District Daily Details that we reviewed, no supervisor was clearly listed as assigned to supervise the officers handling detention duties. The Central District does not have a cellblock, but designates officers to handle detention duties at Detroit Receiving Hospital. We again found that nine of the supervisors of the officers handling detention duties in the Central District had not received detention training within the past year.
The DPD remains in compliance with C73 but, while the failure to denote the detention supervisor on the Daily Detail is not technically a violation of this requirement, we note again that it is an undesirable trend that needs to be corrected. Further, supervisors for the officers assigned to detention duties should also have undergone detention officer training.
The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C74
The DPD shall create and maintain individual training records for all detention officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training, completed for all training completed on or after the effective date of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
In July 2011, we found that DPD had completed the entry of all training records since 2003 into the Michigan MITN automated records system. During this reporting period, we verified the accuracy of the DPD Training records (see U108) and their entry into the MITN system. DPD was able to produce an accurate and current list of officers and supervisors who received inservice training. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 181 of 197 Pg ID 8864

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 180

September 28, 2012

Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C75
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors of detention officer and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in emergency preparedness. Such training shall include drills and substantive training in the following topics:
a. Emergency response plans and notification responsibilities;
b. Fire drills and use of fire extinguishers and other fire suppression equipment;
c. Key control drills and key control policies and procedures; and
d. Responding to emergency situations, including scenarios detention officers likely will experience.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Although DPD detention training adequately addresses the requirements of C75, we found in previous reporting periods that the Department continued to assign officers and supervisors who had not been trained in detention duties. In our January 2011 review, we found for the first time that DPD was in compliance with the requirement that only officers trained in detention be assigned to such duties. The Department continued throughout 2011 in compliance. For the year 2011, our reviews determined that over 99% of the officers who were assigned to detention duties had been trained in detention, as required.
During our most recent site visit, we found that 95% of the officers working in detention duties had received the required training.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C76
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in the medical/mental health screening programs and policies. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. prisoner intake procedures and medical and mental health protocols, including protocols for transferring or housing prisoners with infectious diseases, disabilities and/or requiring increased monitoring;
b. recording, updating and transferring prisoner health information and medications

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 182 of 197 Pg ID 8865

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 181

September 28, 2012

c. the prescription medication policy, including instructions on the storage, recording and administration of medications; and
d. examples of scenarios faced by detention officers illustrating proper intake screening and action in response to information regarding medical and mental health conditions.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
This requirement addresses training to be afforded to all detention officers, supervisors, and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee. Since our random review of training files during this reporting period showed that 95% of the officers serving in detention duties received this training, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C77
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in detainee safety programs and policies. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. the security screening program, including protocols for identifying and promptly and properly housing suspected crime partners, vulnerable, assaultive or special management prisoners;
b. protocols for performing, documenting and obtaining supervisory review of holding cell checks;
c. protocols concerning prisoners in observation cells, including protocols for direct and continual supervision, for spotting potential suicide hazards and providing appropriate clothing; and
d. examples of scenarios faced by detention officers illustrating appropriate security screening, segregation and monitoring techniques.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
This requirement addresses training to be afforded to all detention officers, supervisors, and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee. Since our random review of training files during this reporting period showed that 95% of the officers serving in detention duties received this training, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 183 of 197 Pg ID 8866

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 182

September 28, 2012

Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C78
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in environmental health and safety and hygiene. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. cell block cleaning and maintenance protocols; and
b. sanitary food preparation and delivery protocols.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
This requirement addresses training to be afforded to all detention officers, supervisors, and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee. Since our random review of training files during this reporting period showed that 95% of the officers serving in detention duties received this training, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 73 Pre-service and in-service training 74 Maintain records training 75 Emergency preparedness training 76 Medical/mental health training 77 Detainee safety programs training 78 Environmental, safety, and hygiene training

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 184 of 197 Pg ID 8867

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 183

September 28, 2012

APPENDIX A: Use of Force – Directives/Policies

USE OF FORCE POLICY

14

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and Training Directive 04-7, Use of

Force, effective November 21, 2005.

15

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and Training Directive 04-3, Use of

Force Continuum, effective May 9, 2005.

16

See paragraph #15 above.

17

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and Training Directive 04-7, Use of

Force, effective November 21, 2005.

18

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, approved by DOJ April 14, 2005, effective March 19, 2012.

19

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and Training Directive 04-7, Use of

Force, effective November 21, 2005.

20

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective August 4, 2011 which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

effective November 2010; and Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011.

21

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective August 4, 2011, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

effective November 2010, and in Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011.

22

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective May 2, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and August 4,

2011).

23

See paragraph #22 above. Also, Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011.

24

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 304.4, PR 24

Collapsible Baton, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010); and Training Directive 04-3,

Use of Force Continuum, effective May 9, 2005.

25

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 304.3, Chemical Spray

Device, effective July 2, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010); and Training Directive 04-7, Use of

Force/Detainee Injuries or Allegations of Injuries Reporting and Investigating, effective November

21, 2005.

26

See paragraph #25 above.

INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW

27

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct

Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; DPD Directive 102.6 Citizens Complaints, effective July 1,

2008 (revised November 2010); Training Directive 04-7, Use of Force, effective November 21, 2005;

Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009);

Office of the Chief Investigator, Standard Operating Procedure, July 1, 2010; and Internal Affairs

Standard Operating Procedure, January 2011.

28

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 102.4,

Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; and Training Directive 04-7, Use of

Force, effective November 21, 2005.

29

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 102.4,

Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; DPD Directive 203.3, Notifications,

effective February 22, 2012; Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006

(revised October 24, 2009); Training Directive 04-7, Use of Force, effective November 21, 2005;

Internal Affairs Standard Operating Procedure, (January 2011); and Office of the Chief Investigator

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 185 of 197 Pg ID 8868

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 184

September 28, 2012

Standard Operating Procedure (July 1, 2010).

30

See paragraph #29 above.

31

Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, dated February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009).

32

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 102.4,

Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; Training Directive 04-4, Garrity

Protocol, effective February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009); Training Directive 04-7, Use of

Force, effective November 21, 2005; Internal Affairs Standard Operating Procedure (January 2011);

and Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedure (July 1, 2010).

33

See paragraph #32 above.

34

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms,

effective May 2, 2005 and revised August 4, 2011; and Training Directive 04-7, Use of Force,

effective November 21, 2005; Training Directive 11-01, Reporting/Documenting The “Acquiring of a

Target” effective August 4, 2011, Training Directive 11-01a, Reporting/Documenting The

“Acquiring of a Target” Audio/Video Review of the Incident, effective April 11, 2012

35

See paragraph #34 above and DPD Directive 203.3, Notifications, effective February 22, 2012.

36

See paragraph #34 above.

37

See paragraph #34 above. Also DPD Joint Incident Shooting Team Standard Operating Procedures

and DPD Training Directive 04-07, Use of Force/Detainee Injuries or Allegations of Injuries

Reporting and Investigating, effective November 21, 2005.

38

See paragraph #37 above.

39

DPD Special Order 09-13, Command Level Force Review Team (CLFRT) dated March 2, 2009,

replaced with DPD Special Order 11-02, effective January 1, 2011; and DPD Directive 101.9, Special

Purposes Committees, effective February 22, 2012.

40

See paragraph #39 above.

41

See paragraph #39 above.

ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES

42

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 2010.

43

See paragraph #42 above.

44

See paragraph #42 above (202.1); 202.2, Search and Seizure, effective May 2, 2005; revised

November 2010; 203.9, Custodial Questioning, effective November 20, 2010; and 404.1, Definitions,

effective November 20, 2010.

45

See paragraph #42 above.

46

DPD Directive 203.9, Custodial Questioning, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 20, 2010.

47

See paragraph #46 above.

48

See paragraph #46 above.

49

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 20, 2010.

50

See paragraph #49 above.

51

See paragraph #49 above.

52

DPD Directive 305.2, Detainee Registration, and effective September 12, 2005.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 186 of 197 Pg ID 8869

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 185

September 28, 2012

53

See paragraph #52 above.

54

See paragraph #52 above.

55

See paragraph #52 above.

56

DPD Directives 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 20, 2010) and 305.2,

Detainee Registration, effective September 12, 2005. Also Training Directive #04-01, Confinement

of Material Witness, effective March 1, 2005.

57

See paragraph #56 above.

58

See paragraph #56 above.

59

See paragraph #56 above.

60

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 20, 2010); and DPD

Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 3, 2010).

EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS

61

DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 2010); IAD

Standard Operating Procedures, Sections 1 and 3 (January 2011); and OCI Standard Operating

Procedure, effective July 24, 2003 (revised April 29, 2004, and July 1, 2010).

62

Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedures, effective July 24, 2003 (revised April

29, 2004, and July 1, 2010).

63

DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 2010).

64

See paragraph #61 above. Also see DPD Directive 102.6.

65

See paragraph #63 above.

66

See paragraph #61 above.

67

See paragraph #61 above.

68

See paragraph #65 above.

69

See paragraph #61 above. Also DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations,

effective July 1, 2008; and Training Directive 04-4 Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006

(revised October 24, 2009).

GENERAL POLICIES

70

DPD Directives 101.1, Directive System, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) and

404.1, Definitions, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010).

71

DPD Directive 101.1, Directive System, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010). The

DPD also utilizes a Protocol for Proposed Policy Revisions; an SOP outlining procedures for posting

proposed policies to the website; and a flow chart (Visio-DPD Policy Flow Chart) that tracks the

movements of proposed policy revisions through the Department and public review.

72

DPD Directive 102.3, Code of Conduct, effective November 1, 2009 (revised November 1, 2010).

73

On November 6, 2007, the DPD agreed to a 1:10 ratio of supervisors to officers in patrol and

specialized units.47 Also Directive 101.10, Organization and Management, effective March 30, 2011.

47Section I, Paragraph of the UOF CJ defines a supervisor as a sworn DPD employee at the rank of sergeant or above and non-sworn employees with oversight responsibility for DPD employees.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 187 of 197 Pg ID 8870

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 186

September 28, 2012

74

DPD Directive 102.3, Code of Conduct, effective November 1, 2009 (revised November 1, 2010).

75

See paragraph #74 above. Also DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective May 2. 2005 (revised

November 1, 2010 and August 4, 2011).

76

Directives 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised effective March 1 2010 and

305.7, Transportation of Detainees, effective February 29, 2012.

77

DPD Directive 202.7, Foot Pursuits, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010).

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

78

DPD Directive 401.13, Management Awareness System, effective November 6, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010).

79

See paragraph #78 above.

80

See paragraph #78 above.

81

See paragraph #78 above. Also see the DPD Data Input Plan, approved by the Department of Justice,

June 9, 2011.

82

See paragraph #81 above.

83

See paragraph #78 above.

84

See paragraph #78 above.

85

See paragraph #78 above.

86

See paragraph #81 above.

87

See paragraph #78 above.

88

See paragraph #78 above.

89

See paragraph #78 above.

90

See paragraph #81 above.

91

DPD Directive 401.2, Performance Evaluation Ratings, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1,

2010).

92

DPD Audit Protocol, effective September 30, 2011. Annual revision required.

93

See paragraph #92 above.

94

See paragraph #92 above.

95

See paragraph #92 above.

96

See paragraph #92 above.

97

See paragraph #92 above.

98

DPD Directive 303.3, In-Car Video, effective March 8, 2012.

99

DPD Directive 304.5 Training, effective May 13, 2011.

100

DPD Directive 303.3, In-Car Video, effective March 8, 2012.

101

See paragraph #100 above. Also, Teletype #11-1468, Roll Call Informational Bulletin, Use of

Department Issued In-Car Video Equipment and Body Microphones.

102

See paragraph #100 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 188 of 197 Pg ID 8871

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 187

September 28, 2012

103

DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective July 1, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010) and the related DPD Discipline Matrix (DPD22a).

104

See paragraph #103 above.

105

See paragraph #103 above.

TRAINING

106

DPD Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011.

107

See paragraph #106 above.

108

See paragraph #106 above.

109

See paragraph #106 above.

110

See paragraph #106 above.

111

See paragraph #106 above.

112

See paragraph #106 above.

113

See paragraph #106 above. Also Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective August 4, 2011.

114

See paragraph #106 above.

115

See paragraph #106 above.

116

See paragraph #106 above.

117

See paragraph #106 above.

118

See paragraph #106 above.

119

See paragraph #106 above.

120

See paragraph #106 above.

121

See paragraph #106 above.

122

See paragraph #106 above.

123

See paragraph #106 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 189 of 197 Pg ID 8872

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 188

September 28, 2012

APPENDIX B: Conditions of Confinement – Directives/Policies

FIRE SAFETY POLICIES

14

DPD Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan (CEPP), which includes a Fire Safety Plan (FSP)

requiring compliance with the Life Safety Code and inspections. The FSP was approved by DOJ on

May 23, 2006. The Fire Marshal reviews the FSP annually; the last review was conducted on

November 29, 2010. Also, DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective April 21, 2011.

15

See paragraph #14 above.

16

See paragraph #14 above.

17

See paragraph #14 above.

18

See paragraph #14 above.

19

See paragraph #14 above.

20

See paragraph #14 above.

21

See paragraph #14 above.

22

See paragraph #14 above.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES

23

DPD Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan (CEPP), effective May 2011 and DPD Directive

305.4, effective April 21, 2011.

24

See paragraph #23 above.

25

See paragraph #23 above.

MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES

26

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake Assessment; effective May 2, 2012; 305.5, Detainee Health

Care and; effective February 22, 2012; 403.2, Infectious Disease Control Plan, effective February 29,

2012, reviewed and updated by a qualified health care professional on February 17, 2012 and

February 29, 2012 as required. DPD Directive 305.5 cited above along with forms and logs,

comprises the Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening program (CMMHSP).

27

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

28

See paragraphs #26.

29

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.1).

30

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 403.2).

31

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

32

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

33

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.1)

34

See paragraph #26 above.

PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES

35

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake, effective May 2, 2012; Directive 305.2, Detainee

Registration; Directive 305.3, Detainee Personal Property, effective May 20, 2010 (revised November

3, 2011); DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective February 1, 2008, and revised

September 30, 2011; Directive 305.5, Detainee Health Care, effective February 22, 2012; Directive

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 190 of 197 Pg ID 8873

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 189

September 28, 2012

305.7, Transportation of Detainees; effective February 29, 2012 and Directive 305.8, Detainee Food Service and Hygiene, effective May 2, 2012.

36

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.1)

37

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.4).

38

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.1 and 305.4).

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES

39

DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective February 1, 2008 (revised September 30, 2011).

Annual review and revision required.

40

See paragraph #39 above.

41

See paragraph #39 above.

42

See paragraph #39 above.

43

See paragraph #39 above.

44

See paragraph #39 above.

45

See paragraph #39 above.

46

See paragraph #39 above.

POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

47

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake and Assessment, effective May 2, 2012 February 29, 2012;

and 305.5, Detainee Health Care, effective February 22, 2012, approved and updated by a qualified

medical and mental health professional on February 17, 2012 and February 29, 2012. Also the

Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening Program (CMMHSP).

48

See paragraph #47 above (DPD Directive 305.1).

FOOD SERVICE POLICIES

49

DPD Directive 305.8, Detainee Food Service, effective May 2, 2012. Also, the Detainee Meal and

Hygiene Items Log, DPD 663, effective July 5, 2010.

50

See paragraph #49 above.

PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES

51

See paragraph #49 above.

USE OF FORCE AND RESTRAINTS POLICIES

52

DPD Directives 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 1, 2010) and 304.2,

Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012.

53

See paragraph #52 above.

54

See paragraph #52 above.

INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW

55

DPD Directives 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and 305.4, Holding Cell Areas,

effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 1, 2010).

56

See paragraph 55 above. Also DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012.

57

See paragraph #55 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 191 of 197 Pg ID 8874

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 190

September 28, 2012

EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS

58

See paragraph #55 above. Also see DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008

(revised November 2010).

59

See paragraph #58 above.

GENERAL POLICIES

60

DPD Directive 404.1, Definitions, effective November 2010.

61

DPD Directive 101.1, Written Directive System, effective November 2010.

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

62

DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised April 21, 2011).

63

DPD Directive 401.13, Management Awareness System, effective November 6, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010); DPD Directive 401.2, Performance Evaluation Ratings, effective July 1, 2008

(revised November 1, 2010); and DPD Audit Protocol, effective September 30, 2011.

64

See paragraph #62 above.

65

DPD Audit Protocol meeting generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS), effective

August 31, 2008 (revised October 31, 2010 and September 11, 2011).

66

See paragraph #65 above.

67

See paragraph #65 above.

68

See paragraph #65 above.

69

See paragraph #65 above.

70

See paragraph #65 above.

71

See paragraph #65 above.

72

See paragraph #65 above.

TRAINING

73

Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011.

74

See paragraph #73 above.

75

See paragraph #73 above.

76

See paragraph #73 above.

77

See paragraph #73 above.

78

See paragraph #73 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 192 of 197 Pg ID 8875

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 191

September 28, 2012

APPENDIX C: Acronyms
The following is a listing of acronyms frequently used in our quarterly reports.

ACRONYM AT BOPC CAM CBS CCR CDDT CEPP CFD CI City CJ CLBR CLFRT CLO CLI CME CMMHSP CO COC CJ CRIB DCCL DDHWP DDMHIL DFD DFF DFO/PDO DDHWP

DEFINITION Audit Team Board of Police Commissioners Command Accountability Meeting Cell Block Supervisor Citizen Complaint Report Curriculum Design and Development Team Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program Critical Firearm Discharge Chief Investigator City of Detroit Consent Judgment Command Level Board of Review Command Level Force Review Team Compliance Liaison Officer Command Level Investigation Confidential Medical Envelope Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening Program Commanding Officer Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment Civil Rights Integrity Bureau Detention Cell Check Log Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Program Daily Detainee Meal and Hygiene Items Log Detroit Fire Department Detainee File Folders Detention Facility Officer Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Promotion

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 193 of 197 Pg ID 8876

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 192

September 28, 2012

DIF DOJ DPD DRH EPP ERP FI FIS FSP FSPP FY GAS HCCC IA IAD IMAS ITS JIST MAS MCOLES MITN OCI OCR OIC PDDSL PDO PEERS PFC PI PSA RFP RMB

Detainee Intake Form Department of Justice Detroit Police Department Detroit Receiving Hospital Emergency Preparedness Program Emergency Response Plan Force Investigations (interchangeable with FIS) Force Investigation Section Fire Safety Program Fire Safety Practices and Policies Fiscal Year Government Auditing Standards Holding Cell Compliance Committee Internal Affairs Internal Affairs Division Interim Management Awareness System Information Technology Services Joint Incident Shooting Team Management Awareness System Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards MCCOLES Information and Tracking System Office of the Chief Investigator Office of Civil Rights Officer in Charge Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Log Police Detention Officer Performance Evaluation and Enhancement Review Session Policy Focus Committee Performance Indicator Public Service Announcement Request for Proposals Risk Management Bureau

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 194 of 197 Pg ID 8877

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 193

September 28, 2012

SIR SME SMT SOP TA UOF CJ UOF USAO WCPO WCJ

Supervisor’s Investigation Report Subject Matter Expert Senior Management Team Standard Operating Procedure(s) Technical Assistance Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention Consent Judgment Use(s) of Force United States Attorney’s Office Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office Wayne County Jail

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 195 of 197 Pg ID 8878

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 194

September 28, 2012

APPENDIX D: Monitoring Team
Robert S. Warshaw, Monitor Chief (Ret.) Charles D. Reynolds, Deputy Monitor
Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) J. Rick Brown Evaluates compliance with U16-17 and U19, General Use of Force Policy; U22, Use of Firearms Policy; U24, Intermediate Force Device Policy; U25-26, Chemical Spray Policy; U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34-36, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; and U37-41, Review of Critical Firearm Discharges and In-Custody Deaths.
Division Chief (Ret.) Rachel M. Burgess Evaluates compliance with U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; U61-63, External Complaints; U64-66, Intake and Tracking; and U67-69, External Complaint Investigations; C14-22, Fire Safety Policies; C23-25, Emergency Preparedness Policies; C60-61, General Policies; and C65-72, Management and Supervision.
Commander (Ret.) John M. Girvin Evaluates compliance with U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; U61-63, External Complaints; U64-66, Intake and Tracking; U67-69, External Complaint Investigations; and C58-59, External Complaints.
Chief (Ret.) Eduardo Gonzalez Evaluates compliance with U14-19, General Use of Force Policy; U22, Use of Firearms Policy; U24, Intermediate Force Device Policy; U25-26, Chemical Spray Policy; U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34-36, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; and U70-72 and U74-77, General Policies.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 196 of 197 Pg ID 8879

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 195

September 28, 2012

John M. Klofas, Ph.D.
Evaluates compliance with U78-90, Risk Management Database; U91, Performance Evaluation System; U92-97, Oversight; and U103-105, Discipline.

Leonard F. Rice, M.E.S., R.S.
Evaluates compliance with C39-46, Environmental Health and Safety Policies; C47-48, Policies Concerning Persons with Disabilities; C49-50, Food Service Policies; and C51, Personal Hygiene Policies.

Chief (Ret.) Billy R. Riggs
Evaluates compliance with U42-43, Arrest Policies; U44-45, Investigatory Stop Policies; U4648, Witness Identification and Questioning Policies; U49-51, Prompt Judicial Review Policies; U52-53, Hold Policies; U54-55, Restriction Policies; U56-57, Material Witness Policies; U58, Documentation of Custodial Detention; U59-60, Command Notification; C26-34, Medical and Mental Health Care Policies; and C64, Management and Supervision Policies.

Asst. Director (Ret.) Joseph R. Wolfinger
Evaluates compliance with U20-21 and U23, Use of Firearms Policy; U98-99, Oversight; U100102, Use of Video Cameras; U106-111, Oversight and Development; U112, Use of Force Training; U113, Firearms Training; U114, Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training; U115117, Custodial Detention Training; U118-120, Supervisory Training; U121-122, Investigator Training; and U123, Field Training.

Robin Busch-Wheaton Editor

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 621-1 Filed 10/02/12 Pg 197 of 197 Pg ID 8880

TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 196

September 28, 2012

APPENDIX E: Detroit Police Department Management Dashboard Data
The table below presents data on measures relevant to the requirements set forth in the Consent Judgments. The data were compiled by the Detroit Police Department, and are displayed for presentation by the Monitoring Team. These data are presented here with the consent of the Police Department and serve simply as a means to provide information relevant to issues raised in the Consent Judgments.

Dashboard Data: Detroit Police Department 7/11-6/12

July August Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec Jan-­‐12 Feb March April May June 12	
  month	
  graph

2673 3196 2725 2940 2553 2403 2503 1749 1984 1926 2294 1960

Number of Events per 1000 Arrests

34.42 0.75 30.68 4.86 2.99 22.07 4.49

35.98 0.94 40.68 3.75 0.00 12.20 3.13

26.06 0.73 34.86 3.30 0.00 12.48 5.50

40.14 1.70 37.07 3.40 2.72 8.16 7.14

25.46 0.00 31.73 5.88 5.88 14.49 3.53

29.55 0.42 30.79 4.16 4.58 8.32 4.99

23.17 1.20 39.55 6.39 4.00 5.99 7.19

46.31 1.14 46.31 5.15 1.14 8.58 16.01

49.40 1.51 46.37 9.07 6.55 9.07 12.10

63.86 0.52 32.19 4.67 4.15 8.31 1.56

64.08 2.62 44.03 6.10 4.36 5.23 3.92

32.65 0.51 35.20 6.63 0.00 6.12 1.53

7.48 10.10 5.99 2.24 25.81

4.38 15.64 2.19 3.75 25.97

6.61 10.28 3.30 1.47 21.65

4.76 17.01 5.10 2.04 28.91

5.48 10.58 2.74 1.57 20.37

3.33 9.16 2.08 0.42 14.98

3.20 9.59 3.20 1.20 17.18

9.15 21.73 1.14 0.57 32.59

9.58 19.66 2.02 0.50 31.75

8.83 21.81 3.12 1.56 35.31

14.39 20.49 7.41 3.49 45.77

7.65 15.82 4.08 2.55 30.10

 2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 1 of 186 Pg ID 9312

Independent Monitor
Robert S. Warshaw Office of the Independent Monitor Police Performance Solutions, LLC
July 10, 2013

	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   El ev e nt h	
   Q u ar te rl y	
   R e p or t

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 2 of 186 Pg ID 9313
Table of Contents
SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 10
SECTION TWO: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT .............................................................................................. 15 III. USE OF FORCE POLICY ................................................................................................................................. 15 A. General Use of Force Policy ........................................................................................................................... 15
CJ Requirement U14........................................................................................................................................... 15 CJ Requirement U15........................................................................................................................................... 17 CJ Requirement U16........................................................................................................................................... 18 CJ Requirement U17........................................................................................................................................... 18 CJ Requirement U18........................................................................................................................................... 19 CJ Requirement U19........................................................................................................................................... 20 CJ Requirement U20........................................................................................................................................... 20 CJ Requirement U21........................................................................................................................................... 21 B. Use of Firearms Policy .................................................................................................................................... 22 CJ Requirement U22........................................................................................................................................... 22 CJ Requirement U23........................................................................................................................................... 22 C. Intermediate Force Device Policy ................................................................................................................... 23 CJ Requirement U24........................................................................................................................................... 23 D. Chemical Spray Policy .................................................................................................................................... 23 CJ Requirement U25........................................................................................................................................... 23 CJ Requirement U26........................................................................................................................................... 24
IV. DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW............................................................................ 25 A. General Investigations of Police Action.......................................................................................................... 25 CJ Requirement U27........................................................................................................................................... 25 CJ Requirement U28........................................................................................................................................... 27 CJ Requirement U29........................................................................................................................................... 30 CJ Requirement U30........................................................................................................................................... 33 CJ Requirement U31........................................................................................................................................... 35 CJ Requirement U32........................................................................................................................................... 35 CJ Requirement U33........................................................................................................................................... 40

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 3 of 186 Pg ID 9314

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 2

July 10, 2013

B. Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations ............................................................................................... 42 CJ Requirement U34........................................................................................................................................... 42 CJ Requirement U35........................................................................................................................................... 42 CJ Requirement U36........................................................................................................................................... 44 CJ Requirement U37........................................................................................................................................... 45 CJ Requirement U38........................................................................................................................................... 46 CJ Requirement U39........................................................................................................................................... 47 CJ Requirement U40........................................................................................................................................... 48 CJ Requirement U41........................................................................................................................................... 49

V. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES ........................................................................ 50 A. Arrest Policies.................................................................................................................................................... 52 CJ Requirement U42........................................................................................................................................... 52 CJ Requirement U43........................................................................................................................................... 52 B. Investigatory Stop Policies ................................................................................................................................ 53 CJ Requirement U44........................................................................................................................................... 53 CJ Requirement U45........................................................................................................................................... 53 C. Witness Identification and Questioning Policies ............................................................................................... 56 CJ Requirement U46........................................................................................................................................... 56 CJ Requirement U47........................................................................................................................................... 56 CJ Requirement U48........................................................................................................................................... 56 D. Prompt Judicial Review Policies ....................................................................................................................... 58 CJ Requirement U49........................................................................................................................................... 58 CJ Requirement U50........................................................................................................................................... 59 CJ Requirement U51........................................................................................................................................... 59 E. Hold Policies ...................................................................................................................................................... 60 CJ Requirement U52........................................................................................................................................... 60 CJ Requirement U53........................................................................................................................................... 61 F. Restriction Policies.............................................................................................................................................. 62 CJ Requirement U54........................................................................................................................................... 62 CJ Requirement U55........................................................................................................................................... 63 G. Material Witness Policies .................................................................................................................................. 63 CJ Requirement U56........................................................................................................................................... 63 CJ Requirement U57........................................................................................................................................... 63 H. Documentation of Custodial Detention ............................................................................................................. 63 CJ Requirement U58........................................................................................................................................... 63

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 4 of 186 Pg ID 9315

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 3

July 10, 2013

I. Command Notification........................................................................................................................................ 64 CJ Requirement U59........................................................................................................................................... 64 CJ Requirement U60........................................................................................................................................... 65

VI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS ............................................................................................................................ 68 CJ Requirement U61........................................................................................................................................... 69 CJ Requirement U62........................................................................................................................................... 70 CJ Requirement U63........................................................................................................................................... 70
A. Intake and Tracking ........................................................................................................................................... 70 CJ Requirement U64........................................................................................................................................... 70 CJ Requirement U65........................................................................................................................................... 71 CJ Requirement U66........................................................................................................................................... 71
B. External Complaint Investigations..................................................................................................................... 71 CJ Requirement U67........................................................................................................................................... 71 CJ Requirement U68........................................................................................................................................... 74 CJ Requirement U69........................................................................................................................................... 75

VII. GENERAL POLICIES ..................................................................................................................................... 77 CJ Requirement U70........................................................................................................................................... 77 CJ Requirement U71........................................................................................................................................... 78 CJ Requirement U72........................................................................................................................................... 78 CJ Requirement U73........................................................................................................................................... 78 CJ Requirement U74........................................................................................................................................... 79 CJ Requirement U75........................................................................................................................................... 79 CJ Requirement U76........................................................................................................................................... 79 CJ Requirement U77........................................................................................................................................... 80

VIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION ....................................................................................................... 81 A. Risk Management Database........................................................................................................................... 81 CJ Requirement U78........................................................................................................................................... 81 CJ Requirement U79........................................................................................................................................... 82 CJ Requirement U80........................................................................................................................................... 83 CJ Requirement U81........................................................................................................................................... 86 CJ Requirement U82........................................................................................................................................... 86 CJ Requirement U83........................................................................................................................................... 87 CJ Requirement U84........................................................................................................................................... 88

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 5 of 186 Pg ID 9316

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 4

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U85........................................................................................................................................... 90 CJ Requirement U86........................................................................................................................................... 90 CJ Requirement U87........................................................................................................................................... 90 CJ Requirement U88........................................................................................................................................... 90 CJ Requirement U89........................................................................................................................................... 92 CJ Requirement U90........................................................................................................................................... 92 B. Performance Evaluation System ........................................................................................................................ 93 CJ Requirement U91........................................................................................................................................... 93 C. Oversight............................................................................................................................................................ 93 CJ Requirement U92........................................................................................................................................... 93 CJ Requirement U93........................................................................................................................................... 93 CJ Requirement U94........................................................................................................................................... 95 CJ Requirement U95........................................................................................................................................... 95 CJ Requirement U96........................................................................................................................................... 96 CJ Requirement U97........................................................................................................................................... 96 CJ Requirement U98........................................................................................................................................... 97 CJ Requirement U99........................................................................................................................................... 98 D. Use of Video Cameras ....................................................................................................................................... 99 CJ Requirement U100......................................................................................................................................... 99 CJ Requirement U101....................................................................................................................................... 100 CJ Requirement U102....................................................................................................................................... 101 E. Discipline ......................................................................................................................................................... 103 CJ Requirement U103....................................................................................................................................... 103 CJ Requirement U104....................................................................................................................................... 104 CJ Requirement U105....................................................................................................................................... 104

IX. TRAINING ...................................................................................................................................................... 106 A. OVERSIGHT AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................... 106
CJ Requirement U106 ........................................................................................................................................... 106 CJ Requirement U107....................................................................................................................................... 107 CJ Requirement U108....................................................................................................................................... 108 CJ Requirement U109....................................................................................................................................... 109 CJ Requirement U110....................................................................................................................................... 109 CJ Requirement U111....................................................................................................................................... 110
B. USE OF FORCE TRAINING ............................................................................................................................... 110 CJ Requirement U112....................................................................................................................................... 110

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 6 of 186 Pg ID 9317

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 5

July 10, 2013

C. FIREARMS TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 111 CJ Requirement U113....................................................................................................................................... 111
D. ARREST AND POLICE-CITIZEN INTERACTION TRAINING ...................................................................... 112 CJ Requirement U114....................................................................................................................................... 112
E. CUSTODIAL DETENTION TRAINING ............................................................................................................. 113 CJ Requirement U115....................................................................................................................................... 113 4CJ Requirement U116..................................................................................................................................... 114 CJ Requirement U117....................................................................................................................................... 114
F. SUPERVISORY TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 115 CJ Requirement U118....................................................................................................................................... 115 CJ Requirement U119....................................................................................................................................... 115 CJ Requirement U120....................................................................................................................................... 116
G. INVESTIGATOR TRAINING ............................................................................................................................ 116 CJ Requirement U121....................................................................................................................................... 116 CJ Requirement U122....................................................................................................................................... 116
H. FIELD TRAINING .............................................................................................................................................. 117 CJ Requirement U123....................................................................................................................................... 117

SECTION THREE: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT......................................................................................................................................... 118 III. FIRE SAFETY POLICIES .......................................................................................................................... 119
CJ Requirement C14......................................................................................................................................... 119 CJ Requirement C15......................................................................................................................................... 120 CJ Requirement C16......................................................................................................................................... 120 CJ Requirement C17......................................................................................................................................... 121 CJ Requirement C18......................................................................................................................................... 121 CJ Requirement C19......................................................................................................................................... 122 CJ Requirement C20......................................................................................................................................... 123 CJ Requirement C21......................................................................................................................................... 124 CJ Requirement C22......................................................................................................................................... 124

IV. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES .............................................................................................. 124 CJ Requirement C23......................................................................................................................................... 124 CJ Requirement C24......................................................................................................................................... 125 CJ Requirement C25......................................................................................................................................... 126

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 7 of 186 Pg ID 9318

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 6

July 10, 2013

V. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES ............................................................................ 127 CJ Requirement C26......................................................................................................................................... 127 CJ Requirement C27......................................................................................................................................... 128 CJ Requirement C28......................................................................................................................................... 129 CJ Requirement C29......................................................................................................................................... 131 CJ Requirement C30......................................................................................................................................... 132 CJ Requirement C31......................................................................................................................................... 133 CJ Requirement C32......................................................................................................................................... 134 CJ Requirement C33......................................................................................................................................... 136 CJ Requirement C34......................................................................................................................................... 136 CJ Requirement C35......................................................................................................................................... 137 CJ Requirement C36......................................................................................................................................... 138 CJ Requirement C37......................................................................................................................................... 139 CJ Requirement C38......................................................................................................................................... 140

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES ....................................................................... 141 CJ Requirement C39......................................................................................................................................... 141 CJ Requirement C40......................................................................................................................................... 142 CJ Requirement C41......................................................................................................................................... 142 CJ Requirement C42......................................................................................................................................... 143 CJ Requirement C43......................................................................................................................................... 143 CJ Requirement C44......................................................................................................................................... 144 CJ Requirement C45......................................................................................................................................... 144 CJ Requirement C46......................................................................................................................................... 145

VIII. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES............................................................... 145 CJ Requirement C47......................................................................................................................................... 145 CJ Requirement C48......................................................................................................................................... 146

IX. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES .......................................................................................................................... 146 CJ Requirement C49......................................................................................................................................... 146 CJ Requirement C50......................................................................................................................................... 147

X. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES ................................................................................................................ 148 CJ Requirement C51......................................................................................................................................... 148 CJ Requirement C52......................................................................................................................................... 148

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 8 of 186 Pg ID 9319

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 7

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement C53......................................................................................................................................... 149 CJ Requirement C54......................................................................................................................................... 150

XII. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW .................................................... 151 CJ Requirement C55......................................................................................................................................... 151 CJ Requirement C56......................................................................................................................................... 152 CJ Requirement C57......................................................................................................................................... 152
XIII. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS ........................................................................................................................ 153 CJ Requirement C58......................................................................................................................................... 153 CJ Requirement C59......................................................................................................................................... 154
XIV. GENERAL POLICIES................................................................................................................................... 155 CJ Requirement C60......................................................................................................................................... 155 CJ Requirement C61......................................................................................................................................... 155
XV. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION ........................................................................................................ 156 CJ Requirement C62......................................................................................................................................... 156 CJ Requirement C63......................................................................................................................................... 156 CJ Requirement C64......................................................................................................................................... 157 CJ Requirement C65......................................................................................................................................... 159 CJ Requirement C66......................................................................................................................................... 160 CJ Requirement C67......................................................................................................................................... 161 CJ Requirement C68......................................................................................................................................... 162 CJ Requirement C69......................................................................................................................................... 163 CJ Requirement C70......................................................................................................................................... 164 CJ Requirement C71......................................................................................................................................... 165 CJ Requirement C72 ......................................................................................................................................... 166 CJ Requirement C73 ......................................................................................................................................... 167 CJ Requirement C74 ......................................................................................................................................... 167 CJ Requirement C75 ......................................................................................................................................... 167 CJ Requirement C76 ......................................................................................................................................... 168 CJ Requirement C77 ......................................................................................................................................... 168 CJ Requirement C78 ......................................................................................................................................... 169

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 9 of 186 Pg ID 9320

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 8

July 10, 2013

APPENDIX A: USE OF FORCE - DIRECTIVES/POLICIES .......................................................................... 170

APPENDIX B: CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT - DIRECTIVES/POLICIES ........................................ 176

APPENDIX C: ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................ 180

APPENDIX D: MONITORING TEAM ............................................................................................................... 183

APPENDIX E: Detroit Police Department Management Dashboard Data………………………………….. 185

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 10 of 186 Pg ID 9321

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 9

July 10, 2013

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION
On October 5, 2009, the Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr., United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division (the Court), appointed me to serve as the Independent Monitor of the Use of Force and Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgments in the case United States of America v. City of Detroit, Michigan (the City) and the Detroit Police Department (DPD) No. 03-77758, decided in June 2003. With this appointment and assisted by a team of highly respected professionals, I assumed responsibility for monitoring compliance with the requirements of these Judgments – the implementation of a compilation of generally accepted professional police and confinement policies, procedures, and related practices.
Our Team conducted our first quarterly site visit in November 2009, and has conducted subsequent site visits each subsequent calendar quarter. We have observed considerable change within the City and the Detroit Police Department during our engagement.
Similar to previous reports, the issuance of this report follows an onsite visit to assess and guide the Department’s ongoing efforts. This report includes our assessment of the Department’s compliance with each of the requirements contained in Judgments. Our findings are based on the results of discussions and meetings with City and DPD staff, observations of operational activities, inspections of facilities, and our review of documents and data covering the period of January 1, through March 31, 2013.
The body of this report is comprised of our assessments of compliance with the individual requirements of the Consent Judgments. We include introductory narratives for each major section of the Use of Force Judgment and one overall narrative for the Conditions of Confinement Judgment. Following these narratives are their respective requirements and our comments regarding the compliance status for each. After these are summary notations of Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance. A statement of “Critical Issues” follows the reviews of the requirements in each major section of the Judgment. A brief statement of “Next Steps” follows, in which we describe a plan of work for the next visit including a discussion of the data we plan to review. Finally, a table summarizes the compliance finding for that particular section of the Judgment.
Our Team determines compliance through an examination of policies and implementation of practices that support each requirement in the Consent Judgments. Phase 1 compliance is dependent upon the development and adoption of a policy or set of procedures that supports each Consent Judgment requirement. Phase 2 compliance is dependent on the effective implementation of the practices necessary to meet the requirements, consistent with the applicable policy. Full compliance is dependent on both Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance. Accordingly, we note our finding of “in compliance” or “not in compliance” for each requirement.
Additionally, in the limited circumstances where substantial work and time is required to achieve implementation of a policy or procedure and the related practices, and where ongoing progress is clearly evident, we recognize that progress with the designation “pending compliance.” Where there are circumstances in which we are unable to fully determine the compliance status of a requirement due to a lack of data or other reasons, we identify that status with the designation “deferred.”

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 11 of 186 Pg ID 9322

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 10

July 10, 2013

Verification of compliance with the many parts of the Consent Judgments requires the analysis of multiple instances of activity, reviewing cases, or observations of the practical application of policies and procedures. In those circumstances, our first option is to conduct an analysis-based on a review of all cases or data. Where that is not appropriate or possible, we rely on statistically valid samples of the population. To reach conclusions based on analyses of cases, a minimal standard must be met. To achieve compliance based on these analyses, we have determined that more than 94% of relevant indicators must conform to the provisions articulated in the Judgments.
The independent monitoring of two Consent Judgments is a complex process involving complex issues. The delivery of police services to a community – and the simultaneous retention of the public trust – are perhaps the most fundamental and sacred roles of government. In the course of our responsibilities, we shall endeavor at all times to fulfill our mandate in a manner consistent with these principles.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the fifteenth quarterly report of the Independent Monitor in the case of United States of America v. City of Detroit No. 03-72258. The report covers the period of January 1, through March 31, 2013; and is based on our site visit of April 8, through April 12, 2013; and our subsequent analyses of relevant data from this period. Consistent with the practice we established in our first review, we continue to assess all requirements of both active Judgments for compliance. Our report has generally assessed 110 requirements in the Use of Force Judgment, and an additional 65 requirements in the Conditions of Confinement Judgment. In this executive summary, I will review the levels of compliance found for the reporting period.
As a result of an agreement with the Parties, during this reporting period, we limited our assessments to include: all requirements in both Consent Judgments that are not in compliance; as well as particular requirements that were selected by the Parties (specifically, 25% of the compliant requirements) and the Monitor (specifically, 50% of the remaining compliant requirements). This resulted in 40 requirements – 37 from the Use of Force Consent Judgment, and three from the Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment – that we did not assess during this reporting period; we are considering these requirements to be in sustained compliance.1
With regard to Phase 1 (policy) compliance, for the seventh consecutive reporting period, we found the City and the Police Department in compliance with all requirements of both Judgments. Following the practice we established in previous reports, all references to supporting policies, directives, and other relevant documents are listed in Appendices A (Use of Force) and B (Conditions of Confinement).
As noted above, the Department is again in Phase 1 compliance with all 110 (100%) of the Use of Force requirements. For the current reporting period, we also found the Department in Phase
1 The requirements that we did not assess include: U14; U19; U20; U21; U23; U26; U31; U41; U44; U54; U55; U56; U57; U58; U61; U62; U63; U64; U65; U66; U70; U71; U72; U74; U75; U76; U77; U81; U85; U86; U87;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 12 of 186 Pg ID 9323

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 11

July 10, 2013

1 and Phase 2 compliance (full compliance) with 98 (89%) of the 110 Use of Force requirements. This is three percentage points above the level found in our last report. During this reporting period, one Use of Force requirement (U18, regarding the use of force policy) is again deferred.
The Department is again in Phase 1 compliance with all 65 (100%) of the Conditions of Confinement requirements. This level has been maintained since the fourth reporting period. We found the Department in Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance (full compliance) with 61 (94%) of the 65 requirements. This is the one percentage point lower than the level noted in the last reporting period. The current figures are presented in the table below.

Fifteenth Quarterly Report Summary

Use of Force Phase 1 Phase 2

Paragraph Numbers

14-123

Number of Requirements

110

110

Pending Compliance

0

0

Not in Compliance

0

11

Deferred

0

1

In Compliance

110

98

Percent in Compliance

100%

89%

Cond of Conf

Phase 1

Phase 2

14-78

65

65

0

0

0

4

0

0

65

61

100%

94%

Total Phase 1 Phase 2

175

175

0

0

0

15

0

1

175

159

100% 91%

In summary, this is the seventh consecutive report in which we have found DPD in Phase 1 compliance with all (100%) of the 175 monitored requirements. We found the Department to be in full compliance (that is, both Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance) with 159 (91%) of the 175 monitored requirements of the applicable paragraphs of both Consent Judgments. One additional compliance determination is deferred. That said, we have noted some serious concerns.
The chart below illustrates the levels of compliance achieved on both Judgments and across all 15 reporting periods.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 13 of 186 Pg ID 9324

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 12

July 10, 2013

The table below provides the summary data illustrating the status of compliance over the course of all of our quarterly reporting periods.

Quarterly Report
Report 1 Report 2 Report 3 Report 4 Report 5 Report 6 Report 7 Report 8 Report 9 Report 10 Report 11 Report 12 Report 13 Report 14 Report 15

Use of Force

Phase Phase

1

2

81% 24%

94% 41%

96% 49%

98% 62%

97% 61%

99% 68%

99% 75%

100% 79%

100% 82%

100% 84%

100% 85%

100% 86%

100% 85%

100% 86%

100% 89%

Percent in

Compliance

Cond of Conf

Phase Phase

1

2

83% 37%

92% 51%

95% 54%

100% 51%

100% 60%

100% 58%

100% 68%

100% 75%

100% 77%

100% 83%

100% 85%

100% 88%

100% 92%

100% 95%

100% 94%

Total

Phase Phase

1

2

82% 29%

93% 44%

96% 51%

99% 58%

98% 61%

99% 65%

99% 72%

100% 78%

100% 80%

100% 83%

100% 85%

100% 87%

100% 88%

100% 90%

100% 91%

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 14 of 186 Pg ID 9325

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 13

July 10, 2013

With achievement of its current compliance level, the Department has passed a new threshold.. Chief Chester Logan, whose distinguished career will have concluded upon the release of this report should be credited for the Department’s efforts. We are pleased to congratulate him on that accomplishment and to recognize his great service to the Department and the City of Detroit.
While we acknowledge the long road that brought us to this point – we must also articulate our concern with the fragility of the achievement and the ease with which it can slip away. The devil, of course, is in the details – and the details make clear the fragile nature of compliance with some of the requirements and the need to stabilize and institutionalize the reforms.
In fact, one requirement, C64, addressing the integrity of video documentation, fell out of compliance in this reporting period. Other requirements achieved compliance for the first time by succeeding at the minimal compliance level. For example, U34, which concerns documenting prisoner injuries, moved from being far from compliance in the last report to barely meeting the required standard. Others also brought warnings in our report that they could easily fall out of compliance. Requirements U25 and U28, which address decontamination following use of chemical spray and photographing suspect injuries, both fall into that category. Likewise, we express concerns about the adequacy of justifications reported in stop and frisk cases as required in U45. As appropriate police practice and constitutional issues are the mandate, the Department within its internal culture should at all times strive for 100% compliance, whether it is a requirement of the Judgments or not.
The constellation of requirements around documentation and investigations – particularly in the Use of Force Decree – remain a concern. The significance of these cannot be overstated. They are central not only to the daily practice in the Department, but if not noted by the Monitoring Team or the agency’s own auditing process, they will serve as warnings or early indicators of more serious problems – of the type that led to the Judgment in the first place. It is obvious to all that all of the requirements do not address the same level of threat to constitutional policing. It should be equally obvious that the most difficult to bring into compliance and those for which compliance remains most fragile are also those for which failure would be most costly.
Finally, we also recognize that with each step forward, the path becomes steeper. The most difficult challenges remain. Those deal with critical issues relating to investigations, internal review processes, and the challenges posed by new technology. These now await the attention of a newly appointed Chief of Police.
Such challenges are not new to the new Chief, who must also address the problem of serious crime across the City. But the goals of reducing crime and assuring constitutional policing can only complement one another. We expect the new Chief to embrace this reality immediately as nothing short of that will be acceptable.

Chief (Ret.) Robert S. Warshaw, Monitor

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 15 of 186 Pg ID 9326

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 14

July 10, 2013

The Monitoring Team: Chief (Ret.) Charles D. Reynolds, Deputy Monitor
Lt. Colonel (Ret.) J. Rick Brown Division Chief (Ret.) Rachel M. Burgess
Commander (Ret.) John M. Girvin Chief (Ret.) Eduardo Gonzalez John M. Klofas, Ph.D. Leonard F. Rice, M.E.S., R.S. Chief (Ret.) Billy R. Riggs
Asst. Director (Ret.) Joseph R. Wolfinger Robin Busch-Wheaton, Editor

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 16 of 186 Pg ID 9327

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 15

July 10, 2013

SECTION TWO:
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT
III. USE OF FORCE POLICY
This section of the Consent Judgment, containing paragraphs U14 through U26, requires that DPD review and revise its general use of force, firearms, and chemical spray policies; select an intermediate impact device and develop guidelines on its use; and provide appropriate training relating to the use of force. To determine compliance with this section’s various requirements, we verify that DPD has both developed the required policy and effectively implemented the policy, including providing any necessary and appropriate training.
DPD has conducted the requisite reviews and revisions of policies, which have been approved by the Department of Justice. The revised policies include a force continuum that identifies lethal and less lethal force options; relates the force options to the types of conduct by the individuals justifying the various force options; and describes de-escalation, disengagement, and other appropriate tactics and responses. The revised firearms policies address qualification requirements, approved firearms and ammunition, and a prohibition on the firing at or from moving vehicles. DPD also selected an intermediate impact device, developed guidelines on its use, and provided the required training. The chemical spray policy requires, when appropriate, a verbal warning prior to the deployment of chemical spray; sets forth requirements for decontamination, medical assistance, and requires supervisory approval if the chemical spray is to be used against a crowd. It prohibits officers from using chemical spray on a handcuffed individual in a police vehicle or keeping a sprayed individual facedown.
To assess implementation of these policies for this and previous reporting periods, we visited police districts, precincts, and other commands; met and discussed operational activities with command, supervisory, and training staff; observed training classes; reviewed arrest, use of force, and related police reports; and reviewed investigations of force, detainee injuries, and allegations of force.
To assess compliance with the requirements relating to the issuance and carrying of authorized weapons and ammunition, we examined the investigations of critical firearm discharges by FI. During this reporting period, we reviewed documentation that included six critical firearm discharges.
The DPD selected the PR-24 collapsible baton as its impact device, and provided training on its use to 1,573 members (68%) through the third quarter of the fiscal year. In the use of force reports we reviewed during this reporting period, there were no PR-24-related incidents where a subject was struck in the head. We reviewed instances of chemical spray deployments during this reporting period, and found that there were five cases in which chemical spray was utilized. A warning was articulated or danger documented prior to its use in four of those cases.
There were 266 use of force report numbers issued during the first quarter of 2013, an increase of 3% over the 258 issued during the last quarter.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 17 of 186 Pg ID 9328

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 16

July 10, 2013

During this reporting period, DPD continued its practice of issuing Roll Call Information Bulletins that are designed to improve member compliance with DPD policy reflecting the Consent Judgment requirements. Below are some examples of some of the pertinent bulletins relating to both Judgments; these were issued between January 4, and March 28, 2013.

Date

Teletype No.

Subject

1/04/13 1/15/13
1/18/13 1/25/13
2/08/13 2/14/13
2/22/13 3/01/13
3/26/13 3/28/13

13-1 13-2
13-3 13-4
13-6 13-7
13-8 13-9
13-12 13-13

Recording Guidelines for the Wireless Microphone
Holding Cell Documentation: New Features in the Deskblotter to Document: 1) Meal Service for the Detainees; 2) The Cleaning of Holding Cell Areas
Proper Use of Force Reporting
Required Documentation and Notification Procedures for Material Witnesses
Prohibited Harassment or Discrimination Activity by Members
Traffic Stop Notifications to Communications Operations Zone Dispatchers
Documentation of Arrests in CRISNET Reports
Instructions for Conducting In-Car Video Reviews for the Time Period of March2, 2013 through March 23, 2013
Smoking Prohibitions
Proper Use of Force Reporting

A. General Use of Force Policy CJ Requirement U14 The DPD shall revise its use of force policies to define force as that term is defined in this Agreement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 18 of 186 Pg ID 9329

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 17

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U15
The use of force policy shall incorporate a use of force continuum that:
a. identifies when and in what manner the use of lethal and less than lethal force are permitted;
b. relates the force options available to officers to the types of conduct by individuals that would justify the use of such force; and
c. states that de-escalation, disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units are often the appropriate response to a situation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our previous reviews of use of force reports found that they lacked sufficient documentation or specificity with regards to de-escalation and details of actual disengagement to make a definitive determination regarding Phase 2 compliance.2 In the last reporting period, we found that 85% of the Command Level Investigations we reviewed contained sufficient explanations of officers’ efforts to de-escalate or implement some of the disengagement responses suggested in U15c.
Command Level Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 74 Command Level Investigations, which described the conduct of individuals against whom force was used and the corresponding response from the involved officers.3 In evaluating de-escalation techniques utilized by the officers, we eliminated 19 incidents in which there were no opportunity to attempt de-escalation.4 We evaluated 55 cases; in 46 (84%) of them, we found evidence of some efforts at de-escalation, a 1% reduction from the last reporting period. We continue to encourage DPD to emphasize the importance of de-escalation techniques as a means of avoiding violent confrontations between citizens and police, and to emphasize the importance of adequately documenting the steps taken by the officers to minimize the use of force. De-escalation efforts for the purposes of this requirement are those attempted prior to the force being used. Increased video/audio recordings of encounters with the citizens would prove beneficial in documenting compliance with this requirement.
While de-escalation efforts are encouraged during and after struggles with subjects, it is important for DPD members to recognize that de-escalation as applicable to this requirement are those efforts made before any force is utilized on the subject.

2 Twelfth Report of the Independent Monitor, issued September 15, 2012.
3 We randomly selected 87 cases for review. Of these, 13 had no SIR investigations, leaving 74 cases for review. Of the 13 cases eliminated, 10 were assumed by Force Investigations; two were canine deployments with no contact; and one was an acquired target, which does not require a SIR investigation.
4 Nineteen were eliminated: three in December; eight in January; and eight in February. Cases that were eliminated included, but were not limited to, the subject fleeing as soon as he sees officers; subjects engaged in assaults as officers arrived; subject striking officers without warning; detainee injury; canine apprehensions with no contact, and attempted suicides.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 19 of 186 Pg ID 9330

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 18

July 10, 2013

DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement for Command Level Investigations.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 14 use of force investigations. We found one case where an officer escalated force by administering a chokehold to a female subject in custody. The officer is facing disciplinary action for this conduct. We did not identify any other cases where officers inappropriately escalated force by using head strikes, discharging their firearm at a subject, and discharging their firearm at a moving vehicle. See U17.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U16
The use of force policy shall reinforce that individuals should be provided an opportunity to submit to arrest before force is used and provide that force may be used only when verbal commands and other techniques that do not require the use of force would be ineffective or present a danger to the officer or others.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 175 uses of force reports, of which 168 were applicable to this paragraph. We found that 165 (98%) of the 168 included verbal commands and an opportunity to submit to arrest prior to the use of force; or provided a reason why the verbal command was not given.5
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level Investigation portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 14 force investigations and found that officers appropriately used verbal commands and provided an opportunity for subjects to submit to arrest prior to the use of force in seven cases. Of the remaining seven cases, six incidents involved critical firearm discharges in which exigent circumstances existed to immediately elevate to the use of lethal force; the last case involved a vehicle pursuit that ended in a crash, and the opportunity to give verbal commands did not exist.
In one of the above cases, the officer’s use of a chokehold on a person in custody was found excessive; the officer is currently facing disciplinary action.
The requirements of this CJ paragraph were not applicable in seven cases. One of these cases involved a vehicle pursuit ending in a crash; the other six involved firearm discharges where exigent circumstances existed and in which opportunities to give verbal commands were not present.

5 The base was reduced from 175 to 168 due to six detainee injuries and one canine deployment, no contact.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 20 of 186 Pg ID 9331

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 19

July 10, 2013

DPD officers in the seven applicable cases where verbal commands were given and subjects were given the opportunity to submit to arrest are in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. This represents a 100% compliance rate. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Force Investigations portion of this paragraph.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U17
The use of force policy shall prohibit the use of chokeholds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we reviewed 175 uses of force reports and 74 Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs).6 There were three cases in which subjects claimed that they were choked. In one instance, FI assumed the case; in another, the investigating supervisor resolved the allegation. FI was notified in that case, as well, and allowed the Command to handle. There was one allegation that was not resolved by the investigation or referred to FI.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for Command Level Investigations.
Force Investigations: Our review of 14 force investigations for this reporting period identified one incident wherein a DPD officer used a chokehold to restrain a subject; we found that this incident did not comport with DPD policy. The involved officer used a chokehold to restrain a female subject who was not totally cooperative during processing after an arrest and posed no imminent threat to life.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

6 The terms Command Level Investigations and Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs) are used interchangeably throughout the quarterly report.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 21 of 186 Pg ID 9332

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 20

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U18
The DPD shall develop a revised use of force policy within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The policy shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the revised use of force policy within three months of the review and approval of the DOJ.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the effective field implementation of the requirements contained in paragraphs U14-17 and U19. We found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with U14, U16, U17, and U19, but not in compliance with U15; therefore, DPD remains in deferred Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Deferred

CJ Requirement U19 The use of force policy shall provide that a strike to the head with an instrument constitutes a use of deadly force. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U20
The DPD shall revise its use of firearms policies to provide that officers must successfully qualify with their department-issued firearm and any other firearm they are authorized to use or carry on-duty on a bi-annual basis, as described in paragraph 113.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 22 of 186 Pg ID 9333

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 21

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U21
Officers who fail to re-qualify shall be relieved of police powers and relinquish immediately all department-issued firearms. Those officers who fail to re-qualify after remedial training within a reasonable time shall be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

B. Use of Firearms Policy
CJ Requirement U22
The firearm policy shall prohibit shooting at or from a moving vehicle except in exceptional circumstances. The policy shall also prohibit officers from intentionally placing themselves in the path of a moving vehicle.7
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: During this reporting period, we reviewed 175 uses of force reports and 74 Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs), and found no incidents involving officers firing at or from moving vehicles. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for use of force reports in this requirement.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 14 FI investigations, and found no incidents involving an officer firing at a moving vehicle. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for Force Investigations in this requirement.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

7 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011; approved by the BOPC, November 3, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 23 of 186 Pg ID 9334

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 22

July 10, 2013

A. Use of Firearms Policy CJ Requirement U23 The DPD shall identify a limited selection of authorized ammunition and prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition. The DPD shall specify the number of rounds DPD officers shall carry. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

B. Intermediate Force Device Policy
CJ Requirement U24
The DPD shall select an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The DPD shall develop a policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: During this reporting period, we reviewed 200 uses of force reports, and found no strikes to the head with the designated intermediate force device (PR-24). DPD provided training on its use to 1,573 members (68%) during the third quarter of the fiscal year. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for use of force reports.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 14 cases completed by FI; there were no cases where an intermediate force device (PR-24) was used.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for Force Investigations.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 24 of 186 Pg ID 9335

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 23

July 10, 2013

C. Chemical Spray Policy
CJ Requirement U25
The DPD shall revise its chemical spray policy to require officers to:
a. provide a verbal warning and time to allow the subject to comply prior to the use of chemical spray, unless such warnings would present a danger to the officer or others;
b. provide an opportunity for decontamination to a sprayed subject within twenty minutes of the application of the spray or apprehension of the subject;
c. obtain appropriate medical assistance for sprayed subjects when they complain of continued effects after having been de-contaminated or they indicate that they have a pre-existing medical condition (e.g., asthma, emphysema, bronchitis or heart ailment) that may be aggravated by chemical spray and if such signs are observed the subject shall be immediately conveyed to a local hospital for professional medical treatment; and
d. obtain the approval of a supervisor any time chemical spray is used against a crowd.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 175 uses of force reports and 74 Command Level Investigations. We found five deployments of chemical spray, with warnings or danger articulated in four (80%) of the cases.8 This is a decrease from the 100% registered during the last reporting period. During our evaluation of decontamination requirements, we found that four cases (80%) provided details of decontamination within 20 minutes of spraying or capture. This is a decrease from the 100% registered during the last reporting period. If DPD fails to achieve ≥94% Phase 2 compliance during the next reporting period, we will consider the Department to be out of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
There were no complaints of ill effects from the spraying noted in the five cases.
As we continue to note, the use of chemical spray by DPD officers is very limited; consequently, the Department must continue to emphasize the importance of attention to all of the details regarding the use of chemical spray.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for Command Level Investigations.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 14 cases completed by FI, and there were no cases of chemical spray being used during the arrest of a subject. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the reporting of the use of chemical spray in use of force investigations.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

8 All of the cases occurred in January 2013.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 25 of 186 Pg ID 9336

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 24

July 10, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U26
The DPD shall prohibit officers from using chemical spray on a handcuffed individual in a police vehicle. The DPD shall also prohibit officers from keeping any sprayed subject in a face down position, in order to avoid positional asphyxia.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

Critical Issues:
• The issue of how best to determine DPD’s efforts at deescalating and disengaging with respect to use of force situations remains a perplexing issue, and one that affects DPD’s compliance with several of the requirements. As we have noted above, an improved reliance on body microphones and a strict requirement that officers utilize them when engaging Detroit citizens could prove beneficial to better documenting the de-escalation techniques. While DPD previously advised that the issues experienced with the Data 911 Video System have been resolved and the system operational again, we find officers continuing to experience difficulties with their microphones. We strongly recommend that DPD conduct an Investigation and Report regarding the microphones in an effort to determine if, in fact, they will ever be made to work properly. If following that review the determination is made that the issues are related to user errors, DPD must implement procedures to address the user errors effectively.
DPD continues to provide improved documentation of the application of de-escalation measures, and we encourage the Department to continue to emphasize the importance of practicing de-escalation and documenting same.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to monitor the numbers of use of force reports generated during the next reporting period, and continue to discuss with DPD the issue of documenting the deescalation of use of force situations in an effort to identify a sound methodology for measuring the effort. We will monitor any increase in the reliance on audio recordings to enhance the documentation provided by the officers. We will also meet with CRIB personnel to further discuss issues associated with use of force compliance.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 26 of 186 Pg ID 9337

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 25

July 10, 2013

¶ Requirements 14 Revise use of force policies 15 The use of lethal, less lethal force 16 Opportunity to submit to arrest 17 Prohibit chokeholds 18 Approval of policy 19 Strike to the head-deadly force 20 Bi-annual firearms qualification 21 Failure to qualify with firearms 22 Prohibit firing at vehicles 23 Selection of ammunition 24 Intermediate force device 25 Chemical spray policy 26 Spraying handcuffed subjects

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Deferred In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

IV. DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW
A. General Investigations of Police Action
CJ Requirement U27
The DPD and the City shall revise their policies regarding the conduct of all investigations to ensure full, thorough, and complete investigations. All investigations shall, to the extent reasonably possible, determine whether the officer’s conduct was justified and the DPD and the City shall prohibit the closing of an investigation being conducted by the DPD and/or the City simply because a subject or complainant is unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate, including a refusal to provide medical records or proof of injury.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with these requirements, we meet on a quarterly basis with Command, Internal Affairs, Force Investigations, OCI and other staff. We also review relevant investigative and other reports, including the Department’s quarter status reports.
Command Level Investigations: To assess DPD’s Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for this reporting period, we again met with relevant staff and reviewed 175 uses of force reports

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 27 of 186 Pg ID 9338

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 26

July 10, 2013

resulting in 74 SIRs.9 There were no instances where a SIR was closed simply because a subject or complainant was unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate, including a refusal to provide medical records or proof of injury. We also found sufficient justification for officers’ conduct in all 74 (100%) of the SIRs.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: In our previous reports, we noted that our reviews of FI and JIST investigations – which included critical firearm discharges, pursuits, and allegations of excessive force – found these investigations sufficiently detailed to support the findings relating to the conduct of the officer(s) in each case. In addition, no investigations were closed because the subject or complainant was unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate. Although we noted lack of detail or required specificity in early cases, FI addressed these issues with strengthened supervision and in-service training.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 14 FI cases, and found all in compliance with the requirements. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI cases portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During our previous reviews of completed cases, we noted that while the case files generally contained sufficient facts to support a determination that justified or did not justify an officer’s actions, there were several inconsistencies between investigators, and some cases lacked the necessary information to reach a proper determination. Additionally, we noted cases that were improperly administratively closed, and cases that were significantly overdue, impacting DPD’s ability to reach appropriate conclusions many months after the alleged occurrence.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled cases from the 257 cases that were closed in January, February, and March 2013. (This represents a 16% decrease in closed cases over the previous reporting period.) Generally, the investigations established sufficient facts to support determinations that justified or did not justify the actions of the officer(s) or non-sworn member of the Department.10
We note a significant decrease in the number of cases that appear to have been closed prematurely, identifying only one such case during this reporting period. In this case – a demeanor complaint during an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) call – the involved officers refused to provide statements because their attorney failed to show for their interviews. This appropriately led to sustained findings for failing to cooperate with the investigation, but the interviews were never obtained. During our last two site visits, we advised OCI staff that they must exhaust all efforts to secure interviews from uncooperative employees, including enlisting the assistance of the Police Department’s chain of command if necessary.

9 Many of the command-level investigations contained multiple uses of force forms. Canine deployments with no contact, acquired target cases, and cases assumed by FI were removed from the numbers reported as SIRs.
10 If an allegation appropriately received a finding of unfounded or not sustained, justification for the conduct was not assessed since, by definition, its occurrence was either refuted or not substantiated.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 28 of 186 Pg ID 9339

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 27

July 10, 2013

While complainants failed to cooperate in 21% of the cases, their lack of cooperation was not a factor in the closing of these cases. Invariably, the narrative contained in the Citizen Complaint Report (CCR) served as the complainant’s statement in these instances.
With a 99% compliance rate, the City is in compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, we interviewed IAD supervisors and selected staff, and reviewed the 26 cases that were closed by IAD in January, February, and March 2013. We assessed the investigations for consistency with the procedures contained in applicable DPD directives and generally accepted law enforcement techniques – specifically relating to procedural fairness, timeliness, confidentiality, and the meticulous reporting of facts and results of an investigation.
We found that all of the cases were sufficiently investigated – including three cases where the complainants and/or witnesses failed to respond to requests to be interviewed. All of the cases met the requirements of this paragraph.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U28
The DPD and the City shall ensure that investigations are conducted by a supervisor who did not authorize witness or participate in the incident and that all investigations contain:
a. documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene during the incident and a canvas of the scene to identify civilian witnesses;
b. thorough and complete interviews of all witnesses, subject to paragraph 31 below and an effort to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements;
c. photographs of the subject’s(s’) and officer’s(s’) injuries or alleged injuries; and
d. documentation of any medical care provided.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: During the previous reporting period, we determined the following:
• There was one case in which the investigating supervisor authorized, witnessed, or participated in the incident. This resulted in a 99% compliance rate. In 86 (100%) of the cases, the names of all of the officers involved or on the scene during the incident were included. In 86 (100%) of the cases, the investigating supervisor conducted a canvass to identify civilian witnesses, or explained why a canvass was not conducted.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 29 of 186 Pg ID 9340

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 28

July 10, 2013

• Thorough and complete interviews were conducted in 77 (90%) of the cases. As previously noted, we continue to encourage supervisors to focus on areas like who, what, where, when, why, and how questioning used by journalists and other investigative writers for basic information-gathering. The increase in compliance from 84% during the last reporting period, to 90% this reporting period, is encouraging. Continued critical reviews at the command level can improve compliance with this requirement.
• In 71 cases, photos should have been requested for officer or subject injuries. The reports noted that photos were ordered in 67 (94%) of the cases. Sixty-eight of the cases could have included documentation of medical care and 67 (98%) did. Not all of the administered medical care was related to police actions. Twelve of the cases involved care ranging from psychiatric evaluations to a need for medications.
During this reporting period, we determined the following:
• There were no cases in which the investigating supervisor authorized, witnessed, or participated in the incident. This resulted in a 100% compliance rate. In 72 (97%) of the cases, the names of all of the officers involved or on the scene during the incident were included. In 73 (99%) of the cases, the investigating supervisor conducted a canvass to identify civilian witnesses, or explained why a canvass was not conducted.
• Thorough and complete interviews were conducted in 66 (89%) of the cases. Investigating supervisors must illicit pertinent details from members while conducting their interviews and ask follow-up questions that can clarify information being provided. Continued critical reviews at the command level can help to improve compliance with this requirement.
• Material inconsistencies were addressed in 17 of 24 applicable cases (71%).11
• In 55 cases, photos should have been requested for officer or subject injuries. The reports noted that photos were ordered in 58 (95%) of the cases. Fifty-seven of the cases could have included documentation of medical care and 56 (98%) did. Not all of the administered medical care was related to police actions. Thirteen of the cases involved care ranging from psychiatric evaluations to a need for medications.
We caution DPD that if it fails to achieve ≥94% Phase 2 compliance during the next reporting period, we will consider the Department to be out of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
We continue to emphasize the need for the critical review of completed investigations, especially at the first reviewing supervisory level. While inspectors and commanders continue to be involved in the reviews, it is important that they ensure that levels below them are also complying with their responsibilities.
The Command Level Investigations are in Phase 2 compliance with these requirements.
Force Investigations: Our previous reviews of force investigations found appropriate documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene of the
11 In 50 of the 74 SIRs reviewed there were no inconsistencies identified.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 30 of 186 Pg ID 9341

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 29

July 10, 2013

various incidents. The cases also contained witness interviews (recorded and written). The investigations we reviewed also contained documentation of canvasses for civilian witnesses and any medical care provided.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 14 force investigations.12 The case files included complete documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene of the various incidents, canvasses for civilian witnesses in all applicable cases, and any medical care that was provided.
The investigations contained witness interviews, both written and recorded. We noted continued improvement by FI in addressing material conflicts in investigations. Investigators used recorded statements and video evidence to address material inconsistencies and identify when officers or citizens were untruthful during an investigation. Photographs were taken as required.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled OCI investigations. All were investigated by investigators who did not authorize, witness, or participate in the incidents being investigated. In 14 cases, involved officers were not identified by both name and badge number. Four cases were transferred to either Internal Affairs or Force Investigations based on the allegations and before steps were taken to identify the officers involved. In the remaining cases, OCI took diligent steps to identify involved personnel. If they were not identified, they were listed as “unknown.”
In the cases retained for investigation by OCI, investigators attempted to contact potential witnesses when appropriate. In many cases, witnesses refused to cooperate, but investigators documented their steps to try to obtain statements.
In all of the cases alleging excessive force that were retained by OCI (one case was transferred to Force Investigations), photographs were referenced where appropriate. In most of the cases, force could not be substantiated and use of force documentation, including photographs, did not exist. In eight cases, it was appropriate to reference medical care; and in all of these cases, the documentation was included in the investigative packages.
With greater than 94% compliance with the paragraph requirements, the City is in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: We reviewed all 26 cases that were completed by IAD during this reporting period. The investigations consistently included the names and badge numbers of all officers who were involved in or on the scene during an incident. In four of the cases, the complainant could not identify the officer(s) that were the subject of their complaints. IAD expended particular efforts in identifying officers when allegations of criminal misconduct were reported and the officer(s) was unknown to the complainant. IAD conducted canvasses to identify witnesses or obtain any video recordings that might be available from businesses near the location. IAD has the capacity to access recordings from in-car video storage from the division’s desktop computers. If any related evidence has been recorded, it can be requested

12 These investigations included six critical firearm discharge events and one vehicle pursuit.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 31 of 186 Pg ID 9342

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 30

July 10, 2013

from the Technical Services Unit within a 90-day period. In an effort to resolve the allegations, in-car video was requested in five of the cases where video should have been recorded. Three recordings were available to be used in the investigations; however, there were no audio recordings associated with the videos. We also found in the cases that we reviewed that witnesses were interviewed, and that the investigators made an effort to resolve inconsistencies between witness statements.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U29
The DPD and the City shall revise their procedures for all investigatory interviews to require:
a. officers who witness or are involved in an incident to provide a timely statement regarding the incident (subject to paragraph 31 below);
b. whenever practicable and appropriate, interviews of complainants and witnesses be conducted at sites and times convenient for them, including at their residences or places of business; and
c. that all IAD, OCI and Critical Firearm Discharge Investigations shall also include inperson video or audio tape-recorded interviews of all complainants, witnesses, and involved DPD officers and prohibit group interviews. In cases where complainants/witnesses refuse in-person video or audio tape recorded interviews, written statements shall be taken and signed by the complainant/witness along with a signed refusal statement by the complainant/witness.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: During the previous reporting period, we determined that in 82 (95%) of the 86 cases we reviewed, timely statements were taken from officers who were involved in or witnessed the incident. This percentage is an improvement over the 84% noted in our last report. The interviews of complainants and witnesses were conducted at sites and times convenient for them in 86 (100%) of the 86 cases we reviewed. DPD has improved in its performance for this requirement and has returned to Phase 2 Compliance status for Command Level Investigations.
During this reporting period, we determined that in 64 (86%) of the 74 cases we reviewed, timely statements were taken from officers who were involved in or witnessed the incident. This percentage is a decrease from the 95% noted in our last report. The interviews of complainants and witnesses were conducted at sites and times convenient for them in 73 (99%) of the 74 cases we reviewed.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 32 of 186 Pg ID 9343

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 31

July 10, 2013

If DPD fails to achieve ≥94% Phase 2 compliance during the next reporting period, we will consider the Department to be not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for Command Level Investigations.
Force Investigations: In previous reporting periods, we noted that statements were generally taken at sites and times convenient for the person(s) being interviewed. However, we expressed concerns that statements from witness officers were unnecessarily delayed, or that investigators instead relied on the officer’s Crisnet report. We noted that there were significant delays in taking Garrity statements due to the practice of awaiting prosecution declinations from the District Attorney. We also noted our concerns regarding the variance in practice between FI and Homicide members of the Joint Incident Shooting Team (JIST) when interviewing witnesses and taking statements. Specifically, we were concerned with the practice adopted by Homicide members of JIST to take written, rather than recorded, statements. This is a longstanding issue that the Department has not yet addressed.
To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 14 closed FI cases, and continued to find much the same as described above. Statements were generally taken at sites and times convenient for the person(s) being interviewed. Statements of non-police witnesses were generally taken in a timely manner, usually within minutes or hours of the event; however, statements from involved officers or witness officers under the provisions of Garrity were sometimes unnecessarily delayed.
We found that Garrity interviews of involved officers in all of the cases ranged from five to 55 days from the date of the incident. In addition, we noted Garrity interviews of witness officers ranged from 17 to 138 days from the date of the incident. We have discussed with FI our concern regarding interview delays for a host of reasons – not the least of which is credibility. We found in this case that the delays of the witness officers were unnecessary. We have discussed with FI our concern regarding interview delays for a host of reasons – not the least of which is credibility. As we have previously noted, officers’ recollections of the facts, weeks and months after an event, particularly one involving the use of deadly force, are externally and perhaps significantly affected by news accounts and their interactions with friends, family, and colleagues, and thus, often altered. The practice of delaying interviews, for whatever reason, mitigates the accuracy and credibility of the information provided by officers. In addition, aside from investigative reasoning regarding the delaying of interviews of involved officers, we find no legitimate basis to delay interviews of witness officers; quite the contrary, there is a compelling need to interview all witnesses – including witness officers – in an expeditious manner.
As reported, the delays discussed above often result from the desire to await a declination decision from the District Attorney. Accordingly, we examined 14 cases closed by FI during this reporting period, and found five where a prosecutorial decision from the Wayne County District Attorney’s Office was sought with the following results:
• Four cases involved critical firearm discharge events and one case involved an in-custody death.
• In all five cases, FI conducted Garrity interviews prior to the prosecutorial decision by the District Attorney.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 33 of 186 Pg ID 9344

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 32

July 10, 2013

• Two of the five cases include requests for a prosecutorial decision that is still pending receipt.
• One of the five cases included Garrity interviews that were not completed within 30 days after the prosecutorial decision was rendered or completion of the criminal prosecution – they were completed nearly five months after the event and nearly two months after the prosecutorial decision – as required by paragraph U38.
There are few situations requiring more diligence or a professional police response than an allegation or a perceived use of excessive force – especially when involving a critical firearm discharge. All warrant a priority, thorough response and expeditious conclusion. We encourage the DPD, with the cooperation of the District Attorney, to resolve these issues.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph, with a compliance rate of 93%.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During previous reporting periods, we noted ongoing issues with untimely interviews, particularly of officers. Interviews of sworn personnel frequently take place many months after the incident complained of. Often, no reason is given for the delay other than the difficulty in scheduling the interviews. We noted that complainant/witness and officer interviews were, with limited exceptions, properly recorded.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled investigations. Timely interviews of involved parties – particularly officers – continue to be an issue. In eight of the cases we reviewed, employee interviews were untimely. This represents a 27% reduction in cases with untimely interviews when compared to the last reporting period, and continues OCI’s positive trend of addressing this concern.
Complainants were identified as uncooperative in 21 of the investigations we reviewed. OCI investigators relied on the synopsis contained in the Citizen Complaint Report in these cases. When complainants and witnesses were available for interviews, they were recorded, either over the telephone or in person. When interviews were conducted, they were administered and recorded in accordance with requirements.
The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: During earlier reporting periods, we found that the DPD directive requiring timely statements from officers was inconsistently applied. Interviews of involved witness officers were often delayed with little justification other than unavailability. There were exceptions involving pending criminal proceedings against officers in some cases.
During this reporting period, timely interviews were appropriately conducted in all of the 26 cases that we reviewed.
When the Internal Affairs Alert Teams, who are available or on-call 24 hours a day, respond to a complaint or allegation of criminal activity or serious misconduct by a Department member, preliminary interviews are conducted immediately and according to DPD directives.
In all of the investigations, complainants and witnesses were interviewed at times and sites convenient for them. DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 34 of 186 Pg ID 9345

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 33

July 10, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U30
The DPD and the City procedures for all investigatory interviews shall prohibit:
a. the use of leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s(s’) actions when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques; and
b. the use of interviews via written questions when it is contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command-Level Investigations: During the previous reporting period, we found that in 82 (96%) of 85 cases, the question-and-answer format, without the use of leading questions, was used to document officer interviews in the SIR. There was one case in which some of the officer interviews were conducted via email written questions, contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques.
During this reporting period, we found that in 73 (99%) of 74 cases, the question-and-answer format, without the use of leading questions, was used to document officer interviews in the SIR.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level portion of this requirement.
Force Investigations: Our previous review of FI cases for compliance with these requirements found instances where leading questions were contained in written statements. Additionally, when listening to randomly selected recorded interviews conducted by various investigators, we noted that investigators asked leading questions in 80% of the interviews.
We also noted that the details of Garrity interviews are often adversely affected by the excessive delays in scheduling them. Officers being interviewed are routinely referring to their Crisnet reports and/or do not have a recollection of specific details because so much time has elapsed between the incident and the day of their interview. We noted that investigators routinely fail to ask appropriate follow-up questions leaving the interviews appearing to revolve around reporting – not investigating. And finally we noted our continued concern with investigators’ lack of preparation to conduct Garrity interviews.
To assist with our assessment of compliance for this reporting period, we listened to nine randomly selected recorded interviews of police officers. We noted that, although the interviews were not primarily based on leading questions, the use of leading questions has not been entirely eliminated and still on occasion surface. We noted, during an interview regarding one critical firearm discharge event, the investigator on two occasions provided leading questions to assist the subject officer in articulating why he made the decision to use lethal force. The FI

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 35 of 186 Pg ID 9346

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 34

July 10, 2013

investigator’s duty is not to assist the subject officer in justifying force actions taken during an incident. We have a continuing concern with the tendency of some interviewing officers to preface questions with “Do you remember…do you recall” or similar phrases, which tend to prompt “I do not remember…I do not recall” responses. While recognizing that interviewing skills must be acquired through training and experience and also that the DPD has attempted to address these issues, the overall quality of the interviews remains marginally acceptable.
Additionally, we compared the officers’ spoken words with the documented summaries of the interviews prepared by FI investigators that are included in their investigative reports. We are mindful that in use of force incidents generated by DPD policy, and not routinely initiated by a citizen complaint, require prompt reporting and preparation of Crisnet reports by all involved officers contemporaneous to the event. The review of officers’ Crisnet reports prior to their Garrity interviews provides a good snapshot to FI investigators of what occurred at the time of the event. During our review of the nine recorded interviews, we noted that the investigators’ summaries are generally consistent with the recordings. In one case, we noted a conflict with how many gunshots a witness officer heard on his recording and what was documented by the investigator in the FI report. We caution FI to continue to be diligent in reviewing these important investigations to ensure significant facts involving the use of force are documented accurately.
During our review of the aforementioned nine recorded interviews, we noted the following: investigators often do not prepare adequately for their interviews; key dates – and at times, facts – were in conflict or confusing; and more probing questions should have been asked relating to how the officers’ actions interfaced with DPD policy, specifically involving vehicular pursuits, the intentional pointing of firearms while acquiring a target, and critical firearm discharges. These interviews are the most significant interviews police personnel can face, and must be approached seriously by the Department. We noted in one interview that we could hear loud laughter occurring outside of the interview area. These types of events can reduce the significance of Garrity or compelled interviews in the eyes of personnel. Accordingly, we continue to encourage the DPD to seek comprehensive interview training, and also to carefully supervise and critique all interviews in order to avoid a future non-compliant finding.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph with an 89% compliance rate; however, the DPD will remain in compliance with the requirement unless the Department is found out of compliance with this section for a second consecutive quarterly assessment.
Office of the Chief Investigator: OCI supplied digitally recorded interviews for both sworn and civilian interviewees for a randomly selected subset of our review sample. During this reporting period, we listened to 71 interviews (53 employees, 18 citizens) associated with 26 cases. Generally, investigators are employing proper interviewing techniques, using open-ended rather than leading questions.
During this reporting period, we noted two instances in which leading questions were used – an improvement over the last reporting period. In general, we were not provided with written questions, although it is probable that they were used to structure interviews in most, if not all, of the cases involving interviews.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 36 of 186 Pg ID 9347

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 35

July 10, 2013

In the past, we have noted a wide disparity in the interviewing skills of OCI’s investigators, and have recommended that supervising investigators either observe the interviews conducted by OCI’s investigators or listen to the recordings, in order to identify training needs and provide appropriate, individualized corrective measures. The supervising investigators provided documentation that they either observed, or reviewed recordings of, interviews in 54 cases during the reporting period. This represents a 39% decrease when compared to the last reporting period. This is concerning, since monitoring interviews is the only way that the supervising investigators can identify and address certain deficiencies that are not documented in any other fashion.
The City is in compliance with the OCI portion of this requirement.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: Since the first reporting period, we have found no evidence of the use of leading questions during IAD interviews. In all cases, we sought evidence in the case summary that the investigators had asked particular questions to clarify complainants’ and witnesses statements, and/or physical evidence.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U31 The DPD and the City shall develop a protocol for when statements should (and should not) be compelled pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U32
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding all investigatory reports and evaluations to require:
a. a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident, including a detailed account of the subject’s(s’) or complainant’s(s’) and officer’s(s’) actions and an evaluation of the initial stop or seizure;
b. a review of all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence;
c. that the fact that a subject or complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense shall it justify discontinuing the investigation;
d. reasonable credibility determinations, with no automatic preference given to an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement or discounting of a witness’s statement merely because the witness has some connection to the subject or complainant

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 37 of 186 Pg ID 9348

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 36

July 10, 2013

e. an evaluation of whether an officer complied with DPD policy;
f. an evaluation of all uses of force, including the officer’s tactics, and any allegations or evidence of misconduct uncovered during the course of the investigation;
g. all administrative investigations to be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard;
h. written documentation of the basis for extending the deadline of a report and evaluation and provide that the circumstances justifying an extension do not include an investigator’s vacation or furlough and that problems with investigator vacations or workload should result in the matter being reassigned; and
i. any recommended non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action be documented in writing.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our assessment of compliance with the Phase 2 requirements of this paragraph included interviews with relevant staff; and a review of closed command-level, FI, IAD, and OCI cases.
Command Level Investigations: During the current reporting period, we found the following:
• The data reflects a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident, including a detailed account of the subject(s) or complainants and officer(s) actions in 61 (82%) of the investigations, a decrease from the 86% registered during the last reporting period. Some of the issues that continue to adversely affect compliance in this area include: insufficient details in any of the interviews; interviews that appear almost verbatim from officer to officer; officers providing statements which are evasive and nebulous, and investigators not asking follow-up questions; investigators failing to address discrepancies between officer statements; and investigators failing to interview complainants/victims.13 In 74 (100%) of the cases, an evaluation of the initial stop or seizure was conducted. In 33 (63%) of the 52 cases evaluated, all of the relevant evidence – including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence – was reviewed.14 This is a decrease from the 70% we found during the last reporting period.
• We continue to assert that the review of both video and audio recordings of citizen contacts with DPD members is essential to use of force investigations and consequently we continue to recommend, in the strongest of terms, that DPD initiate all of the corrective actions necessary to ensure that encounters are captured in both video and audio recordings. Given that most uses of force occur out of the line of sight for the video, the audio recordings take on greater importance. DPD must continue to work on improving the audio capability of its system – and make every effort to determine if the

13 This is not an all-inclusive list.
14 Twenty-two of the cases reflected either no equipment installed or officers assigned to walking beats, leaving 52 cases to evaluate.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 38 of 186 Pg ID 9349

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 37

July 10, 2013

failures to capture audio recordings at the scenes are system issues or user errors, and then institute the appropriate corrective measures. Commands must make every effort possible to review available video/audio recordings prior to the submission of the SIR. The failure to have these reviews conducted prior to the submission of the final report is an unacceptable practice. Seventy-three (99%) of the investigations contained evidence that reasonable credibility determinations, with no automatic preference given to an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement, were made to reach conclusions regarding the investigations. This is a slight increase over the percentage registered during the last reporting period. Seventy-four (100%) of the investigations contained an evaluation of whether or not an officer complied with DPD policy. Sixty-six (100%) of the 66 cases that we reviewed contained an evaluation of the use of force.15 Officers’ tactics were evaluated in 74 (100%) of the 74 cases reviewed. There was one case identified in which the force used was found to be excessive. Seventy-four (100%) of the 74 cases were evaluated on a preponderance of the evidence standard.
• Sixty-five of the cases (88%) had no extension request; of the remaining nine cases, seven (78%) contained documentation for the delays. Of the two cases that were not documented properly, one had no formal request in the file, and the second was submitted after a due date had passed. We continue to urge DPD to provide guidance to the various commands regarding the importance of properly documenting the extensions and the returns of reports for corrections routinely documented in the Timeline section of the SIRs. Documents returned for corrections should reflect the new due dates.
• There were 48 SIRs in which corrective action might have been taken; corrective action was documented in 43 (90%) of the investigations. Inclusive in the corrective action were misconduct investigations, negative administrative counseling registers, re-instructs, re-training, written reprimands, and verbal counseling.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level Investigations portion of this requirement.
Force Investigations: Our review of completed FI cases for previous reporting periods found them to be in overall compliance, but we noted cases wherein there was no evaluation of the initial stop and/or seizure; no reference to the presence or absence of circumstantial evidence; and a lack of reference to the conducting of credibility determinations.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we examined 14 completed case files and noted the continued inclusion of a detailed account of the facts of the event.16 Investigators evaluated the initial stop/contact in each case, but need to more thoroughly evaluate available direct, circumstantial, and physical evidence. For example, investigators need to review related police reports; medical documentation for injured subjects; and autopsy reports. Investigators miss opportunities to complete thorough and factual investigations when evidence is obtained and not properly analyzed. This also includes the lack of satisfactory ballistics examinations. Lastly,

15 Eight cases were eliminated, as they were detainee injuries or attempted suicides, with no use of force. 16 These investigations included six critical firearm discharge events and one vehicle pursuit.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 39 of 186 Pg ID 9350

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 38

July 10, 2013

command/supervisory personnel are reviewing a number of these investigations and are rendering findings based upon incomplete information.
During this reporting period, there were no instances where a subject’s court-related appearances had any effect on the outcome of investigations.
The files documented some reasonable credibility determinations, but demonstrated the need for FI to continue to provide training on this issue. We found that investigations contained reviews of tactics and identified officers’ unrelated conduct violations. Findings were based mostly on a preponderance of evidence standard, and recommended referrals for disciplinary intervention were documented.
We noted during this assessment that extensions were properly requested and documented in four cases. We recognize the challenges inherent with effective case management, and recognize the continued efforts of DPD – particularly the FI staff – to address them.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: We noted in our previous reports that OCI investigations were most often not completed within the prescribed 90-day timeframe. Requests for extensions were frequently submitted well after the case was overdue, and adequate justification of the need for the extension was rarely provided. The delay in securing timely interviews has been a recurring problem that has impacted the quality of the investigations. However, OCI investigations have generally been factual and complete, and more often than not the preponderance of evidence standard is used in reaching determinations.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected cases. Eighty-four cases were received in 2012, with the remainder being received this year. In all of the cases, there was a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident complained of. We noted one case in which an additional allegation was raised during an interview, but not documented or addressed. In this complaint – which primarily involved force and demeanor allegations – the complainant also alleged that an officer confiscated his cell phone and sent text messages from the device.
We did not note any cases in which OCI did not consider the relevant evidence available in a case. We observed that investigators generally explore the availability of video evidence in cases where it is appropriate. In 46 cases, investigators inquired as to the availability of video. In 35, or 76%, of these cases, video evidence was not available. This is concerning, given the large monetary and resource investment that DPD has made in this technology. We continue to recommend that investigators inquire about video as early in the investigation as possible, as retention times for both DPD and private sources can result in the deletion of video evidence before it can be acquired. In addition, there were two other cases in which video evidence might have been available, but OCI did not document any efforts to obtain it.
We found no evidence where a complainant’s conviction or guilty plea had a bearing on the investigation. Credibility assessments were generally lacking for both officers and complainants/witnesses. However, in three cases, the investigators’ assessments of credibility directly and appropriately contributed to the determination of findings. In one case, the investigator sustained demeanor allegations based on the statement of a witness determined to be

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 40 of 186 Pg ID 9351

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 39

July 10, 2013

unbiased even though she knew the complainant. In another, the investigator appropriately questioned the complainant’s credibility, impacting the finding in a complaint stemming from a traffic stop. In the remaining case, it was clear from the complainant’s allegations that she was suffering from a mental illness. Family members confirmed this.
In all of the cases we reviewed, we noted appropriate evaluation of whether officers complied with DPD policy.17
In six cases, OCI investigators appropriately discovered potential misconduct during the course of their investigations. In one case, mentioned earlier, officers failed to provide statements when their attorney did not show for their interviews. In another case, review of the available video revealed that an officer intentionally turned his microphone off in violation of policy. In still another case, an officer admitted in an interview to not wearing a nametag as required. In another case, it was discovered that officers made an inappropriate civilian transport and failed to document it on their log sheet.
In five cases, the preponderance of evidence standard was not used, a noticeable improvement over the last quarter. This is based on our determination that different findings were warranted based on the documentation provided for our review. For example, allegations that were unfounded or exonerated by investigators would more appropriately be classified as not sustained based on the information in the case file. As is our practice, each of these cases will be discussed in detail with OCI staff during our next site visit.
Eight of the cases we reviewed were not completed within the prescribed 90-day time period. Written requests for extension were not submitted in five of these cases. Per OCI policy, if cases are not completed within 90 days, investigators are obligated to submit extension requests justifying the need for additional time to complete the cases.
There were no cases in which corrective action or specific disciplinary action was recommended as a result of the investigation. All sustained cases were referred to the Office of the Chief of Police “for appropriate action.”
We reviewed several cases in which the canvasses were either deficient or performed so long after the alleged occurrence as to have no investigative value.
In summary, although appropriate directives are in place, our analysis of OCI investigations does not yet support a Phase 2 compliance finding with this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: Our review during this reporting period found that the IAD investigative packages continue to be well organized, and elements of the investigation are easy to locate. We found that the IAD investigations were conducted in a professional manner. The supervisor meets with the investigators every two weeks to discuss the case progress and grant extensions when necessary. During this review of 26 completed IAD investigations, we found that there were precise descriptions of the incidents and reviews of all relevant evidence. There were five cases that exceeded the 90-day requirement. Four cases were delayed due to the

17If an allegation appropriately received a finding of unfounded or not sustained, evaluation of policy compliance was not assessed since, by definition, its occurrence was either refuted or not substantiated.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 41 of 186 Pg ID 9352

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 40

July 10, 2013

criminal court process and one case was delayed thirty days due to the inability to locate multiple witnesses. In those cases, extensions were requested and appropriately granted. Appropriate credibility determinations were made in all of the cases, and ultimately the determinations were made using the preponderance of evidence standard. In nine of the 26 investigations, additional DPD policy violations were identified and sustained.
DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U33
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding the review of all investigations to require:
a. investigations to be reviewed by the chain of command above the investigator;
b. the reviewing supervisors to identify any deficiencies in those investigations and require the investigator to correct any deficiencies within seven days of the submission of the report and evaluation to the reviewing supervisor;
c. the reviewing supervisors to recommend and the final reviewing authority to refer any incident with training, policy or procedural implications to the appropriate DPD unit;
d. appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action when an investigator fails to conduct or reviewing supervisor fails to evaluate an investigation appropriately; and
e. a written explanation by any supervisor, including the Chief of Police, who disagrees with a finding or departs from a recommended non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action, including the basis for the departure.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our assessment of compliance with the Phase 2 requirements of this paragraph included interviews with staff; and a review of closed command-level, FI, IAD, and OCI cases.
Command Level Investigations: Our assessment for this reporting period found that in 74 (100%) of the 74 SIRs reviewed there was a chain of command review above the investigator. DPD identified deficiencies in 72 (99%) of 73 cases, with 66 (90%) requiring corrections within seven days of submission.18 In six of the cases, the reviewing supervisor made recommendations that training, policy, or procedural issues be referred to the appropriate DPD unit. In four instances, the final reviewing authority referred the matter to an appropriate DPD unit. There were seven instances of DPD taking corrective action for investigations that were not conducted
18 One case was not applicable, as it had no errors and was not returned for corrections.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 42 of 186 Pg ID 9353

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 41

July 10, 2013

properly; the corrective action included re-instruction, training, and the issuance of corrective memos. There was one instance where appropriate actions were taken for investigations that had not been evaluated appropriately by the reviewing supervisor. There were three instances in which written explanations were provided by a supervisor who disagreed with a finding by a subordinate, and in each instance, a written explanation for the departure was provided.
As we have previously mentioned, the review of SIRs by the command level remains the most critical step in the conduct of these investigations. With specific training and more critical command reviews of the investigations, DPD will be able to improve the quality of investigations conducted at the command level. It is incumbent on the Inspectors and Commanders to continue to ensure that deficiencies in the investigations are corrected, and to consult the appropriate units if any procedural or tactical issues are identified.
DPD is not in compliance with the Command Level Investigations portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: In our previous reviews of FI cases for compliance with these requirements, we noted that the case files included chain of command reviews and recommended referrals to training. The investigations also included references to supervisors’ requests for additional information or investigative work.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 14 completed FI cases. Although we are sufficiently satisfied, based on our discussions with FI staff, hat supervisory reviews and evaluations are occurring. We recommend that these reviews continue to be more thoroughly documented.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: In our previous reports, we noted our inability to determine what appropriate supervisory intervention has taken place when investigations are deficient. While there has been evidence of supervisory review in most cases, when investigations are returned, specific issues and corrective measures were usually not documented. Glaring deficiencies such as chronic timeliness issues, which would warrant counseling and/or discipline, were not addressed in writing.
For the current reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 100 closed investigations. During this reporting period, 69 cases were returned for deficiencies. Most of these were for spelling, grammar, and formatting. In eleven of the cases, deficiencies were either missed or not corrected within seven days. Four involved untimely transfer of cases to either Force Investigation or Internal Affairs. The remainder involved issues such as lack of investigative activity for long periods of time, improper findings, and failure to submit proper extension requests.
We did not review any cases in which a reviewer disagreed with the recommended findings of the investigator.
The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of the paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: During this reporting period, the IAD supervisor used the case management system, Case Trax, to record any deficiencies and instructions in the investigators’ progress notes. All of the investigations were reviewed and approved by the chain of command above the investigators within the required timeframe.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 43 of 186 Pg ID 9354

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 42

July 10, 2013

IAD is in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

B. Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations
CJ Requirement U34
The DPD shall revise its reporting policies to require officers to document on a single auditable form any prisoner injury, use of force, allegation of use of force, and instance in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the previous reporting period, we reviewed 200 auditable forms, and found that 167 (84%) were prepared correctly and documented the prisoner injuries, uses of force, and allegations of force. The forms include 11 forms that were referred to FI/IAD, and five in which the officers acquired a target.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 175 auditable forms, and found that 165 (94%) were prepared correctly and documented the prisoner injuries, uses of force, and allegations of force. The forms include 23 forms that were referred to FI/IAD, and one in which the officers acquired a target.
The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U35
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding use of force and prisoner injury notifications to require:
a. officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or prisoner injury;
b. that upon such notice, a supervisor shall respond to the scene of all uses of force that involve a firearm discharge, a visible injury or a complaint of injury. A supervisor shall respond to all other uses of force on a priority basis. Upon arrival at the scene, the supervisor shall interview the subject(s), examine the subject(s) for injury, and ensure that the subject(s) receive needed medical attention;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 44 of 186 Pg ID 9355

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 43

July 10, 2013

c. the supervisor responding to the scene to notify IAD of all serious uses of force, uses of force that result in visible injury, uses of force that a reasonable officer should have known were likely to result in injury, uses of force where there is prisoner injury; and
d. IAD to respond to the scene of, and investigate, all incidents where a prisoner dies, suffers serious bodily injury or requires hospital admission, or involves a serious use of force, and to permit IAD to delegate all other use of force or prisoner injury investigations to the supervisor for a command investigation.19
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the previous reporting period, we reviewed 86 Command Level Investigations cases and found that in 85 (99%), a supervisor was notified following a use of force or a prisoner injury. There were 45 cases in which the use of force involved a firearms discharge, a visible injury, or a complaint of injury; and a supervisor responded to all of them. Supervisors responded to other uses of force on a priority basis in all (100%) of the remaining 41 cases. In combination, a supervisor responded to 86 (100%) of the 86 cases reviewed, maintaining the 100% registered in the last reporting period.
In 84 (98%) of the 86 cases, a supervisor interviewed the subject at the scene, at the district/precinct, or at DRH. Also, in 83 (96%) of the 86 cases, a supervisor examined the subject for injury and ensured that the subject received needed medical attention. Force Investigations (FI) was notified in 39 of the cases, and assumed responsibility for nine of them. There was one choking allegations which was resolved through an FI CAN transmitted to the Command.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 74 Command Level Investigations cases and found that in 73 (99%), a supervisor was notified following a use of force or a prisoner injury. There were 28 cases in which the use of force involved a firearms discharge, a visible injury, or a complaint of injury; and a supervisor responded to all of them. Supervisors responded to other uses of force on a priority basis in the remaining 45 cases. In combination, a supervisor responded to 73 (99%) of the 74 cases reviewed.
In 70 (94%) of the 86 cases, a supervisor interviewed the subject at the scene, at the district/precinct, or at DRH.20 Also, in 72 (97%) of the 74 cases, a supervisor examined the subject for injury and ensured that the subject received needed medical attention.21 Either Force Investigations (FI) or the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) was notified in 28 of the cases, and assumed responsibility for 10 of them. There were three allegations of choking. In one instance, FI assumed the case. In another, the investigating supervisor resolved the allegation; FI was

19 Amended by Court Order dated September 15, 2008.
20 In some instances, a subject is moved to the District/Precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject.
21 In some instances, a subject is moved to the District/Precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 45 of 186 Pg ID 9356

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 44

July 10, 2013

notified in that case, as well, and allowed the Command to handle the investigation. There was one allegation that was not resolved by the investigation or referred to FI. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for Command Level Investigations with this paragraph. Force Investigations: Our review of 14 FI cases relevant to this requirement found that no officers failed to report the use of force to supervisors as required. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U36
The DPD shall revise its use of force and prisoner injury investigation policies to require:
a. command use of force preliminary investigations to be completed within 10 days of the incident. These investigations shall include a synopsis of the incident, photographs of any injuries, witness statements, a canvas of the area, and a profile of the officer’s prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct, and a first-line supervisory evaluation. The final command use of force investigation shall be completed within 30 days of the incident;
b. IAD investigations to be completed within 90 days of the incident; and
c. copies of all reports and command investigations to be sent to IAD within 7 days of completion of the investigation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: In the last reporting period, we found that 82 (95%) of the preliminary investigations were completed within 10 days of the event, an increase over the previous reporting period’s 89%. Eighty-six reports (100%) included a synopsis of the incident. There were photographs of injuries in one of the files, though in two others there were comments that the photos had been viewed at the command.
In 86 (100%) of the cases, the canvass and witness information was included in the file. Officers’ prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct were included in 86 cases (100%). Eighty-eight first-line supervisor evaluations were made in 86 of the cases (100%). The final command use of force investigations were completed within 30 days in 78 (91%) of the cases. Copies of completed Command Level Investigations were transmitted to IAD within seven days of completion of the investigations in 78 (91%) of the 88 cases.
The Command Level Investigations portion of this requirement failed to achieve Phase 2 compliance due to the failure on the part of the commands to submit the reports within the 10and 30-day time constraints. In some instances, the failure can be attributed to the failure to keep track of the days; in others a failure to attend to details. DPD has not achieved Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for the Command Level Investigations.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 46 of 186 Pg ID 9357

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 45

July 10, 2013

During this reporting period, we found that 68 (92%) of the preliminary investigations were completed within 10 days of the event, a decrease from the previous reporting period’s 95%. Seventy-four reports (100%) included a synopsis of the incident. There were photographs of injuries in five of the files, an improvement over the one in the last quarter. In 73 (99%) of the cases, the canvass and witness information was included in the file. Officers’ prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct were included in 73 cases (99%). Seventy-four first-line supervisor evaluations were made in the cases (100%). The final command use of force investigations were completed within 30 days in 63 (85%) of the cases. Copies of completed Command Level Investigations were transmitted to IAD within seven days of completion of the investigations in 65 (88%) of the cases.
DPD must place greater attention to the requirements dealing with the 10- and 30-day reporting requirements and the transmission to FI of the completed reports within the seven-day requirement. These issues appear to be related to a lack of a tracking system and we would once again encourage DPD to install a more sophisticated system than currently exists.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 14 completed FI cases.22 Only one of the 14 cases we reviewed was untimely. We continue to recommend that DPD closely evaluate case management and related issues, including staffing, and more closely monitor FI investigators’ time management and report preparation to more expeditiously complete these investigations.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U37
The DPD has created a Shooting Team, composed of officers from the Homicide Section and IAD. The Shooting Team shall respond to the scene and investigate all critical firearms discharges and in-custody deaths.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Previously, we found that the JIST appropriately responded to critical firearm discharge events; accordingly, we found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. There were six critical firearm discharge investigations and one in-custody death investigation completed during this reporting period. JIST appropriately responded to all of the events.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
22 These investigations included six critical firearm discharges and one vehicle pursuit.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 47 of 186 Pg ID 9358

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 46

July 10, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U38
The DPD shall develop a protocol for conducting investigations of critical firearm discharges that, in addition to the requirements of paragraphs 27-36, requires
a. the investigation to account for all shots fired, all shell casings, and the locations of all officers at the time the officer discharged the firearm;
b. the investigator to conduct and preserve in the investigative file all appropriate ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests; and
c. the investigation to be completed within 60 days of the incident. If a Garrity statement is necessary, then that portion of the investigation may be deferred until 30 days from the declination or conclusion of the criminal prosecution.23
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our review of critical firearm discharge investigations for previous reports noted a number of significant issues relating to the requirements of this paragraph. We found that although investigators inventoried the officers’ ammunition to assist with determining the number of shots fired, and collected shell casings at the scene, there were instances where the number of shots believed to have been fired did not match the inventory of officers’ ammunition and/or the number of retrieved shell casings. We emphasized the importance of accounting for all rounds that are fired, and where there appears to be a discrepancy due to the described magazine problems, documenting it in the case reports. The DPD attributed this to an ongoing problem with the ammunition magazines that sometimes prevented officers from loading them to capacity and indicated its intent to correct the problem with the issuance of replacement equipment.
In addition, we noted that while the locations of officers were generally described, the files do not consistently include diagrams depicting their positions. We also expressed concern regarding the absence of gunshot residue and DNA collection and analysis. The DPD advised that gunshot residue analysis is no longer available; that DNA analysis is limited and that there are significant delays in ballistics analyses, which are conducted by the State Crime Lab. These have been – and remain – issues mitigating the ability of FI to conduct complete and timely critical firearm discharge investigations. And finally, we have repeatedly expressed concern with the failure to complete these investigations within the required 60-day time limit.
To assess compliance with requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed six completed critical firearm discharge investigations, none of which involved fatalities. None of the six
23 Consent Judgment amendment April 23, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 48 of 186 Pg ID 9359

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 47

July 10, 2013

investigations contained discrepancies between the number of rounds (ammunition) officers were carrying at the time of the event and the number of rounds they are required to carry by policy.
The investigations that we reviewed described the locations of the officers; however, the diagrams that were included did not specifically indicate the officers’ locations when their firearms were discharged. The locations of shell casings were noted; however, we are concerned that FI did not reconcile the number of shots that were believed to have been fired. We have continuing concerns regarding the lack of gunshot residue tests (in four cases) where such tests would have served as an investigative aid in determining whether or not the suspect discharged a firearm and the lack of ballistic testing on firearms and shell casings.
We are aware that the DPD relies on the Michigan State Laboratory for ballistic testing, and have been advised that the present lab protocols and procedures do not allow for some of the required testing and analysis. This must be addressed.
Five, or 83%, of the six critical firearm discharge investigations we reviewed were timely.
These above-cited ongoing issues are significant and continue to mitigate the quality, thoroughness, and credibility of these investigations. Each critical firearm discharge must be investigated with a focus on whether the deadly force was used in accordance with DPD policy, regardless of whether or not it resulted in injury or death. Crime scene activities and the analyses of all evidence – including important ballistic evidence – often form the basis for making appropriate decisions regarding these most serious issues. Therefore, the deficiencies described herein and in our previous reports must be addressed.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U39
The DPD shall require a Command-level Force Review Team to evaluate all critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths. The team shall be chaired by the Deputy Chief who directly supervises IAD. The DPD shall establish criteria for selecting the other member of the team.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The Team is chaired by the Commander, Internal Affairs/Force Investigations, and includes Deputy Chiefs, the Training Commander, and a specified Chief of Police designee.
The DPD submitted seven CLFRT reports that met the composition requirements of this paragraph during this reporting period. The reports assessed included six critical firearms discharges and one in-custody death.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 49 of 186 Pg ID 9360

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 48

July 10, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U40
The DPD policy that defines the Command-level Force Review Team’s role shall require the team to:
a. complete its review of critical firearm discharges that result in injury and in-custody deaths within 21 days from the completion of the investigation and require the Chief of Police to complete his or her review of the team’s report within 14 days;24
b. comply with the revised review of investigations policies and procedures;
c. interview the principal investigators; and
d. prepare a report to the Chief of Police in compliance with the revised investigatory report and evaluation protocol.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During this reporting period, the DPD submitted seven CLFRT reports that met the time limitations for completion. The CLFRT’s assessments complied with DPD protocols, and the principal investigator was interviewed. There were no reviews completed by the Chief of Police that were untimely.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

24 Amended by Court Order dated April 23, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 50 of 186 Pg ID 9361

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 49

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U41
The commanding officer of Force Investigation or other appropriate DPD executive designated by the Chief of Police shall annually review critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths in aggregate to detect patterns and/or problems and report his or her findings and recommendations, including additional investigative protocols and standards for all critical firearm discharge and in-custody death investigations, to the Chief of Police. A copy of the report shall be submitted to the Monitor within five months after the end of the year reported on.25
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

Critical Issues:
• The failure to conduct quality investigations within prescribed timelines remains a critical issue. We again emphasize the need to provide formal documentation of reasons for delays in the completion of investigations. Many cases indicate that they are returned for corrections, but do not explain what is needed to be corrected, nor what new time limits have been established for re-submission. Complete information must be provided under the Timeline category of the SIR.
• DPD needs to continue to provide more attention to the quality of interviews; some lack details regarding the incident and exactly how the officers on the scene responded to the incident; it appears that investigators, armed with new information from interviews seldom re-interview officers to resolve differences. Video and audio recordings must be reviewed as part of the investigative process; the Department needs to place greater emphasis on the appropriate use of the body microphones to capture interactions between officers and the public/subjects. Supervisors need to ensure that activity logs are properly completed with respect to the video and audio capabilities; unknown is not an acceptable category of the capabilities. When equipment is inoperative, the proper documentation should be prepared and commented on in the investigation. We continue to recommend that a formalized practice of forwarding complex/faulty investigations to the Training Division and/or the Policy Section for their review as a measure of ensuring that both units are aware of the situations officers are confronting in the streets and institute any corrective measure they may seem appropriate.

25 Amended by Court Order dated January 28, 2009.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 51 of 186 Pg ID 9362

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 50

July 10, 2013

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to assess compliance, paying particular attention to the thoroughness and completeness of investigations, their review by supervisors, and compliance with the timelines.

¶ Requirements 27 Revise investigative policies 28 Investigation by uninvolved supervisor 29 Procedures for investigative interviews 30 Leading questions prohibited, etc. 31 Garrity Protocol required 32 Revise investigatory report policies 33 Chain of command reviews 34 Auditable form required 35 Notification of supervisors, etc. 36 Completion of command investigations 37 Joint Incident Shooting Team 38 Protocol for critical discharge investigations 39 Command Level Force Review Team 40 Review critical firearm discharges 41 Command-level force review requirements

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

V. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES
The arrest and detention policies and practice requirements are a critical component of this Agreement. The policies prohibit an officer from making an arrest without probable cause, and the existing policy requires supervisory review within 12 hours of the arrest. It further requires that for an arrest that is unsupported by probable cause, or a warrant that is not sought, an auditable form must document the circumstances within 12 hours of the event.
The DPD revised its investigatory stop-and-frisk policies to appropriately define investigatory stops and reasonable suspicion and supported this effort by frequent roll call training and two Administrative Messages issued in January and April 2011. As a result of additional emphasis by the Department on traffic stops and investigatory stops/frisks, DPD has been in compliance in this area for six consecutive reporting periods although DPD has been unable to maintain its compliance with documenting frisks and appropriate supervisory review, which is a critical component of the paragraph. Since compliance was first achieved in the Tenth Quarterly Report,

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 52 of 186 Pg ID 9363

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 51

July 10, 2013

DPD has been unable to maintain compliance with frisks for consecutive quarterly periods. DPD also revised its witness identification policies to comply with the revised arrest and investigatory policies. Policy establishes that a material witness can only be taken into custody by obtaining a Court order prior to such taking.
The revised policies and procedures in this area require significant documentation and reviews by supervisors. Command notification is required in all instances where there exists a reported violation of DPD arrest, holds/warrants, investigatory stop-and-frisk, witness identification and questioning policies, and all reports in which an arraignment warrant is not sought.
While previous compliance had been achieved in these areas, we note during this and previous reporting periods the inability of personnel to indicate holds over 48 hours on the Warrant Tracking Form. This has been problematic in that when command review occurs, the commanders had relied solely on whether the OIC had indicated on the Warrant Tracking Form the hold status of the detainee. Due to previous compliance, the current issues stem from combining the general investigative units that were previously housed in the districts and precincts into two central facilities. The issue of failing to document holds over 48 hours has been addressed in the Command Accountability Meetings and commanders are now required to verify the existence of any holds in violation of policy.
DPD has made progress in documenting Investigatory Stops, Detainee Registration and following internal witness identification policies during the previous six reporting periods. Certainly the articulation of reasonable suspicion with frisks and the required supervisory reviews have improved; however, as noted above, consistent and sustained compliance has not yet been achieved. While DPD is currently in compliance with U45, we note that the current method of capturing initial stops and frisks on officers’ Daily Activity Logs is inefficient and prone to error; both by the officer completing the log and the supervisor reviewing it. Essential information, for example, reason/justification for the stop; and in addition, justification for the frisk, is not consistently documented. We have previously recommended that DPD develop a form, which would capture all the necessary information relating to the stop and subsequent frisk and also serve as the required auditable form for stop and frisk exceptions to resolve this impending problem. Such forms have been utilized to document stops and frisks in other agencies for many years and constitute a sound management tool to insure consistency and legality of police actions.
The Department’s ability to document and timely prepare warrant submittals to the prosecutor had been problematic, in that the failure to do so caused other violations of policy. (See U50, U51, and U53.) We continue to find in a few instances, the failure to prepare the required auditable form or timely review by a commanding officer has kept DPD from compliance with certain paragraphs. Supervisory and command review continues to be lacking in some areas, and that documentation of violations should be a Departmental priority.
All paragraphs under the Arrest and Detention Policies and Practices require supervisory review and command review when violations of policy are discovered. On August 7, 2012, Administrative Message (Teletype 12-066) mandated 12-hour work shifts for police officers in the field and the holding facilities. However, sergeants and higher level ranks remain on eighthour shifts. Since adequate supervisory and command review has been major issues for

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 53 of 186 Pg ID 9364

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 52

July 10, 2013

compliance purposes, it appears that consistency of supervision for field personnel could jeopardize DPD’s ability to monitor subordinates’ activity.

A. Arrest Policies CJ Requirement U42 The DPD shall revise its arrest policies to define arrest and probable cause as those terms are defined in this Agreement and prohibit the arrest of an individual with less than probable cause. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance is linked to and dependent upon the implementation of U43. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U43
The DPD shall review all arrests for probable cause at the time the arrestee is presented at the precinct or specialized unit. This review shall be memorialized in writing within 12 hours of the arrest. For any arrest unsupported by probable cause or in which an arraignment warrant was not sought, the DPD shall document the circumstances of the arrest and/or the reasons the arraignment warrant was not sought on an auditable form within 12 hours of the event.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 98 arrest case files. The review included Crisnet reports, Detainee Input Sheets, DPD Warrant Verification Logs, officers’ Daily Activity Logs, Arraignment Verification Logs, and detainee file folders. In all cases, sufficient probable cause for the arrest was present.
In all cases, supervisory approval occurred within 12 hours of the arrest. In our previous report, we reported that two of the 106 arrest case packets we reviewed did not contain sufficient probable cause for the arrest; all arrests during this reporting period contained documented probable cause.
When an officer is not seeking an arraignment warrant, the Department is required to complete Auditable Form U004, Warrant Tracking Hold Form (effective September 2009). Of the 98 arrest cases we reviewed, the Department did not seek a warrant in 13. In all of the cases except one, the required auditable form was completed in a timely basis. In the one exception, the auditable form was not completed. The officer in charge failed to generate the required auditable form when the warrant was not sought. When reviewing subordinates’ work product, the supervisor should have caught the omission.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 54 of 186 Pg ID 9365

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 53

July 10, 2013

DPD’s compliance rate is 99%, an increase from the previous reporting period’s 97%, for the three separate and distinct requirements of this paragraph. DPD has been in compliance with Phase 2 of this paragraph in all our previous reports.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Investigatory Stop Policies
CJ Requirement U44
The DPD shall revise its investigatory stop and frisk policies to define investigatory stop and reasonable suspicion as those terms are defined in this Agreement. The policy shall specify that a frisk is authorized only when the officer has reasonable suspicion to fear for his or her safety and that the scope of the frisk must be narrowly tailored to those specific reasons.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U45
The DPD shall require written documentation of all investigatory stops and frisks by the end of the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD shall review all investigatory stops and frisks and document on an auditable form those unsupported by reasonable suspicion within 24 hours of receiving the officer’s report.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In our tenth quarterly report, we determined that DPD was in compliance with the provisions of this paragraph; this was the first reporting period that DPD achieved compliance in this area. DPD had previously come into compliance with traffic and investigatory stops. In the last reporting period, DPD’s compliance rate for frisks was 100%. During the current reporting period, as in our previous review, we found that DPD personnel made significant progress in documenting investigatory stops. Supervisors must scrutinize each officer’s Daily Activity Log and complete the required auditable form when reasonable suspicion for the stop does not exist. Due to settling previous litigation, DPD issued Training Directive 12-03 on January 12, 2012 reinforcing Detroit City Code 38-1-3 as it pertains to the loitering ordinance. The new guidelines clearly define the rights of the individual and provide clarity to personnel when enforcing loitering violations.
DPD issued Teletype 13-073 (read at all Roll Calls from February 16, through February 22, 2013) regarding traffic stops and the codes used by the officers to notify Communications

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 55 of 186 Pg ID 9366

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 54

July 10, 2013

Operations Zone Dispatchers when they clear the stop. One of the codes indicates “advised/released without requiring the officer to state to the dispatcher the reason for the initial stop.”
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 307 officers’ Daily Activity Logs completed on three randomly selected dates.26 Each district/precinct provided the logs requested, which included traffic stops and other situations where officers made investigatory stops of individuals who were not in vehicles or in vehicles stopped in places where a police inquiry was warranted.
Our review yielded 60 investigatory stops, of which 58 indicated a lawful purpose. We observed and noted in previous reports that supervisors are now more thorough in their reviews of officers’ Daily Activity Logs and would complete auditable forms for violations; that is no longer the case, as we have not reviewed any auditable forms (traffic stops or investigatory stops for this or the previous reporting period. Most of the investigatory stops involved subjects being in a park after posted hours, entering premises/property without owner’s permission, and loitering. In all instances, supervisors reviewed all investigatory stops within the required timeframe. OCR did send out a Corrective Action Notice to a Command where the reporting officers indicated they conducted an investigatory stop for “youthful appearance” without any other description of suspicious activity. While this may have been a legal stop, officers must make an effort to describe other factors involved. DPD’s compliance rate for investigatory stops only (excluding frisks and traffic stops) during this reporting period is 97%, the same as that registered in the last reporting period. In two other cases, there were Corrective Action Notices forwarded to the Commands for review; and each was addressed timely and contained the Stop and Frisk Exception Form. In one review, the supervisor, working with an officer in the field, reviewed and approved his own Daily Activity Log.
The logs included 162 traffic stops, and our review indicated that four did not contain sufficient information to justify the stop, which is a basic requirement. For example, the officers failed to describe the initial necessity or purpose of the traffic stop. Supervisors reviewed all but one of the officers’ Daily Activity Logs containing traffic stops in a timely fashion, marking their signatures, and dates and times of review.
DPD’s compliance rate for traffic stops is 97%, a decrease from the previous reporting period’s 99%.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 13 frisks appearing on officers’ Daily Activity Logs. We found that 12 of the frisks met the requirement. In the one exception, officers making a traffic stop indicated the reason for the stop as “suspected narcotics” without any other description for the stop. At some point, the officers could smell the aroma of marijuana coming from the vehicle but they failed to indicate when (before or after they approached the vehicle). This event occurred in the afternoon at 3:00 p.m. OCR issued a Corrective Action Notice on this stop prior to our notification that we were also concerned with the stop. We have observed fewer frisks conducted by officers during the two previous reporting periods. Perhaps officers have a
26 For this review, we randomly selected Daily Activity Logs completed on January 17, February 12, and March 1, 2013.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 56 of 186 Pg ID 9367

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 55

July 10, 2013

better understanding through training and frequent Administrative Messages by DPD staff of what circumstances need to exist prior to conducting a frisk.
On July 28, 2011, DPD issued an Administrative Message (Teletype 11-0925) to be read at 10 consecutive roll calls instructing supervisors how to address consent frisks by officers. Another Administrative Message (Teletype 11-1497) was issued on December 24, 2011 emphasizing the importance of officers describing the frisk and supervisors’ responsibilities completing the auditable form when required.
Officers are required to complete the “Recap of Activity” portion of the log to indicate their total daily activities and also mark the “Frisk” box in the narrative portion of the report. This is a tool for the supervisor to locate and review the frisks that occur by his/her subordinates. However, supervisors have not used this tool – as we continue to find instances where the officer properly conducts a frisk, but does not mark either of the appropriate boxes or the frisk box is marked erroneously and the supervisors fail to discover the errors.
During a previous site visit, the Parties held a meeting to discuss DPD’s request that consent searches (frisks) met the legal requirements of the Consent Judgment. No changes were made as a result of that meeting, and we have found that on the few occasions when an officer conducts a consent frisk the supervisors have completed the auditable form.
In previous audits, to ensure compliance with the Department’s stop-and-frisk policies, the Audit Team recommended a number of steps, including retraining officers and reviewing all stop-andfrisk situations by supervisors and command personnel in a timely fashion. We have found that the emphasis DPD has placed on officers properly documenting investigatory stops and supervisory review had previously paid dividends toward compliance.
A review of in-car video of frisks by the training staff and commanders is helpful in ensuring that legal authority exists for the frisks. In our eleventh quarterly report, we noted that supervisors conducted in-car video review of their subordinates’ investigatory stops and frisks. This is a sound supervisory practice and we encourage DPD to continue the video review of these stops when the legality of these stops is in question. As noted above, Administrative Message 11-0151, issued on January 28, 2011; Administrative Message 11-0477, issued on April 22, 2011; Administrative Message 11-1497, issued on December 22, 2011; and a subsequent Administrative Message, issued on November 9, 2012; emphasized the recording of investigatory stops and frisks by officers and supervisory review. We note that OCR continues to send Corrective Action Notices to the various commands when they review our document request for Daily Activity Logs; however, this responsibility lies with the individual commands, not OCR, and commands need to take action immediately when the violations occur.
In previous reporting periods, we found a few cases where auditable forms were completed after they were requested by the Monitoring Team and reviewed by DPD personnel. DPD personnel have been trained; this is no longer an issue of training but one of accountability. Command personnel must ensure that their sergeants/lieutenants review investigatory stops and take action when they occur. DPD continues to fail in the area of supervisory and command review. Firstline supervisors are the key personnel in ensuring that all investigatory stops are in compliance with policy. DPD’s compliance rate for frisks this quarter is 93%, a decrease from the 100% we found during the previous reporting period. DPD’s overall compliance rate for all investigatory

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 57 of 186 Pg ID 9368

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 56

July 10, 2013

stops and frisks is 96%, a decrease from 98% in the previous reporting period. Conducting frisks that follow appropriate guidelines and meet established law is an important part of this paragraph and must be compliant.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Witness Identification and Questioning Policies
CJ Requirement U46
The DPD shall revise its witness identification and questioning policies to comply with the revised arrest and investigatory stop policies. The DPD shall prohibit the seizure of an individual without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual and require that the scope and duration of any seizure be narrowly tailored to the reasons supporting the police action. The DPD shall prohibit the conveyance of any individual to another location without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U48; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U47
The DPD shall develop the revised witness identification and questioning policies within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The revised policies shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the revised witness identification and questioning policies within three months of the review and approval of the DOJ.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U48; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 58 of 186 Pg ID 9369

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 57

July 10, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U48
The DPD shall document the content and circumstances of all interviews, interrogations and conveyances during the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD shall review in writing all interviews, interrogations and conveyances and document on an auditable form those in violation of DPD policy within 24 hours of the interview, interrogation or conveyance.27
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
On June 1, 2011, the Court issued an order relevant to a DOJ letter dated May 1, 2010, where an agreement was accepted for timelines required for the review of all interviews, interrogations, and conveyances. The Court order permits that supervisors can review all interviews, interrogations, and conveyances within 24 hours, compared to the 12 hours previously mandated by the paragraph.
On June 13, 2012, DPD advised us that all general investigative operational units would be merged under one command, the Criminal Investigation Unit, and be divided geographically into East and West facilities (Central District and Second Precinct). Although this change should increase efficiency, it has resulted in commanders’ reviews of holds often exceeding the 48-hour mandate (U53, U60). During our October 2012 site visit, a lieutenant in one district/precinct advised us that prior to merging the investigative operational units, if there was an issue with an auditable form, it usually occurred at that location, and the lieutenant could contact the officer and correct the problem immediately.
We have noted that during this review that both general investigations units located at Central District (East) and the Second Precinct (West) are now conducting their own internal inspections of their witness/interrogation forms for completeness and accuracy. This is a sound practice and should be expanded to other functions within the Department.
We reviewed 77 case files containing 108 interviews/interrogations (DPD Form 103, revised April 2009) at Central District (East) and found all but one in compliance. There were three violations of policy with the required auditable forms attached. In two instances, the violations were discovered during an internal audit by command staff at the Central District, and submitted in a timely fashion; however, one of the violations was discovered five weeks after the interview occurred and should have been caught and forwarded by the reviewing supervisor. Central District’s (East) compliance rate with this paragraph is 99%.

27 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 59 of 186 Pg ID 9370

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 58

July 10, 2013

We reviewed case files containing 103 interviews/interrogations from the Second Precinct (West) and found six that did not meet the requirement. We found 13 instances where violations of policy occurred. In three cases there was no supervisory review but the omissions were discovered during a command inspection by the Second Precinct and the required auditable forms were generated two weeks after the violations occurred; in another case the supervisor dated his review the day before the review occurred; and in the remaining two cases, the interviewing officer failed to present the interview form for supervisory review and in another the interview form did not contain an ending time. All other violations contained the appropriate auditable form. The Second Precinct’s compliance rate for interviews/interrogations is 94%.
We reviewed 62 interrogation forms from the Narcotics Unit and found all in compliance. Narcotics Unit’s compliance rate is 100%.
We reviewed 28 witness conveyances from Homicide and 11 from the Sex Crimes Unit during the reporting period and found all in compliance. Due to the nature of homicide and sexual abuse investigations, witness conveyances are generally exclusive to more serious crimes.
DPD’s compliance rate for this paragraph is 98%, the same as the previous reporting period.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

D. Prompt Judicial Review Policies CJ Requirement U49 The DPD shall revise its policies to require prompt judicial review, as defined in this Agreement, for every person arrested by the DPD. The DPD shall develop a timely and systematic process for all arrestees to be presented for prompt judicial review or to be released. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U50; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 60 of 186 Pg ID 9371

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 59

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U50
The DPD shall require that, for each arrestee, a warrant request for arraignment on the charges underlying the arrest is submitted to the prosecutor’s office within 48 hours of the arrest.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Due to a few case reports involving traffic, probation violations, and warrant arrests that are handled by other means, or where the arrestee is taken directly to court, we reviewed 84 case reports that eventually were submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office for arraignment. The documentation supporting this review included Crisnet reports, Warrant Verification Logs, Arraignment Sheets, Detainee Input Sheets, and Warrant Tracking Hold Forms. Of the 84 cases we reviewed where an arraignment warrant was submitted or the detainee taken directly to court, all but one met the 48-hour requirement.
In the one instance, the warrant submittal to the prosecutor’s office was late; however, the appropriate Warrant Tracking Form was timely submitted by the officer in charge of the case and submitted for command review. In another case, the warrant submittal was late but the officer in charge failed to document the late submittal on the Warrant Tracking Form – though he did indicate the hold that had exceeded the 48-hour requirement. DPD’s compliance rate for this for this paragraph is 99%, an increase from the 98% in the previous quarter.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U51
The DPD shall document on an auditable form all instances in which the request for an arraignment warrant is submitted more than 48 hours after the arrest. The DPD shall also document on an auditable form all instances in which it is not in compliance with the prompt judicial review policy and in which extraordinary circumstances delayed the arraignment. The documentation shall occur by the end of the shift in which there was: 1) a failure to request an arraignment within 48 hours, 2) a failure to comply with the prompt judicial review policy, or 3) an arraignment delayed by extraordinary circumstances.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with these requirements, we reviewed the same documents referenced in U50. Of the 98 arrest case reports we reviewed, there were 84 that began at the initial arrest and in which a warrant was submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office for arraignment. There was one case where the warrant submittal to the prosecutor’s office was late; however, the auditable Warrant Tracking Form was completed and submitted timely. In one other case the

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 61 of 186 Pg ID 9372

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 60

July 10, 2013

auditable form was not generated for the failure to submit the warrant request. We excluded cases that involved warrant arrests, juvenile arrests, and traffic cases.
There were 57 detainees who went to arraignment and 38 of these where the arraignment occurred more than 48 hours from the time of the initial arrest. In two cases, an auditable form was not generated for violation of the prompt judicial review policies and in the third the required auditable form was completed late. When the commanding officer reviews the auditable form, s/he must inspect the document to ensure that the OIC is dating or placing the time the event was recognized. If the commanding officer reviews the dates and times of the events prior to approval, determining compliance is straightforward.
DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement for the current reporting period is 97%, the same as the previous quarter. DPD personnel who prepare the detainee warrant request information to the prosecutor should process and forward those documents promptly as any delay can create situations where detainees are not arraigned within the 48-hour time requirement. As we noted previously, the elimination of evening arraignments by the 36th District Court of the State of Michigan will continue to be problematic for DPD in its ability to arraign detainees within the 48-hour time requirement.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

E. Hold Policies
CJ Requirement U52
The DPD shall revise its hold policies to define a hold as that term is defined in this Agreement and require that all holds be documented. This policy shall establish a timely and systematic process for persons in DPD custody who have holds issued by a City of Detroit court to have those holds cleared by presenting the arrestee to the court from which the warrant was issued or the setting and posting of bond where applicable. The fact that an arrestee has not been arraigned or charged in the current arrest shall not delay this process.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U53; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 62 of 186 Pg ID 9373

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 61

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U53
The DPD shall document all holds, including the time each hold was identified and the time each hold was cleared. The DPD shall document on an auditable form each instance in which a hold is not cleared within 48 hours of the arrest. The documentation shall occur within 24 hours of each instance of a hold not being cleared.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In previous reporting periods, DPD was not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, due to holds/warrants not being cleared and the auditable form not being prepared. In the last reporting period, the Department’s compliance rate with this requirement was 89%.
To assess compliance with the requirements, we reviewed 98 Detainee Input Sheets, and found a total of 56 holds/warrants listed on the forms. In our earlier reports, we noted satisfactory completion of the auditable forms for those holds exceeding 48 hours and the detainee still in custody. Form (DPD UF004-007, revised June 2009) was created and contains appropriate indications for officers to identify more than one violation of the Prompt Judicial Review Policies. DPD personnel must be aware that if an arraignment occurs more than 48 hours after an arrest and the detainee has an outstanding hold/warrant, there is a likelihood that the warrant may not be cleared within the requirement and both boxes should be checked. There can also be an issue if the warrant submittal for the outstanding arrest is denied by the prosecutor and there is a hold on the detainee. In these cases, DPD has an expectation that the hold(s) will be addressed at the arraignment on the current charge; and if the warrant is denied, the detainee may be presented to the judge at the next available arraignment opportunity.
Our review of the data requested in our previous three quarterly samples and during this reporting period indicates a reversal of DPD’s previous progress. Of the 56 holds we reviewed, there were 21 that were not cleared within 48 hours. Five of these did not contain the required auditable form for holds not being cleared within 48 hours of the arrest. In one of these cases, there were eight holds on one individual from the 36th District Court that were not discovered until three days after the arrest.
DPD personnel advised us that the commander of the precinct – or, in the absence of the commander, the lieutenant on duty – receives the Warrant Tracking Form only when violations occur and the form is completed and forwarded by the OIC or a supervisor. Reviewing command personnel do not receive the entire package, and assume all violations are properly indicated when they review and approve the forms. When the supervisors receive and review the form from the OIC, they must ensure that it is complete prior to forwarding it for command review. The failure of personnel to indicate detainees being held with outstanding holds has increased since the general investigative operations units were merged. DPD has devised a method of ensuring the holds are either cleared or the required auditable form has been generated. We will again closely monitor to see if these issues are resolved during the next reporting period.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 63 of 186 Pg ID 9374

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 62

July 10, 2013

On May 25, 2012 DPD issued Administrative Message (Teletype 12-0400) advising all personnel of the proper procedure to ensure that auditable forms for arraignments and holds/warrants exceeding the 48-hour requirement are processed according to DPD policy.
As we have noted previously, the lack of DPD personnel properly indicating the date and time that holds/warrants are identified/cleared and generating the required auditable forms for violations continues to be problematic for the Department. If command personnel would verify the existence of holds from the Detainee Information Sheet prior to signing off on the Warrant Tracking auditable form, the problem of non-compliance would be resolved, and it would ensure that subordinate supervisors are completing the forms accurately. The issue of failure to complete required auditable forms for holds not being cleared within 48 hours has been a topic of discussion at Command Accountability Meetings on several occasions. The mechanism put forward during those exchanges between commanders has not rectified the existing problems.
DPD’s compliance rate for this requirement is 89%, the same as registered during the previous reporting period. This is the fourth consecutive reporting period in which DPD has not been in compliance; therefore, the Department is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

F. RESTRICTION POLICIES CJ Requirement U54 The DPD shall develop a policy regarding restricting detainee’s access to telephone calls and visitors that permits individuals in DPD custody access to attorneys and reasonable access to telephone calls and visitors. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U55
The DPD shall require that such restrictions be documented and reviewed at the time the restriction is issued and reevaluated each day in which the restriction remains in effect. The DPD shall document on an auditable form any violation of the restriction policy by the end of the shift in which the violation occurred.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 64 of 186 Pg ID 9375

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 63

July 10, 2013

G. Material Witness Policies CJ Requirement U56 The DPD shall revise its material witness policies to define material witness as that term is defined in this Agreement and remove the term “police witness” from DPD policies and procedures. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U57
The DPD shall obtain a court order prior to taking a material witness into DPD custody. The DPD shall document on an auditable form the detention of each material witness and attach a copy of the court order authorizing the detention.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

H. Documentation of Custodial Detention CJ Requirement U58 The DPD shall revise its arrest and detention documentation to require, for all arrests, a record or file to contain accurate and auditable documentation of:
a. the individual’s personal information; b. the crime(s) charged; c. the time and date of arrest and release; d. the time and date the arraignment was submitted; e. the name and badge number of the officer who submitted the arraignment; f. the time and date of arraignment; was lodged and cleared, if applicable; g. the time each warrant was lodged and cleared, if applicable; and h. the individual’s custodial status, e.g., new arrest, material witness or extradition. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 65 of 186 Pg ID 9376

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 64

July 10, 2013

I. Command Notification
CJ Requirement U59
The DPD shall require the commander of the precinct and, if applicable, of the specialized unit, to review in writing all reported violations of DPD arrest, investigatory stop and frisk, witness identification and questioning policies and all reports of arrests in which an arraignment warrant was not sought. The commander’s review shall be completed within 7 days of receiving the document reporting the event. The commander’s review shall include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In our first two years of reviewing officer’s Daily Activity Logs, we did not find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement, noting the lack of auditable forms, the lack of documented reasonable suspicion for frisks, and inadequate supervisory review.
In our review of 98 arrests during this reporting period, we determined that all properly documented probable cause. There was one case where the officer in charge failed to complete the required auditable form for a warrant not sought; therefore, the commander was unable to conduct a command review of the arrest. In those situations where a warrant is not sought or a warrant is denied on an arrestee, supervisors should scrutinize the arrest packets to ensure that the elements required for a valid arrest are documented.
We reviewed 13 frisks, and determined that 12 met the requirement; in the one not articulating reasonable suspicion, the supervisor did complete the required auditable form for the violation. In prior reporting periods, DPD has generated auditable forms for violations of this portion of the paragraph relating to frisks. The failure of supervisors to review and recognize frisks in violation of policy and to complete the required auditable forms continues to be problematic for DPD with maintaining compliance with U45. In order to be lawful, a stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion and narrowly tailored in scope and duration to the reasons supporting the seizure. During a limited seizure, the officer may conduct a frisk if s/he has reasonable suspicion to believe that the suspect may have the means to do harm. While supervisors do review the officers’ Daily Activity Logs, they should also be challenging officers to articulate the reason for the stops/frisks.
Our review of 162 traffic stops determined that officers’ abilities to accurately describe the actions that led to the stop are compliant; however, there was no auditable form generated for the four traffic stops in which a form was required to be completed. Commanders are not receiving the forms due to supervisors not completing them.
There were 60 investigatory stops (excluding frisks and traffic stops), of which 58 were based on a documented investigatory purpose. No auditable forms were generated by the reviewing supervisors.
There were 13 cases where documentation was completed indicating that an arraignment warrant was not sought and auditable forms were completed, 12 of these cases contained appropriate command review. In one case, the auditable form was not completed by the officer in charge

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 66 of 186 Pg ID 9377

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 65

July 10, 2013

and therefore did not receive a command review. In all cases, a commanding officer approved the form and attached his/her signature including the date of review. We have observed DPD’s progress with commanders’ oversight as it relates to warrants not served.
We reviewed 273 witness/interrogation interviews from Central Investigative Command (East & West) and the Narcotics Unit. There were three auditable forms (Exceptions to Interviews, Interrogation and Conveyances (DPD Form uf005) completed for this paragraph where command review occurred. There were 39 witness conveyances and all were compliant.
Under this paragraph, DPD commanders have seven days to review the requirements from time of receipt; compliance should not be an issue. All command reviews received by commanders were compliant; however, in some instances the auditable forms were not prepared and forwarded to the commander for review. These exceptions were previously noted in other paragraphs (U43, U 45 and U48).
DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement is 100%, an increase from the previous reporting period’s 98%.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U60
The DPD shall require the commander of the precinct, and, if applicable, of the specialized unit, to review in writing all violations of DPD prompt judicial review, holds, restrictions and material witness policies on a daily basis. The commander’s review shall include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 98 arrest case reports, of which 84 were submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office and 62 went to arraignment. There were 39 cases where the arraignment occurred more than 48 hours after the arrest.
In all but three cases, the request for the warrant was submitted in a timely fashion. In two instances an auditable form was completed and command review occurred.
In the 57 cases that went to arraignment, 38 of these were arraigned more than 48 hours after arrest, and auditable forms were completed. In one case the commander’s review of the Warrant Tracking Form was dated two days prior to the arrest and five days prior to the OIC completing the auditable form. It was replete with date and time errors. There were difficulties with this particular case as the defendant was eventually arraigned from a hospital bed. In the other instance, the command review was not within the required timeframe. We noted previously that

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 67 of 186 Pg ID 9378

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 66

July 10, 2013

OCR sent Corrective Action Notices to commanders who failed to review the auditable forms within the allotted time constraints.
Of the 56 hold/warrants that we identified, there were 21 holds that were not cleared within the required 48 hours. In 16 instances, the Warrant Tracking Form was properly completed and forwarded to the commander for review; in five cases, the “hold” box was not marked indicating a hold over 48 hours. There were two material witnesses taken into custody during this reporting period, and all required auditable forms were completed. The one restriction reviewed was within DPD policy.
Under this paragraph, there were a total of 46 auditable forms in our sample reviewed by the commander. There were two violations of policy requiring command review. In the event of a commander’s absence from the district or precinct, the on-duty commanding officer (lieutenant or above) has the authority to review and sign off on the auditable forms as they serve as precinct commanders during that timeframe. There should not be any instance where the officer in charge of the case cannot contact a lieutenant or above to review those cases where there are violations of the prompt judicial policies.
DPD’s overall compliance rate for this paragraph is 96%, an increase over the 94% that we found in the last reporting period. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
• For the past four reporting periods, we noted instances in which the OIC failed to indicate on the Warrant Tracking Form when holds exceed 48 hours. DPD had taken steps to rectify this failure during the previous reporting period by including it as a point of discussion at the Command Accountability Meetings. We have seen no improvement during this quarter’s review. We have stressed this issue with DPD in previous site visits and our quarterly reports. During the next few months, DPD will close its five holding facilities scattered throughout the City and move into a state of the art, former MDOC facility near the Northeastern District where all detainees will be housed in one facility. The MDOC compound will also be the new quarters of all general investigations operational personnel of the DPD and should help in resolving existing issues with prompt judicial review.
• If warrant submittals to the prosecutor were made timelier, violations of the prompt judicial policies would be reduced significantly; therefore reducing the amount of unnecessary work and documentation by DPD staff. We have noticed a considerable drop in the number of frisks conducted by officers in the previous two reporting periods. During our April 2013 site visit we requested that DPD provide us with the normal investigatory stop sample for April and June (one day each month) and to pull every frisk conducted by any officer for the month of June 2013 and to forward those

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 68 of 186 Pg ID 9379

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 67

July 10, 2013

documents to us weekly. During previous reporting periods, we received auditable forms for violations of the investigatory stop policies. Supervisors must carefully review officers’ Daily Activity Logs and complete auditable forms when they are required.
• District/precinct commanders must ensure that auditable forms are completed and forwarded promptly for their review, and advise their lieutenants that they have the authority to review and sign auditable forms under U60 in their absence.
• It is not OCR’s responsibility to issue corrective action in the districts/precincts. All issues and violations of policy should be addressed in the individual commands by the Commander’s prior to being reviewed by OCR and then the Monitor.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Meet with DPD’s Civil Rights Integrity Bureau (CRIB) to discuss our investigatory stop concerns, and the timeliness of commanders’ reviews as it relates to auditable forms that require daily review. Completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of all reports and auditable forms continue to affect field units and the quality of administrative review.
• Review other investigative units to determine their compliance with interrogations, interviews, conveyances, and material witness policies. During our April 2012 site visit, DPD had drafted a plan to centralize its general investigative units and the plan was implemented; however, the failure of the OIC to properly indicate holds over 48 hours still exists. While command reviews have been exceptional, the ability of personnel completing the Warrant Tracking Form needs to improve.
• Our review of documentation for this reporting period indicated a high number of instances where holds exceeded the 48-hour requirement and where the Warrant Tracking Forms were not completed. We advised CRIB of this issue during our July and October 2012 site visits, and again during our January and April 2013 visits.
• Meet with the commanders, if possible, of each district and precinct to discuss issues relating to auditable forms and their role in ensuring compliance.
• Inquire with DPD if any additional processes have been enacted to address the dilemma that occurs when a hold has been previously placed on an arrestee, and the warrant request to the Prosecutor’s Office on the current charge has been denied. The concern for DPD in these instances creates a delay in presenting the hold for arraignment within 48 hours only on the basis of the hold.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 69 of 186 Pg ID 9380

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 68

July 10, 2013

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

42

Define and prohibit arrest without probable cause

In Compliance

43 Review all arrests for probable cause

In Compliance

44 Revise investigatory stop-and-frisk policy

In Compliance

45 Written account of stops and frisks

In Compliance

46 Revise witness policies

In Compliance

47 Revise above in three months

In Compliance

48 Document content, etc. of interviews, etc.

In Compliance

49 Arrests receive prompt judicial review

In Compliance

50 Charges to Prosecutor within 48 hours

In Compliance

51 Document of late warrant requests

In Compliance

52 Revise hold policies

In Compliance

53 Documentation of all holds

In Compliance

54 Policy for restricting telephone access

In Compliance

55 Document and review such restrictions

In Compliance

56 Define material witness

In Compliance

57 Custody of material witnesses-court order

In Compliance

58 Arrests and detention record requirements

In Compliance

59 Required written review of violations

In Compliance

60 Required written review of violations

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation
In Compliance
In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS
The stated mission of the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) is to assure the public’s trust and confidence in DPD by conducting thorough and impartial investigations into allegations of criminality and serious misconduct lodged against members of the Department, as well as other City of Detroit employees. IAD is charged with the prevention, discovery, and investigation of criminal allegations and allegations of serious misconduct against Department members and City employees who are assigned within the DPD; IAD is responsible for all external complaints alleging possible criminal misconduct.
Consistent with this obligation, IAD accepts information from any source; and requires that all officers and employees document all complaints filed in writing, verbally, in person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile, or by electronic mail.
During our most recent site visit, we examined the investigative procedures employed by IAD for consistency in the application of procedural fairness, timeliness, confidentiality, and the

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 70 of 186 Pg ID 9381

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 69

July 10, 2013

meticulous reporting of facts and results of an investigation. The IAD Standard Operating Procedures were revised in January 2011 to include Section 5-8, Case Tracking.
The Office of the Chief Investigator (OCI) is the investigative arm of the Board of Police Commissioners (BOPC). OCI is responsible for investigating non-criminal external complaints. The Board has plenary authority over citizen complaints. OCI operates independently of the Detroit Police Department and is led by a civilian Chief Investigator who is appointed by the BOPC. OCI is staffed with a combination of civilian and sworn investigators who assist in the investigation of citizen complaints. OCI’s mission is to provide meaningful and objective investigations of citizen complaints of police misconduct.
OCI investigates non-criminal allegations of misconduct against Detroit Police Department personnel for the following: Arrest; Demeanor; Entry; Harassment; Force; Procedure; Property; and Search and Seizure. OCI employees are required to accept complaints from any source and by any method of communication including in writing, verbally, in person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile, or by electronic mail. Members of the public may also file complaints at the BOPC office or at BOPC meetings.
During our most recent site visit, we met with the BOPC Staff, the Chief Investigator, and supervising investigators assigned to OCI. We discussed with specificity the cases which were deemed noncompliant during the last reporting period. We also attended case review meetings with all investigative staff.

CJ Requirement U61
The DPD and City shall revise their external complaint policy to clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of OCI and the DPD regarding the receipt, investigation and review of external complaints. At a minimum, the plan shall specify each agency’s responsibility for receiving, recording, investigating and tracking complaints; each agency’s responsibility for conducting community outreach and education regarding complaints; how, when and in what fashion the agencies shall exchange information, including complaint referrals and information about sustained complaints.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 71 of 186 Pg ID 9382

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 70

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U62
The DPD and the City shall develop and implement an informational campaign regarding external complaints, including:
a. informing persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any DPD employee;
b. distributing complaint forms, fact sheets and informational posters at City Hall, OCI, all DPD precincts, libraries, on the internet and, upon request, to community groups and community centers;
c. broadcasting public service announcements that describe the complaint process; and
d. posting permanently a placard describing the complaint process, with relevant phone numbers, in the lobby of each DPD precinct
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U63
The DPD shall require all officers to carry informational brochures and contact forms in their vehicles at all times while on-duty. The DPD shall develop a contact form within 60 days of the effective date of this Agreement. The contact form shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the contact form within 60 days of the review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall require all officers to inform an individual of his or her right to make a complaint, if an individual objects to an officer’s conduct. The DPD shall prohibit officers from discouraging any person from making a complaint or refusing to take a complaint.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

A. Intake and Tracking
CJ Requirement U64
The DPD and the City shall revise their policies regarding the intake and tracking of external complaints to define complaint and misconduct as those terms are defined in this Agreement and require all officers and OCI employees to accept and document all complaints filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 72 of 186 Pg ID 9383

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 71

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U65
The DPD and the City shall permit the intake officer or employee to include a factual account and/or description of a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but not an opinion regarding the complainant’s mental competency or veracity.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U66
The DPD and the City shall assign all complaints a unique identifier, which shall be provided to the complainant, and a description of the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy or improper search).
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

B. External Complaint Investigations
CJ Requirement U67
The DPD and the City shall revise its policies regarding external complaint investigations to:
a. provide that all complaints shall be referred for investigation and resolution by OCI or, if the complaint alleges potentially criminal conduct by an officer, by IAD;
b. permit the informal resolution of complaints alleging only inadequate service or the complainant’s innocence of a charge and require the investigation and formal resolution of all other complaints;
c. refer all complaints to the appropriate agency within five business days of their receipt;
d. require that the complainant shall be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation;
e. develop written criteria for IAD and OCI investigator applicants, including the applicant’s complaint and disciplinary history and investigative experience;
f. implement mandatory pre-service and in-service training for all IAD and OCI investigators, including intake, investigations, interviews and resolutions of external complaints;
g. require IAD and OCI to complete all investigations within 90 days of receiving the complaint and

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 73 of 186 Pg ID 9384

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 72

July 10, 2013

h. require that: (1) upon completion of the investigation by a command other than OCI, the complainant shall be notified of its outcome and, if the complaint is sustained, whether disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action has been recommended; and (2) upon completion of an investigation by OCI the complainant shall be notified of its outcome and, if the complaint is sustained, its referral to the Chief of Police for appropriate disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.28
Comments:
Office of the Chief Investigator: For this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected OCI cases. Three of the cases were transferred to IAD, and one was transferred to Force Investigations. One of the IAD cases involved an allegation of lewd behavior; another involved an allegation of theft of a cell phone; and the other involved allegations of damage to property and force.. The case transferred to Force Investigations alleged force causing serious facial injuries. While all of these referrals were appropriate, none of them were timely. The cases transferred to IAD took between 41 and 53 days to refer. Sixty-four days after the force complaint was lodged, the OCI investigator learned that Force Investigations had already investigated the matter and reached a finding.
Five cases were resolved informally, and all met the criteria for an Informal Complaint Resolution (ICR), as they involved complaints of inadequate service or innocence of the charge. In two cases, complainants did not believe they deserved the citations they received. In two others cases, the complainants took exception to the perceived slow response times to their calls for service. In the remaining case, the complainant alleged that responding officers failed to investigate her property damage claims. Officers responded twice and documented their investigation each time.
Three cases in our sample were administratively closed, and all were appropriate for such closure. In one, the investigator determined that a Michigan State Trooper was the subject of the complaint. In another, the subject officer retired from service. The remaining case lacked specificity. A complainant, who subsequently refused to cooperate further with the investigation, alleged that he went to an unknown precinct and was treated rudely by unknown officers.
Ninety-two of the 100 cases we reviewed were completed within 90 days, a decrease from the ninety-six timely cases during the last review period. OCI successfully eliminated its backlog of cases two quarters ago.
Ninety-six of the 100 cases we reviewed were referred to OCI within five business days as required by DPD policy; most cases were transferred within one to three days. However, four cases took between seven and 22 days to be referred. We also noted the untimely transfer of four cases from OCI to IAD and Force Investigations, as described earlier.
In most cases, we noted efforts to keep the complainant informed of case progress. Often, this correspondence involved attempts to encourage uncooperative complainants to participate in their investigations. However, we identified 12 cases in which complainants did not receive
28 Amended by Court Order dated September 15, 2008.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 74 of 186 Pg ID 9385

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 73

July 10, 2013

update letters after 45 days as required by OCI policy. This represents a 56% decrease in such cases over the previous reporting period. In all applicable cases, the complainants were notified of the disposition of their cases, and if any allegations were sustained, they were advised that the case was referred to the Chief of Police for appropriate corrective action.
During our previous site visits, we verified ongoing in-service training for OCI personnel. Much of this training occurs in conjunction with other DPD employees. While we do not discourage this practice, we encourage OCI to explore training specific to OCI’s responsibilities, in order to address knowledge and skill gaps that impact the quality of its investigations. The Chief Investigator continues to develop OCI specific training, and her staff meetings frequently have a training component.
The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: IAD Standard Operating Procedures do not specifically permit or encourage informal resolution due the nature of their investigative jurisdiction of alleged criminality and/or serious misconduct lodged against Department personnel. Accordingly, IAD investigates and makes findings in each case.
IAD Standard Operating Procedures and OCI policy require that all complaints be referred to the appropriate agency within five business days of their receipt. Historically, we discovered significant delays in transferring appropriate cases from OCI to IAD. During the current reporting period, we reviewed 26 IAD cases, and determined that two complaints alleging criminal misconduct had been referred to IAD within the appropriate time period.
The IAD Standard Operating Procedures contains criteria for investigator applicants and training. IAD is current in its training requirements. There have been no new applicants to IAD during this period.
In cases of prolonged investigations, IAD must provide an updated case status to complainants, and upon closure, notify them of the closure, finding(s), and action(s) taken, where appropriate.
Our review determined that IAD is in compliance with the notifications to complainants upon both the opening and the closure of all investigations.
During our current review of 26 investigations, five exceeded the 90-day time limit. Of those, the reviewer determined that four were delayed due to criminal prosecutions. One investigation exceeded the time limit by 30 days due to difficulty in locating and interviewing multiple witnesses. All delayed investigations were documented and approved by the supervisor. There were no cases that were inappropriately delayed during this period.
DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 75 of 186 Pg ID 9386

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 74

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U68
The DPD and the City shall review and evaluate the external complaint review process to require:
a. the Chief Investigator or his/her designee to complete review of OCI investigations within 7 days of completion of the supervisor’s review;
b. the Board of Police Commissioners to complete review of OCI investigations within 45 days of completion of the Chief Investigator’s review;29 and
c. the Chief of Police or his or her designee to complete his or her review of external complaints within 7 days of completion of the BOPC’s review.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During this reporting period, the Chief Investigator (or in her absence, her designee) reviewed all investigations submitted to her within the prescribed seven-day period.
The Board of Police Commissioners completed all of its reviews within the prescribed forty-fiveday period.
During our most recent site visit, we learned that OCI failed to send any Board-reviewed investigations to the Police Chief’s office for the entire quarter. Consequently, the Chief or his designee was unable to complete any reviews. The Chief Investigator advised us of this issue as soon as she was made aware of it, and she informed us that she addressed the issue with the person responsible for coordinating these transfers. We also have to question how seriously the reviews are conducted in the Chief’s Office, if the three-month lack of cases was not noticed or questioned.
The City remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, but will be held out of compliance if all appropriate reviews are not conducted during the next quarter.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

29 Amended by Court Order dated July 18, 2003.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 76 of 186 Pg ID 9387

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 75

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U69
In addition to the investigatory report and evaluation requirements, each allegation in an administrative external complaint investigation shall be resolved by making one of the following dispositions:
a. “Unfounded,” where the investigation revealed no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred;
b. “Sustained,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur and the actions of the officer violated DPD policies, procedures or training;
c. “Not Sustained,” where there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and
d. “Exonerated,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate DPD policies, procedures or training.
Comments:
During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected OCI cases. For purposes of this paragraph, we evaluated the determination of finding based on the information in each case file. We do not concur with the findings assigned to one or more allegations in five cases, a 67% decrease from our last review. Two cases involved allegations of search without a warrant. In each case, it was determined that search warrants existed, and the allegations should have been unfounded rather than exonerated. In another investigation, the investigator exonerated an officer for failing to take a report, even though it was determined that a report was taken. We also believe there was enough evidence to sustain a force allegation in a case arising from a domestic dispute call. The investigator reached a not sustained determination.
We also identified one case in which an allegation was not investigated. The complainant alleged that an officer confiscated his phone and used it to send text messages.
OCI must not only make one of the findings specified above, but the findings must be consistent with the defined requirements and supported by the investigations conducted. Accordingly, the City is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of the requirement.
In addition, we reviewed all 26 IAD cases – including internal and external complaints – that were completed during this reporting period. During earlier reviews, there were dispositions in each of the investigations. We did not always agree with the dispositions, especially those that were derived from faulty interviews and/or the failure to gather pertinent evidence. When we discussed this issue with IAD personnel, IAD advised that it was making efforts to correct the problems.
During this reporting period, all investigations contained the required dispositions. Included in the 26 investigations were 47 allegations of misconduct. The following is a breakdown of the dispositions of the 47 allegations: 25 sustained; nine not sustained; 13 unfounded; and none exonerated. Based on our review of the investigative documents, we are in agreement with the dispositions. IAD is in compliance with this requirement.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 77 of 186 Pg ID 9388

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 76

July 10, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

Critical Issues:
We examined 26 closed IAD cases and 100 closed OCI cases for the period of January 1, through March 31, 2013. Our review disclosed that the following issues continue to require attention:
• IAD Case Tracking: During the first quarter of 2011, IAD adopted a computer program to aid in tracking its cases. While the system does not alert the users to deadlines, it does allow for communication between the investigator and supervisor. The supervisor recently incorporated a computerized calendar into the process, which notifies her when an assignment date has been reached. The calendar also allows investigators to schedule Garrity interviews to avoid conflicts. Cases that are submitted to the prosecuting attorneys are tracked, and updates are requested on a regular basis. IAD appears to have eliminated the backlog of overdue cases, including those cases that are awaiting disposition or prosecution at the Prosecutor’s Office. The IAD manager meets regularly with members of the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office to discuss the viability of the cases still awaiting decisions.
• Quality v. Quantity of OCI Investigations: As noted in our past several reports, OCI worked extremely hard to address their large backlog of cases. The quality of their investigations suffered, both because of long periods of inactivity and because of the pressure to complete these investigations and get them off of the books. OCI has eliminated the backlog and as of this writing, OCI has no overdue cases. OCI’s Chief Investigator and its supervising investigators have turned their attention to addressing the quality of investigations. During every site visit, we discuss numerous cases in detail from our most recently completed assessment. We note many deficiencies that can be addressed with a thorough review of the cases and independent verification of the content of interviews.
• Transfer of Cases to the Office of the Chief of Police: OCI failed to transfer any cases to the Chief’s office for the required review during this quarter. Failure to correct this will result in a noncompliance determination during our next review.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Review a sample of the cases closed by OCI and IAD for the months of April, May, and June 2013.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 78 of 186 Pg ID 9389

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 77

July 10, 2013

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 - Policy Phase 2 – Implementation

61 Revise external complaint policies

In Compliance In Compliance

62 Information campaign re complaints

In Compliance In Compliance

63 Officers carry information/contact forms

In Compliance In Compliance

64 Policy to define complaint intake/track

In Compliance In Compliance

65 Permit factual account, no opinion

In Compliance In Compliance

66 Unique identifier for complaints

In Compliance In Compliance

67 Revision of complaint investigations

In Compliance Not in Compliance

68 Time limits for review of investigations/complaints In Compliance In Compliance

69 Required finding categories specified

In Compliance Not in Compliance

VII. GENERAL POLICIES
This section of the Consent Judgment addresses a variety of issues in general terms. It seeks to ensure that when the DPD develops policies, all the terms used are clearly defined, and that prior to making policy revisions, the DPD posts the proposals on the DPD website to inform the community of the proposed revisions. It requires DPD to advise all of its officers that taking police actions in violation of DPD policies shall subject them to a variety of possible actions, to include disciplinary, criminal prosecution, or civil liability. This section also requires officers to report acts of misconduct by other officers, whether on or off duty. Additionally, this section required DPD to revise its policy regarding police actions by off-duty officers; and to revise the policies on how DPD handles prisoners, to include summoning first aid as necessary, summoning assistance if required, and prohibiting the accompanying of prisoners to the holding cell area. This section also required DPD to develop a foot pursuit policy and to plan for adequate distribution of manpower. DPD has developed the appropriate policies and has achieved implementation.

CJ Requirement U70 In developing and revising the policies discussed in this Agreement, the DPD shall ensure that all terms are clearly defined. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 79 of 186 Pg ID 9390

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 78

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U71
The DPD shall continue to make available proposed policy revisions to the community, for their review, comment and education. Such policy revisions shall also be published on the DPD’s website to allow comments to be provided directly to the DPD.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U72
The DPD shall advise all officers, including supervisors, that taking police action in violation of DPD policy shall subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U73
The DPD and the City shall develop a plan for ensuring regular field deployment of an adequate number of supervisors of patrol units and specialized units that deploy in the field to implement the provisions of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the four quarters of calendar year 2012, we found that 100%, 98%, 97% and 97%, respectively, of the randomly selected platoons and specialized units were in compliance with the required 1:10 ratio of supervisors to officers in patrol and specialized units on the dates surveyed.
During this reporting period, we again surveyed Daily Details for three days selected at random (Sunday, January 6; Monday, February 25; and Tuesday, March 5, 2013). We found that 103 (97%) of the 106 platoons, and 1,388 (97%) of the 1,424 officers working on those dates, were within the required 1:10 ratio.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 80 of 186 Pg ID 9391

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 79

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U74 The DPD shall enforce its policies requiring all DPD officers to report any misconduct committed by another DPD officer, whether committed on-duty or off-duty. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U75
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to:
a. provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty DPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem;
b. prohibit off-duty officers from carrying or using firearms or taking police action in situations where an officer’s performance may be impaired or the officer’s ability to take objective action may be compromised; and
c. provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U76
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding prisoners to:
a. require officers to summon emergency medical services to transport prisoners when the restraints employed indicate the need for medical monitoring;
b. require officers to utilize appropriate precautions when interacting with a prisoner who demonstrates he or she is recalcitrant or resistant, including summoning additional officers, summoning a supervisor and using appropriate restraints; and
c. prohibit arresting and transporting officers from accompanying prisoners into the holding cell area.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 81 of 186 Pg ID 9392

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 80

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U77
The DPD shall develop a foot pursuit policy to:
a. require officers to consider particular factors in determining whether a foot pursuit is appropriate, including the offense committed by the subject, whether the subject is armed, the location (e.g., lighting and officer familiarity), whether more than one officer is available to engage in the pursuit, the proximity of reinforcements, and the ability to apprehend the subject at a later date;
b. emphasize alternatives to foot pursuits, including area containment, surveillance, and obtaining reinforcements;
c. emphasize the danger of pursuing and engaging a subject with a firearm in hand; and
d. require officers to document all foot pursuits that involve a use of force on a separate, auditable form, such as the use of force report.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

Critical Issues:
DPD must make a concerted effort to ensure member compliance with the DPD policy dealing with foot pursuits. Special attention should be given to considering alternatives to foot pursuits, relying more strongly on area containment and availability of support units.

Next Steps: During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to monitor relevant policy changes, including efforts to address the public’s interest in policy.
• Continue to heed the training requirements inherent in policy development in this area. • Monitor the presence of arresting or transport officers in the holding cell areas.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 82 of 186 Pg ID 9393

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 81

July 10, 2013

¶

Requirements

Phase 1 – Phase

2

–

Policy

Implementation

70

Clear definitions in policies

In Compliance In Compliance

71

Proposed policy changes open to comm.

In Compliance In Compliance

72

Advise officers policy violations disciplined In Compliance In Compliance

73

Adequate officer/supervisor ratio

In Compliance In Compliance

74

Enforce misconduct reporting requirements In Compliance In Compliance

75

Revise policies regarding off-duty officers In Compliance In Compliance

76

Revise prisoner-related policies

In Compliance In Compliance

77

Develop foot pursuit policy

In Compliance In Compliance

VIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
This portion of the Use of Force Consent Judgment addresses several key management areas including the development of a risk management system, audit requirements, including in-car cameras, personnel evaluations, and the reduction of a backload of disciplinary cases. Thirteen of the 28 requirements in this section address the development and use of a comprehensive risk management system.

A. Risk Management Database
CJ Requirement U78
The DPD shall devise a comprehensive risk management plan, including:
a. a risk management database (discussed in paragraphs 79-90);
b. a performance evaluation system (discussed in paragraph 91);
c. an auditing protocol (discussed in paragraphs 92-99);
d. regular and periodic review of all DPD policies; and
e. regular meetings of DPD management to share information and evaluate patterns of conduct by DPD that potentially increase the DPD’s liability.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
This requirement established the general requirements of the risk management system that are spelled out in greater detail in the requirements that immediately follow. It has now been four quarters since DPD achieved Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. The overall system now functions well and is used to assess and manage risk in the Department. The individual focus of the system with its attention to officer behavior is buttressed by the use of data at the

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 83 of 186 Pg ID 9394

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 82

July 10, 2013

organizational level, as illustrated by the regular Command Accountability Meetings and the Quarterly Risk Assessment Review Reports.
The Department also uses a process of continuous improvement in which the risk management process is considered and revised as new opportunities for its use are appreciated and as improvements are considered. In short, the notion of risk management is fully integrated into the Department’s normal work. This includes the processes of assessing and improving officer performance and using risk related data in the daily management of the Department.
As noted in our last report, some final steps remain to be completed including the full integration of the current procedures into the computerized system and Departmental policy. Sustainability of this important process will be enhanced by those steps and by continued attention, particularly to the use of the system by supervisors.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U79
The DPD shall enhance and expand its risk management system to include a new computerized relational database for maintaining, integrating and retrieving data necessary for supervision and management of the DPD. Priority shall be given to the DPD obtaining an established program and database. The DPD shall ensure that the risk management database it designs or acquires is adequate to evaluate the performance of DPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts; to manage risk and liability; and to promote civil rights and best police practices. The DPD shall regularly use this data for such review and monitoring.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. To consider compliance we review monthly MAS status reports. For the reporting period, we also reviewed the monthly command reviews that document the use of MAS, and the results of PEERS reviews that are now completed through the Risk management Unit. We also reviewed the reports of the intervention processes used by supervisors.
Based on our examination of the use of the system, including the input of data, the use of that data; the identification, review and intervention with officers exceeding thresholds established in the system; and our review of the continued development and use of this system, we again recognize the achievement of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 84 of 186 Pg ID 9395

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 83

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U80
The new risk management database shall collect and record the following information:
a. all use of force reports and use of force investigations;
b. all canine deployments;
c. all canine apprehensions;
d. all canine bites;
e. all canisters of chemical spray issued to officers;
f. all injured prisoner reports and injured prisoner investigations;
g. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct” or “interfering with a city employee;”
h. all firearm discharge reports and firearm discharge investigations;
i. all incidents in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target;
j. all complaints and complaint investigations, entered at the time the complaint is filed and updated to record the finding;
k. all preliminary investigations and investigations of alleged criminal conduct;
l. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the City, or its officers, or agents, resulting from DPD operations or the actions of DPD personnel, entered at the time proceedings are initiated and updated to record disposition;
m. all vehicle and foot pursuits and traffic collisions;
n. all reports regarding arrests without probable cause or where the individual was discharged from custody without formal charges being sought;
o. all reports regarding investigatory stops and/or frisks unsupported by reasonable suspicion;
p. all reports regarding interviews, interrogations or conveyances in violation of DPD policy;
q. the time between arrest and arraignment for all arrests;
r. all reports regarding a violation of DPD prompt judicial review policy;
s. all reports regarding a violation of DPD hold policy;
t. all restrictions on phone calls or visitors imposed by officers;
u. all instances in which the DPD is informed by a prosecuting authority that a declination to prosecute any crime was based, in whole or in part, upon concerns about the credibility of a DPD officer or that a motion to suppress evidence was granted on the grounds of a constitutional violation by a DPD officer;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 85 of 186 Pg ID 9396

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 84

July 10, 2013

v. all disciplinary action taken against officers;
w. all non-disciplinary corrective action required of officers, excluding administrative counseling records;
x. all awards and commendations received by officers;
y. the assignment, rank, and training history of officers; and
z. firearms qualification information of officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
We continue to find that the expected information is present for all the mandated data categories. The totals for data entered during the reporting period for all relevant subtasks are presented below. Our review of MAS reports also supports the fact that these data are consulted and used in the risk management process. We continue to recognize the importance of sound data entry and retention practices and we anticipate further review of specific data elements each reporting period. The data below show that there is a general consistency in the numbers across most categories for the time periods shown. The exception to that would seem to be on categories considering prompt judicial review and length of “holds” of detainees.
To supplement the collection of the data seen below the Risk Group has also added a civilian auditor to the team. The full responsibilities of the position are still being developed, but currently involve reviewing settled lawsuits for the 2012 calendar year for cases of Violation of Constitutional Rights claims. We are reviewing the profiles of the members named to determine if there is a pattern of behavior.
The Risk Group has also taken significant steps to assess the quality of data in MAS. In previous months, the Risk Group and the Audit Team have focused efforts on the review of CRISNET reports to ensure that they are not under reporting uses of force, specifically acquiring a target. Based on the information gleaned, a formal report will be generated and shared with the commanding officer.
The group is also examining other tools to assist in data analysis. They are working with IBM on several data related issues and are examining adopting, without additional costs, SPSS as a data mining tool.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 86 of 186 Pg ID 9397

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 85

July 10, 2013

U80 Data Requirements – Quarterly Department Totals

Subtask Text

1/1-3/31, 2012

4/1-6/30, 2012

7/1-9/30, 2012

10/1-12/31, 2012

1/1-3/31, 2013

a use of force reports

237

334

267

222

209

a use of force investigation

95

118

107

86

63

b canine deployments

6

7

3

5

5

c canine apprehension

0

1

2

3

4

d canine bites

0

0

1

0

0

f injured prisoner reports

9

17

16

16

15

g injured prisoner investigations

9

17

15

14

9

g force and arrests for resisting arrest

101

120

126

102

94

g force and arrests for assault on an officer

43

65

52

69

50

g force and arrests for disorderly conduct

14

31

21

19

12

g force and arrests for interfering with city employee

5

16

12

11

3

h firearm discharge reports

10

8

15

12

9

h firearm discharge investigations

7

8

15

12

9

i officer draws a firearm & acquires target

30

43

21

15

10

j Complaints

272

232

286

247

178

k investigations of criminal misconduct by officers

10

0

0

0

12

l. criminal proceedings against members

1

3

3

2

4

l. all civil lawsuits

25

18

48

29

4

m vehicle pursuits

45

40

21

30

20

m foot pursuits

9

35

16

8

16

m traffic collisions

43

36

28

31

33

n reports of arrests w/o probable cause

0

0

0

4

3

n individuals discharged from custody w/o charges

509

610

529

453

444

o investigatory stops and frisks w/o reasonable suspicion

Fris ks =21 Sto p s =12

Fris ks =13 Sto p s =6

Fris ks =2 Sto p s =6

Fris ks =4 Sto p s =3

Fris ks =4 Sto p s =7

Inte rvie ws=0,	
  

reports of interviews, interrogation, or conveyances in viol Interviews=11,	
   Interrogation=0 Interviews=1,	
   Interviews=1,	
   Interviews=10,	
  

p of policy

Inte rrog a tion=6,	
  

, 	
  

Inte rrog a tion=0,	
   Inte rrog a tion=0,	
   Inte rrog a tion=27,	
  

C onve ya nc e s=0 C onve ya nc e s= C onve ya nc e s=0 C onve ya nc e s=0 C onve ya nc e s=6

0

r reports of violations of prompt judicial review

848

829

765

769

825

s reports of violation of DPD hold policy

111

189

350

431

528

t reports of restrictions on phone calls or visits

15

18

15

35

9

u report of declination to prosecute due to police conduct or

0

0

0

0

0

suppressed evidence

v disciplinary action taken against officers

70

15

41

3

0

w non-disciplinary corrective action

463

131

228

135

161

*Note: Under category o (Stops and Frisks), only those for which no reasonable suspicion is reported are collected in MAS.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 87 of 186 Pg ID 9398

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 86

July 10, 2013

The quarterly review of these data provides a means by which the Department can assess DPD activity and also examine the quality of information entered into MAS. This analysis continues to indicate that the appropriate data are collected and entered into the risk management system.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U81
The new risk management database shall include, for each incident, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (including name, pension number, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (including race, ethnicity or national origin, sex, and age).
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U82
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management database and addressing data storage. The Data Input Plan shall:
a. detail the specific fields of information to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise);
b. specify the unit responsible for inputting data, the deadlines for inputting the data in a timely, accurate, and complete manner;
c. specify the historical time periods for which information is to be input and the deadlines for inputting the data in an accurate and timely fashion; and
d. requires that the data be maintained in a secure and confidential manner.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The current Data Input Plan was submitted for review and was approved by the Department of Justice. Our observations and interviews with DPD continue to support the conclusion that the provisions of the Data Input Plan are reflected in the practices of the Department.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 88 of 186 Pg ID 9399

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 87

July 10, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U83
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Report Protocol for the risk management database that details the types of routine reports the DPD shall generate and pattern identifications the DPD shall conduct. The Report Protocol shall:
a. require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria:
i. number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
ii. average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and
iii. identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
b. establish thresholds for the numbers and types of incidents requiring a review by an officer’s supervisor of whether the officer or group of officers is engaging in at-risk behavior (in addition to the regular reviews required by paragraph 84); and
c. require the database to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The Department’s revised Report Protocol was also approved by the Department of Justice in a letter dated June 9, 2011. Our observations and interviews with DPD continue to support the conclusion that the provisions of the Report Protocol are reflected in the practices of the Department. To consider this, we also examine command monthly reviews in MAS, and confirm both the availability and use of the MAS data at the command level. As in previous quarters, during our most recent site visit, members of the Monitoring Team attended the Command Compliance Review Meeting and observed the use of information from MAS.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 89 of 186 Pg ID 9400

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 88

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U84
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Review Protocol for using the risk management database that addresses data analysis, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and auditing. The Review Protocol shall require:
a. that when an officer or group of officers pass a threshold established in the Report Protocol the officer’s(s’) supervisor shall review all information in the risk management database regarding the officer(s), together with other relevant information;
b. the reviewing supervisor to document whether he or she took non-disciplinary corrective action or recommended disciplinary action, the basis for this decision, and what corrective action was taken, if any;
c. supervisors to review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, database reports, together with other relevant information, to evaluate individual officer and unit activity for at-risk behavior;
d. precinct and unit commanders to review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, database reports, together with other relevant information, to evaluate individual supervisor’s assessment and analysis of information in the risk management database and the corrective action taken by supervisors;
e. appropriate DPD supervisors to review and evaluate, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, police performance citywide, using all relevant information from the risk management database and other relevant information and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all DPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents;
f. commanders and supervisors conducting such periodic reviews to take non-disciplinary corrective action when appropriate for individual officers, supervisors or units and document any such action in writing;
g. that the information in the database be accessible to commanders, supervisors and the BPC;
h. that the information in the database is considered when evaluating a DPD employee for transfer or promotion;
i. commanders and supervisors to promptly review records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units;
j. commanders and supervisors to be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management database to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk;
k. that a designated DPD unit be responsible for managing and administering the database, including conducting quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above; and
l. that aggregated information from the risk management database be shared on a regular and periodic basis with training and policy planning staff.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 90 of 186 Pg ID 9401

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 89

July 10, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. As noted in our last report, the Review Protocol was revised, submitted for review and approved by DOJ on June 9, 2011. Interviews with staff assigned to MAS continue to support the conclusion that the review process is being implemented consistent with policy. To further assess that, we examine all Personnel Evaluation and Enhancement Review Sessions (PEERS) completed and signed off in the reporting period for the quarter. The data comparing this reporting period to the previous reporting period are presented below. This chart reflects the revised PEERS process in which, when thresholds are met, PEERs are completed by the Risk Management Unit. When action is seen as needed, supervisors prepare and implements monitoring and intervention processes. This approach has eliminated the problem of false positives that required extensive review and reporting by supervisors.

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  PEERS	
  and	
  	
  Their	
  Outcomes

Jan-­‐March	
  2012 April-­‐June	
  2012 July	
  1-­‐Sept	
  30	
  2012	
  

Total	
  PEERS

63

68

58

No	
  Action	
  Needed

53	
  (84%)

55	
  (81%)

41	
  (84%)

Monitoring

8	
  (13%)

8	
  (12%)

6	
  	
  (12%)

Other/Pending

2	
  (3%)

5	
  	
  (7%)

2	
  (4%)

PEERS	
  Pending	
  Review	
  by	
  

OCR

0

0

0

PEERS	
  returned	
  for	
  

12	
  supervisors	
   3	
  supervisors	
  5	
   3	
  supervisors	
  5	
  

correction	
  or	
  completion 13	
  reviews

reviews

reviews

Oct	
  1-­‐Dec	
  31	
  2012 27 0 13 7

Jan-­‐March	
  2013 25 0 10 4

7

24

PEERS	
  are	
  under	
  by	
   PEERS	
  are	
  under	
  by	
  

OCR

OCR

For the cases shown above, the risk management unit now performs an initial review of officers who exceed thresholds to determine if they are suitable for review. The unit also selects officers for review based on the MAS indicators as normed by arrest numbers. This reporting period, those processes resulted in selection of 25 officers for review. Those reviews are all either pending or have already resulted in selection for monitoring. As shown, no reviews in this process result in “no action” being taken. This is an efficient and effective improvement to the risk management process and is part of the ongoing improvement being made by the unit.
All of the above data indicate that the system is heavily used and carefully administered in a manner consistent with risk reduction goals. The use of risk management data through the command accountability meeting process illustrates the value of this system to the daily management of DPD.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 91 of 186 Pg ID 9402

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 90

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U85
The DPD shall seek to ensure that the risk management database is created as expeditiously as possible. As part of this effort, the DPD, in consultation with the DOJ, shall organize the risk management database into modules in developing the Data Input Plan, the Report Protocol, the Review Protocol and the Request for Proposals and in negotiating with contractors, such that difficulties with one aspect of the risk management database do not delay implementation of other modules.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U86
Where information about a single incident is entered into the risk management database from more than one document (e.g., from a complaint form and a use of force report), the risk management database shall use a common control number or other equally effective means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U87
The City shall maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management database during the officer’s employment with the DPD and for at least five years after separation. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in the risk management database.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U88
The new risk management database shall be developed and implemented according to the following schedule:
a. By January 24, 2008, the City shall have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management database consisting of: 1) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the City and DPD’s existing automated systems; ii)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 92 of 186 Pg ID 9403

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 91

July 10, 2013

necessary database software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the information system completed, including historic data. The DOJ and the Monitor shall have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using new and historical data and test data created specifically for the purposes of checking the risk management database.
b. The risk management database shall be operational and fully implemented by July 24, 2008.
c. The parties and the independent monitor shall meet on a monthly basis to discuss what actions have been taken during the previous month toward development of the new risk management database.
d. The defendant shall present to the plaintiff and the independent monitor, on a monthly basis, evidence of satisfactory progress sufficient to justify a conclusion that completion of the new risk management database by August 11, 2008 remains feasible. If at any time the plaintiff concludes that successful completion of the project within the timeframes described in this paragraph is unlikely, the plaintiff shall so notify the Court and the defendant. Within sixty days after receipt of such notice, the defendant shall issue an RFP to develop or complete development of the new risk management database as was required by 88c. of this Consent Judgment before it was amended. In that event, the requirements of paragraphs 88.d., 88.e., 88.f., and 88.g. of this Consent Judgment before it was amended shall be enforced, with dates adjusted as follows: the Review Protocol (paragraph 88.d.) shall be issued within five months after issuance of the RFP; the defendant shall select the contractor (paragraph 88.e) within seven months after issuance of the RFP; the beta version (paragraph 88.f) shall be ready for testing within fifteen months after issuance of the RFP; and the risk management database shall be operational (paragraph 88.g) within twenty-six months after issuance of the RFP.30
e. By May 31, 2004, the DPD shall select the contractor to create the risk management database.
f. By June 30, 2005, the City shall have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management database consisting of: i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the City and DPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary database software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the information system completed, including historic data. The DOJ and the Monitor shall have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using new and historical data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management database.
g. The risk management database shall be operational and fully implemented by December 31, 2005.

30 Amended by Court Orders dated November 9, 2007, and July 22, 2008

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 93 of 186 Pg ID 9404

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 92

July 10, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U89
Prior to implementation of the new risk management database, the DPD shall develop an interim system to identify patterns of conduct by DPD officers or groups of officers. The interim system shall require periodic reviews of relevant information, but no less than monthly, and evaluations of whether an officer or group of officers is engaging in at-risk behavior. This interim system shall collect and analyze the following information: citizen complaint reports and investigations; use of force investigations; shootings; vehicle chases; injured prisoner investigations; traffic collisions; canisters of chemical spray issued to officers; firearms qualifications; training; prompt judicial review; disciplinary action; arrest without probable cause; all reports regarding investigatory stops and/or frisks unsupported by reasonable suspicion; and all reports regarding interviews, interrogations or conveyances in violation of DPD policy in a format that facilitates entry into the final risk management database, to the fullest extent possible.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U90
Following the initial implementation of the risk management database, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the DPD may propose to subtract or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and subtract or modify standardized reports and queries. The DPD shall submit all such proposals for review and approval by the DOJ before implementation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the Phase 2 compliance status of this requirement. We will continue to monitor the risk management system to ensure that any significant changes are handled in a manner consistent with this requirement. Most recently, DPD has incorporated descriptions of its data norming process in the relevant policies. The changes in review process as noted above are expected to be reflected in policy and reviewed by DOJ.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 94 of 186 Pg ID 9405

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 93

July 10, 2013

B. Performance Evaluation System
CJ Requirement U91
DPD shall ensure that performance evaluations for all DPD employees below the rank of Deputy Chief occur at least annually and include, but are not limited to, consideration of the following:31
a. civil rights integrity;
b. adherence to law, including performing duties in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution and the Civil Rights laws of the United States; and
c. supervisor’s performance in identifying and addressing at-risk behavior in subordinates, including their supervision and review of use of force, arrests, care of prisoners, prisoner processing, and performance bearing upon honesty and integrity.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for the past nine reporting periods. To verify continued compliance for the current reporting period, we again examined a random sample of 120 evaluations drawn from all a list of all personnel. Our review verified that more than 94% of reviews were current and properly completed with original narratives, references to “no change in status,” or references to material in MAS.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Oversight
CJ Requirement U92
The DPD shall develop a protocol for conducting annual audits to be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol shall establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all DPD units and commands. The annual audit period for conducting the audits required by paragraphs 93 to 97 for the first year shall end on August 31, 2004. The subsequent annual periods shall end on July 17, 2005, and every year thereafter.32

31 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004. 32 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 95 of 186 Pg ID 9406

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 94

July 10, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
This requirement, and the five which follow it, established the structure and processes for auditing key functions in the Department. The required audits are completed annually and most were reported our in or last quarterly report leaving limited activity to report for this period.
Phase 2 compliance with this requirement is linked to compliance with the requirements of U9397. As noted in our last report, the audit protocol was revised, past audits were completed on schedule, and all new audits are now scheduled. The Audit Team also began conducting unannounced site inspections of facilities with holding cells and the review of Activity Logs for Stop and Frisk; Use of Force Form preparation; Investigative Reports related to paragraphs U48U50.
DPD continues in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U93
The DPD shall issue a report to the Chief of Police on the result of each audit and examine whether there is consistency throughout the DPD. The DPD shall also provide the reports to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD is also in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Completed audits contain Corrective Action Notices and corresponding plans submitted and signed by the appropriate command staff, with appropriate notification forwarded to the Chief.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 96 of 186 Pg ID 9407

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 95

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U94
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits, covering all DPD units and commands that investigate uses of force, prisoner injuries, and allegations of misconduct. The audits shall include reviewing a statistically valid sample of command, IAD, and Homicide Section investigations; evaluating whether the actions of the officer and the subject were captured correctly in the investigative report; and evaluating the preservation and analysis of the evidence and the appropriateness of the investigator’s conclusions.33
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Audits on use of force, prisoner injuries, and allegation of misconduct were completed during this quarter for the period ending January 31 and were followed by corrective action reports when necessary. As part of the audit protocol, new audits are scheduled.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U95
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits covering all precincts and specialized units that review a statistically valid sample of findings of probable cause, stop and frisk reports and witness identification and questioning documentation. The audits shall include evaluating the scope, duration, content, and voluntariness, if appropriate, of the police interaction. The audits shall include a comparison of the number of arrests to requests for warrants and a comparison of the number of arrests for which warrants were sought to judicial findings of probable cause.34
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. Stop and frisk audits were completed on schedule, and corrective action reports were completed. New audits are scheduled for completion on an annual basis in July. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.

33 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004. 34 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 97 of 186 Pg ID 9408

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 96

July 10, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U96
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits covering all precincts and specialized units that examine custodial detention practices. The audits shall include reviewing the length of detention between arrest and arraignment and the time to adjudicate holds.35
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. Custodial detention audits of all relevant facilities were completed on schedule and new audits are scheduled. As in the past, there have been areas recognized as needing improvement and subject to corrective action notices regarding detention practices. Improvement from the past is also noted in the audits. This requirement The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U97
The Chief Investigator of OCI shall designate an individual or entity to conduct regularly scheduled annual audits that examine external complaints and complaint investigations. The audit shall include reviewing a statistically valid sample of complaints that were resolved informally, reviewing a sample of OCI investigations of complaints, and contacting the complainants to evaluate whether the actions and views of the complainant were captured correctly in the complaint report and/or investigation. The Chief Investigator shall review all audit reports regarding officers under OCI command and, if appropriate, shall take nondisciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.36
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. This audit was completed for the reporting period ending January 31, 2013 and covering information through August 31, 2102.
35 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004. 36 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 98 of 186 Pg ID 9409

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 97

July 10, 2013

Consistent with the other oversight related requirements, the Department has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. Corrective action reports and plans were completed based on the audits. The Department remains in compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U98
The DPD shall conduct and document periodic random reviews of scout car camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes. In addition, the DPD shall require periodic random surveys of scout car video recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
While the numbers in our past audits were in compliance; and, as a result, the DPD has been found in Phase 2 compliance, the reviews produced few substantive results for the DPD. In past reports, we have noted that reviews where a supervisor simply randomly selects and views an event that has been recorded are helpful in confirming that the video equipment is operational and that, to some extent, it is being used. A better review technique would be for an event to be selected that occurred during the shift that requires video to be recorded and confirm that it was, in fact, recorded.
During the past year, DPD made adjustments its random review procedures but the new processes were disrupted by the technical failures experienced in the fall of 2012. Our examination of the random reviews generated in December 2012 produced mixed results. While we found a number of quality reviews done by supervisors who commented upon such matters as officer safety, tactics, professionalism and use of video and audio, the instances of supervisors identifying officer non-compliance with MVS requirements to video and audio every traffic stop were not realistic.
Our own random reviews produced less favorable results for the month. While DPD supervisors found 96% compliance for video and 86% for audio, we found 83% for video and 47% for audio in our random review of traffic stops. We observed in our last report that the problem, in part, was that the selection of the event to be reviewed was not truly random; the supervisor who conducted the review selected it.
To address the apparent weakness and improve the process, DPD advised that effective February 2013 the Department would institute a new random selection process whereby the Office of Civil Rights would identify which traffic stops be reviewed and task the field operations to review them.
During our April 2013 on-site review, we found that DPD had followed through with its plan to implement a new random review process in which CRIB selects the events to be reviewed. The

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 99 of 186 Pg ID 9410

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 98

July 10, 2013

new process was announced by message order that was effective beginning on February 2, 2013, and stated, “the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) shall notify individual commands specific traffic stop events that require a supervisory review of the in-car video/audio system.”
DPD made available the random review sheets from its new selection process for the month of February 2013. The Department focused on 38 police/citizen contacts selected by CRIB from the CAD system. Districts and precincts conducted 38 reviews observing video and audio compliance rates of 58% and 45%. These compliance rates are much more realistic than those that were found in previous “random” reviews in which the reviewing supervisor selected the event to be reviewed. Furthermore, we found a number of instances where supervisors commented on safety and tactical methods employed by the officers. The March 2013 reviews were not available for our review.
While the Department is experiencing difficulties in implementing the new system, we believe that the random review process is being improved.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U99
The DPD shall ensure regular meetings with local prosecutors to identify issues in officer, shift or unit performance.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. To verify continued compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we reviewed the minutes of the February 13, 2113 quarterly meeting involving DPD and members of the Prosecutor’s Office. Consistent with previous meetings, a wide range of topics discussed is reported in the meeting minutes including those relating to case dismissals, forensic evidence, gunshot residue tests, court arraignment times and various other crime issues. The next meeting is scheduled for August 7, 2013.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 100 of 186 Pg ID 9411

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 99

July 10, 2013

D. Use of Video Cameras
CJ Requirement U100
The DPD shall repair or replace all non-functioning video cameras.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
MVS equipment, particularly older units, is subject to breaking down and requiring repair. As a result, the total number of operational units at any one time varies. In July 2012, DPD estimated that it had about 303 MVS units operational. A total of 94 cars have been equipped with the new D911 video system. The complement of MVS equipment actually installed has remained the same, about 300 vehicles, since July 2011. At any one time, however, the equipment that is operational is less than 300.
During the third quarter of 2012, the IT Bureau (ITB) was focused on addressing and repairing a significant technical failure that had occurred and was disrupting the system for uploading data to its central server. To correct the problem, the Department acquired and in October 2012, installed a new central server that was dedicated to handling all the data from the newly acquired Data 911 (D911) MVS units. The new central server initially resolved the uploading problem but, since cars had not been able to upload for an extended period, many units were at maximum capacity and the overall system was not stabilized until late November 2012. We found that the DPD ITB resources were properly focused on repairing the disrupted uploading system.
During the first quarter of 2013 the ITB closely monitored the accumulation of data onto each of the Data 911 (D911) equipped cars. DPD has received 50 additional D911 units but installation of the new equipment was deferred until the new system was functioning smoothly.
The new D911 equipment allows the ITB to track each car’s storage at any one time. DPD found that when video storage in individual cars rose to over two GBs it was an indication of the system failing to properly off-load data. Using this technique and closely monitoring the system during the quarter the ITB detected a number of cars that were not properly uploading. To remedy the situation, the ITB installed two store and forward servers that it believes solved offloading problem. During our most recent site visit, we observed the report for the current status of the fleet of D911 equipped cars and found that only two had greater than two GBs of data. Both cars were to be checked by the ITB.
We reviewed the service log for the period January 1, through March 31, 2013 and found that the ITB handled 345 MVS related service actions during the quarter. Nine were classified as “active,” one as “closed unresolved,” and 335 (97%) as “completed.”
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 101 of 186 Pg ID 9412

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 100

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U101
The DPD policy on video cameras shall be revised and augmented to require:
a. activation of scout car video cameras at all times the officer is on patrol;
b. supervisors to review videotapes of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits and external complaints; and
c. that the DPD retain and preserve videotapes for at least 90 days, or as long as necessary for incidents to be fully investigated.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During past site visits, we found:
1. The DPD MVS cameras are set to operate 100% of the time on patrol. Full video is 2430 frames per second; MVS units are set to capture one frame of video per second at all non-emergency times. The equipment is set so that whenever the emergency lights are activated, the units switch to full-video mode and capture 28 frames per second. The Department now erases the one frame a second video after it has been stored for 24 hours.
2. DPD preserves and retains videos when it is able to upload them successfully in the central server, as required by U101c.
U101b requires that video be activated for each of the incidents specified and that supervisors conduct a review of the video where one is available.
• Uses of Force: We requested 102 cases closed during the months of December 2012, and January and February 2013, for review; and after removing cases that were inappropriate for review for MVS, there remained 86 SIR reports to be reviewed.37 Of the 86, 36 had no recordings due to Data 911 system issues (see technical failure discussed in U100 above). Of the remaining 50, 17 had no recording equipment installed or the MVS systems were not involved (e.g., officers were on walking beats). Twentythree (70%) of the remaining 33 instances included video/audio recordings from mobile units, recordings from holding facilities, or recordings from casinos or the city council. All (100%) were reviewed by supervisors. Of these 23, video and audio were recorded in only 12 (52%).
• Injuries: In past reporting periods, DPD has been unable to produce a report that identified a comprehensive list of incidents involving injuries to officers or subjects in which MVS should have been recorded by officers and reviewed by supervisors. Beginning in January 2013, the Department has tracked injuries to both officers and subjects. The list identified 88 instances in which DPD officers suffered injuries during

37 Includes cases assumed by investigator, acquiring target cases, and K9 deployments without contacts.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 102 of 186 Pg ID 9413

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 101

July 10, 2013

the first quarter of 2013. Most injuries occurred in circumstances in which MVS was not applicable. Only six instances produced video; all six were reviewed by supervisors.
• Pursuits: DPD officers engaged in 20 pursuits during the first quarter of 2013. 14 cars that engaged in these pursuits were equipped with operational MVS. Twelve (86%) of the 14 cars recorded video during the pursuit and six (43%) recorded audio. Fourteen (70%) of the supervisors who reviewed the 20 DPD-665 forms (Vehicle Pursuit Reports) submitted for the review commented about the availability of MVS recording. The following chart depicts these data.

Pursuits Q1 Jan - Mar 2013

Number 20

MVS Equip
14

Video 12

Supv

Review or

%

Audio % Comment %

86%

6

43%

14

70%

• External Complaints: We were provided OCI data regarding 157 cases closed during the first quarter of 2013. In 153 of these cases (97%), OCI investigators’ notations indicated they had checked to see if there was video or audio available. In 56 of these cases, video was recorded and in 40 of the 56 cases audio was recorded and supervisory review was noted. DPD was unable to provide a list of these data in which MVS equipment was operational and should have been used.
We reviewed 26 IAD investigations that were closed in the first quarter 2013. Five should have had video. (There was a working video unit in the vehicle.) Of those five cases, three (60%) had video footage available and it was used in the investigations. There was no audio available in any of the five cases.
The Department is not in Phase 2 compliance with any section of U101.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U102
The DPD policy on video cameras shall require officers to record all motor vehicle stops, consents to search a vehicle, deployments of a drug-detection canine, or vehicle searches.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has never achieved Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Our past two reviews were disrupted by technical failures in the DPD MVS system. In October 2012, we found that storage

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 103 of 186 Pg ID 9414

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 102

July 10, 2013

of video camera data had been severely disrupted during the third quarter of 2012 due to a technical failure that prevented video from being uploaded successfully. In January 2013, we found that the MVS system had been stabilized in October 2012, through the acquisition of a new central server that was devoted to the new Data 911 (D911) MVS. Since most of the DPD’s deployed MVS equipped cars were loaded to capacity with data that could not be uploaded until the new server was installed, the system was not functioning smoothly until mid-November 2012. We reviewed traffic stop data for December 2012, and found video and audio present in 83% and 47% of the random sample records surveyed.
During our April 2013 site visit, we were able for the first time since July 2012, to review a full set of random samples of traffic stops to determine if video and audio were collected. We selected a random sample of 50 traffic stops for each month in the first quarter of 2013. While the January results (video 76% and audio 56%) were very much at the same level as we have found before, February and March showed marked improvement; 92% and 94% of the records surveyed during these months had video, and 76% and 80% had audio. The Department’s efforts to gain compliance with this requirement appear to be producing results. The chart below shows our findings.

TRAFFIC STOPS Q1

Month

# Records Video %

Audio

%

January 2013

50

38 76%

28

56%

February 2013

50

46 92%

38

76%

March 2013

50

47 94%

40

80%

Totals

150

131 87%

106

71%

In addition, DPD advised that seven vehicles were searched with canines during the period January 1, 2013, through March 31, 2013. In all seven, the car was equipped with an operational MVS in which both the video and microphones were working. In one of the seven deployments, the search was conducted inside a building and video could not be acquired. Five (83%) of the six remaining deployments recorded video and audio.
The Department is not in compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 104 of 186 Pg ID 9415

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 103

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U103
The City shall ensure that adequate resources are provided to eliminate the backlog of disciplinary cases and that all disciplinary matters are resolved as soon as reasonably possible.
Comments:
This requirement, and the two that follow, address the Department’s disciplinary process. When the City of Detroit signed the Use of Force Consent Judgment, the Department’s disciplinary process was almost completely dysfunctional. A backlog of cases numbered in the thousands and the system was neither effective at addressing improper actions or at maintaining due process for officers. Conditions are dramatically different now. The backlog was completely eliminated and the department now manages its processing of cases to assure it does not return, and the Department does so in a manner consistent with the rights of officers and the needs of the department. An established matrix of expected sanctions based on charges is followed and cases are completed according to an established and predictable timeline.
In this area, the Department has also gone well beyond the requirements of the Consent Judgment. It has instituted several programs designed to enhance case processing and improve outcomes. These include an arbitration process which supports improved case processing and a restorative intervention process which is designed to address officers’ emerging patterns of disciplinary problems in a way that seeks to recognize underlying problems and change behavior. The process of consultation, involving all those concerned with the events that triggered disciplinary action, seeks to meets the needs of both the officers involved and their supervisors.
Within the Department, the disciplinary process is also no longer viewed as an isolated and exclusively reactive process. The Disciplinary Administration Unit regularly reviews information to identify patterns of problematic behavior in individual officers, units and the department as a whole. It provides this analysis for consideration in the risk management process and in departmental training. With these changes the disciplinary process is now fully incorporated into the broader context of management of the Department.
With regard to this specific requirement, DPD is in Phase 1 compliance. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 95 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. There is no backlog of cases and case-flow is being managed sufficiently. During the current reporting period, a total of 127 new disciplinary cases were opened. This is a substantial increase over the previous quarter, which saw smaller numbers due to training obligations and some staff changes.
There have also been changes in the command staff overseeing the disciplinary admin unit. Recently developed practices intended to expedite cases and prevent backlogs remain in place. These include voluntary mediation as an alternative to trial boards and restorative practices for resolving low-level discipline issues. These provide positive approaches to addressing administrative requirements while also holding officers accountable for their behavior.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 105 of 186 Pg ID 9416

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 104

July 10, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U104
The DPD shall schedule disciplinary hearings, trials, and appeals at appropriately frequent intervals, to prevent a disciplinary backlog from developing. As part of determining how often to schedule such hearings, the DPD shall establish guidelines dictating the maximum period of time that should elapse between each stage of the disciplinary process.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 95 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. All disciplinary proceedings met the established timelines and were consistent with this requirement. As of the end of March, there are no cases remaining open that predate 2011. For 2011, a total of 6 cases remained open, and 47 cases were open from 2012. The status of all open cases is tracked by the disciplinary unit and reported quarterly. All open 2011 and 2012 cases reflect appropriate scheduling and steps toward closure.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U105
The DPD shall create a disciplinary matrix that:
a. establishes a presumptive range of discipline for each type of rule violation;
b. increases the presumptive discipline based on both an officer’s prior violations of the same rule as well as violations of other rules;
c. requires that any departure from the presumptive range of discipline must be justified in writing;
d. provides that the DPD shall not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix calls for the imposition of discipline; and
e. Provides that the DPD shall consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action also is appropriate in a case where discipline has been imposed.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 106 of 186 Pg ID 9417

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 105

July 10, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 95 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. The disciplinary matrix is provided for use at disciplinary trial boards and other disciplinary processes. All decisions during this reporting period fell within the matrix and were consistent with this requirement. DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 78 Comprehensive Risk Management Plan 79 Improve risk management system 80 Database requirements (a-z) 81 Database to include officer information 82 Data Input Plan (a-d) 83 Report Protocol for database (a-c) 84 Review Protocol for database (a-l) 85 Use modules to ensure work progress 86 Common control number required 87 Data retention 88 Database schedule (expired) 89 Interim database (rescinded) 90 Change process needs DOJ approval 91 Annual officer review criteria specified 92 Protocol for conducting audits 93 Audit results to Chief and commanders 94 Annual audits-use of force 95 Annual audits-probable cause/stop-and-frisk 96 Annual audits-detention practices 97 Annual audits-external complaints 98 Random reviews of in-car camera videos

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 107 of 186 Pg ID 9418

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 106

July 10, 2013

¶ Requirements 99 Regular meeting with local prosecutors 100 Replace/repair video cameras 101 Revision of video camera policy 102 Record all vehicle stops, searches, etc. 103 Elimination of disciplinary case backlog 104 Scheduling of disciplinary cases 105 Disciplinary matrix of responses/sanctions

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

IX. TRAINING
During our most recent site visit, we visited the Detroit Police Training Center and interviewed the Training Commander and key members of the training staff. The DPD revises and updates its training courses annually and introduces the new material in July of each year. Accordingly, during our July 2012 site visit, we reviewed a variety of memoranda and policy material for use during the 2012-2013 training year (July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013). There have been no substantive changes in the policies that pertain to Training; the Training Directive 304.5 was revised on July 10, 2012, to address minor numbering typographical errors.
A. Oversight and Development
CJ Requirement U106
The DPD shall coordinate and review all use of force and arrest and detention training to ensure quality, consistency and compliance with applicable law and DPD policy. The DPD shall conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually, and produce a report of such reviews to the Monitor and the DOJ.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The required review was conducted in the fourth quarter of 2012, and documented in a DPD report entitled, “Training Oversight and Development Report – Semi-Annual Review, December 2012.” We reviewed this report – the eighth such report to be issued – during our January 2013 site visit and found that it contained the necessary evaluation of use of force, arrest, and detention training; and covered all elements of this requirement. The report is prepared twice each year, and the next such report will be produced in June 2013.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 108 of 186 Pg ID 9419

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 107

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U107
The DPD, consistent with Michigan law and the Michigan Law Enforcement Officers Training Council standards, shall:
a. ensure the quality of all use of force and arrest and detention training;
b. develop use of force and arrest and detention training curricula;
c. select and train DPD officer trainers;
d. develop, implement, approve and oversee all training and curricula;
e. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
f. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that training governing use of force and arrest and detention are responsive to the knowledge, skills and abilities of the officers being trained.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we met with the In-Service Training Director and staff and reviewed training records. DPD training complies with the Michigan Law Enforcement Council’s standards and Michigan law. With regard to subparagraphs a-f, during the past year, we found as follows:
a. During our July 2012 site visit, we reviewed the revised lesson plans that are being used in the 2012-2013 training cycle. We also have reviewed the new use of force scenarios that are being deployed; and the report entitled, “Training Oversight and Development Report – Semi-Annual Review,” dated December 2012, which documents the DPD’s semi-annual review and evaluation of its training. The next such report will be completed in June 2013. Use of force and detention training are adequate.
b. As noted above, during our July 2012 site visit, we examined the lesson plans for the Use of Force and Arrest and Detention training that are being used in the current training year (July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013), and found them to be adequate for the training required. Training plans to present essentially the same training points during the next year but to use new scenarios based on real life DPD incidents. The new year’s training scenarios and lesson plans will be approved in mid-June, 2013.
c. DPD selected four new trainers who were assigned to the firearms range during the second quarter of 2012. The selections were based upon seniority as required by the union contract, but the new trainers were vetted through MAS for disciplinary records, sick leave, and use of force.
d/e. As we have observed in past reviews, DPD policy, curricula, and lesson plans address these provisions.
f. Directive 304.5-3.4, revised July 10, 2012, places responsibility on the Commander of Training to conduct training needs assessments and Directive 304.5-6.2, requires that such assessments be conducted and documented every two years. As noted previously,

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 109 of 186 Pg ID 9420

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 108

July 10, 2013

in July and December 2012, the DPD conducted and documented training needs assessments. DPD has initiated new training and modified in-service training in order to address many of the deficiencies identified in the needs assessments that it has conducted. DPD plans to conduct a needs assessment before the next training year (July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014).
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U108
The DPD shall create and maintain individual training records for all officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training completed for all training conducted on or after the effective date of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD captures data relating to its in-service training, and records it on a spreadsheet. Since the spreadsheet is used by the Department to determine if all of its officers have attended the required in-service training sessions, we have conducted audits of its accuracy during the current and past reporting periods. Inasmuch as the DPD has been in compliance with this requirement for two years, we reduced the sample to 25 officers.
We randomly selected 25 officers who were listed on the spreadsheet as having received and completed in-service training since July 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013. In order to complete their in-service training, these officers would have to attend and sign attendance sheets for four courses: Legal; Use of Force; PR-24; and Firearms Qualification. In addition, if the officer selected on the random sample list was a supervisor or investigator, they would have attended the Leadership In-Service as well. DPD was able to locate all (100%) of the expected signatures.
During our previous reviews, we found that the Department committed to recording training data in the MITN System, a part of the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) data system. Training has now entered all DPD training records for years 2003 through the present. During this reporting period, we selected the training records for the 25 officers in our random sample relating to Use of Force, Legal, PR-24 and Firearms Qualification, and checked the MITN system to see if they had been recorded. All (100%) were found to have been entered into MITN.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 110 of 186 Pg ID 9421

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 109

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U109
The DPD shall ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors and that instructors engage students in meaningful dialogue regarding particular scenarios, preferably taken from actual incidents involving DPD officers, with the goal of educating students regarding the legal and tactical issues raised by the scenarios.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD training directives and lesson plans properly direct and instruct on the relevant provisions of the Consent Judgment. During previous reviews, we found that DPD developed new scenarios utilizing DPD Internal Affairs incidents, and accepted them for incorporation into the Legal block of training. We reviewed all new scenarios and found them acceptable. We have reviewed all the lesson plans that were updated for the 2012-2013 training year and found them to be adequate. No additional scenarios or lesson plans were implemented during the first quarter of 2013.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U110 The DPD shall meet with the City Law Department on a quarterly basis concerning the conclusion of civil lawsuits alleging officer misconduct, information gleaned from this process shall be distributed to DPD risk management and training staff.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD met with the City Law Department pursuant to this requirement on January 15, 2013. Meetings are held quarterly. The DPD remains in compliance with U110.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 111 of 186 Pg ID 9422

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 110

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement U111
The City and the DPD shall distribute and explain this Agreement to all DPD and all relevant City employees The City and the DPD shall provide initial training on this Agreement to all City and DPD employees whose job responsibilities are affected by this Agreement within 120 days of each provision’s implementation. Thereafter, the DPD shall provide training on the policies contained in this Agreement during in-service training.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
This training is conducted by CRIB for both civilian and sworn personnel. The Department hired 10 new employees who were trained by CRIB during the first quarter of 2013. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Use of Force Training
CJ Requirement U112
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers, and supervisors with annual training on use of force. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. The DPD’s use of force continuum; proper use of force; decision making; and the DPD’s use of force reporting requirements;
b. The Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including recent legal developments;
c. Examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper use of force decision making, including the use of deadly force;
d. The circumstances in which officers may draw, display, or point a firearm, emphasizing:
i. Officers should not draw their firearm unless they reasonably believe there is a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or another person;
ii. The danger of engaging or pursuing a suspect with a firearm drawn; and
iii. That officers are generally not justified in drawing their firearm when pursuing a subject suspected of committing only a misdemeanor;
e. The proper use of all intermediate force weapons;
f. Threat assessment, alternative and de-escalation techniques that allow officers to effect arrests without using force and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 112 of 186 Pg ID 9423

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 111

July 10, 2013

units or even letting a subject temporarily evade arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation, even when the use of force would be legally justified;
g. Interacting with people with mental illnesses, including instruction by mental health practitioners and an emphasis on de-escalation strategies;
h. Factors to consider in initiating or continuing a pursuit;
i. The proper duration of a burst of chemical spray, the distance from which it should be applied, and emphasize that officers shall aim chemical spray only at the target’s face and upper torso, and
j. Consideration of the safety of civilians in the vicinity before engaging in police action.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During our previous site visits, we assessed training policy directives, curricula, lesson plans, special orders, training needs assessment and teletypes, among other materials that were prepared to address the requirements of U112 during the 2012-2013 training year (July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013). Our review showed that the course content requirements of U112 and all of its subparagraphs were met for all recruits and in-service trainees.
During this reporting period, we found that 1,587 (68%) of the 2,323 DPD officers available to train attended and completed the in-service blocks for Use of Force and Legal training in which the requirements for U112 are fulfilled. Three quarters of the training year was reached in March, and inasmuch as the DPD trained 68% of its officers, it is making satisfactory progress toward fulfilling this requirement.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Firearms Training
CJ Requirement U113
The DPD shall develop a protocol regarding firearms training that:
a. Ensures that all officers and supervisors complete the bi-annual firearms training and qualification;
b. Incorporates professional night training, stress training (i.e., training in using a firearm after undergoing physical exertion) and proper use of force decision making training in the bi-annual in-service training program, with the goal of adequately preparing officers for real life situations;
c. Ensures that firearm instructors critically observe students and provide corrective instruction regarding deficient firearm techniques and failure to utilize safe gun handling

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 113 of 186 Pg ID 9424

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 112

July 10, 2013

procedures at all times; and undergoing physical exertion) and proper use of force decision making training in the bi-annual in-service training program, with the goal of adequately preparing officers for real life situations;
d. Incorporates evaluation criteria to determine satisfactory completion of recruit and inservice firearms training, including:
e. Maintains finger off trigger unless justified and ready to fire;
f. Maintains proper hold of firearm and proper stance; and
g. Uses proper use of force decision making.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The requirements specified in U113 are addressed in the Department’s firearms training, which officers are required to attend and qualify in every six months. During the previous six-month firearms qualification period (July 1, through December 31, 2012), 98% of the officers available to train attended firearms and qualified.
During this review, we found that 964 (41%) of the 2,323 officers available to train had attended firearms training and qualified.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

D. Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training
CJ Requirement U114
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on arrests and other police-citizen interaction. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. The DPD Arrest, Investigatory Stop and Frisk and Witness Identification and Questioning Policies;
b. The Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including:
c. Advising officers that the “possibility” that an individual committed a crime does not rise to the level of probable cause;
d. Advising officers that the duration and scope of the police-citizen interaction determines whether an arrest occurred, not the officer’s subjective, intent or belief that he or she affected an arrest; and

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 114 of 186 Pg ID 9425

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 113

July 10, 2013

e. Advising officers that every detention is a seizure, every seizure requires reasonable suspicion or probable cause and there is no legally authorized seizure apart from a “Terry stop” and an arrest; and
f. Examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper police-community interactions, including scenarios which distinguish an investigatory stop from an arrest by the scope and duration of the police interaction; between probable cause, reasonable suspicion and mere speculation; and voluntary consent from mere acquiescence to police authority.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force, Search, and Detention training were taught in the eight-hour Use of Force inservice training and, until the current year, in the four-hour Arrest Procedures in-service training. The Arrest Procedures session has been discontinued as a separate course, and is now being addressed in the Use of Force and Legal blocks of instruction. Annual training is provided by DPD in its in-service training program for officers and supervisors. During the last training year (July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012), the Department trained 98% of its available members in its Use of Force in-service training and 99% in the Legal in-service training.
During this reporting period, we found that 1,587 (68%) of the 2,323 DPD officers available to train attended and completed the in-service blocks for Use of Force and Legal training in which the requirements for U114 are fulfilled. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

E. Custodial Detention Training
CJ Requirement U115
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on custodial detention. Such training shall include DPD policies regarding arrest, arraignment, holds, restrictions, material witness and detention records.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD developed appropriate policies and lesson plans to comply with this provision, as well as a protocol to train all recruits, sworn members, confinement officers, investigators, and supervisors. All officers who attend the Use of Force and Legal in-service training receive the detention training specified by this requirement. Officers who serve in the detention cell areas are required to receive additional annual detention officer training, which is more specifically related to detention responsibilities. (See C73.)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 115 of 186 Pg ID 9426

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 114

July 10, 2013

During the training year that ended on June 30, 2012, 98% of DPD members attended the Use of Force and 99% its Legal in-service training sessions and received this training. As noted in U114, 68% of DPD officers have attended the Use of Force training and the Legal training during the first three quarters of the new training year (July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013).
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U116
The DPD shall advise officers that the DPD arraignment policy shall not be delayed because of the assignment of the investigation to a specialized unit, the arrest charge(s), the availability of an investigator, the gathering of additional evidence or obtaining a confession.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has incorporated these training requirements into its Use of Force and Legal lesson plans. During the 2011-2012 training year, the Department trained 98% of its officers in its Use of Force in-service training session and 99% in the Legal in-service.
In the first two quarters of the new training year, DPD remains in compliance, having trained 68% of its officers available to train in these in-services. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U117
The DPD shall advise officers that whether an individual is a material witness and whether that material witness should be committed to custody is a judicial determination.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Material witness training has been incorporated into the Use of Force and Legal lesson plans. As noted above (see U115), the DPD trained 98% and 99%, respectively, of its officers in the Use of Force and Legal in-service training during the last completed training year (July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012).

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 116 of 186 Pg ID 9427

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 115

July 10, 2013

In the first two quarters of the new training year, DPD remains in compliance, having trained 68% of its officers available to train in these in-services. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

F. Supervisory Training
CJ Requirement U118
The DPD shall provide supervisors with training in the appropriate evaluation of written reports, including what constitutes a fact based description, the identification of conclusory language not supported by specific facts and catch phrases, or language that so regularly appears in reports that its inclusion requires further explanation by the reporting officer.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD fulfills Consent Judgment requirements U118-122 through its annual Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training that is required for both supervisors and investigators. During the training year that ended on June 30, 2012, the Department trained 98% of its supervisors in its Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service.
During the first three quarters of the new training year (July 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013), 318 (65%) of the Department’s 487 supervisors who were available to train attended the Leadership and Accountability in-service training.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U119
DPD supervisors shall receive leadership and command accountability training and learn techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training shall be provided to all DPD supervisors within 30 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities and shall be made part of annual in-service training.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the training year that ended on June 30, 2012, the DPD trained 98% of its supervisors and investigators at its annual Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training. The

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 117 of 186 Pg ID 9428

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 116

July 10, 2013

DPD did not promote any personnel to the supervisor rank during the first three quarters of the new training year. As noted in U118, during the first three quarters of the new training year (July 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013), 318 (65%) of the Department’s 487 supervisors who were available to train attended the Leadership and Accountability in-service training. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U120 The DPD shall provide training on risk assessment and risk management to all DPD supervisors, including the operation of the risk management database. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U121
The DPD shall provide training on appropriate burdens of proof, interview techniques and the factors to consider when evaluating officer, complainant or witness credibility to all officers who conduct investigations to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform and legally appropriate.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U122
The DPD shall provide all supervisors charged with accepting external complaints with appropriate training on handling external complaints that emphasizes interpersonal skills. The DPD shall provide training on the DPD external complaint process, including the role of OCI and IAD in the process, to all new recruits and as part of annual in-service training.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 118 of 186 Pg ID 9429

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 117

July 10, 2013

H. Field Training
CJ Requirement U123
The DPD shall develop, subject to DOJ approval, a protocol to enhance the FTO program within 120 days of the effective date of this Agreement. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting and removing the FTOs and for training and evaluating FTOs and trainees.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

¶ Requirements 106 Coordination and review of training 107 DPD will meet state training standards 108 Maintain individual training records 109 Train from approved objectives and plans 110 Quarterly meetings with Law Department 111 Distribute and training on the agreement 112 Annual use of force training required 113 Develop firearms training protocol 114 Annual arrest, citizen interaction training 115 Annual training on custodial detention 116 Prohibition of arraignment delays 117 Material witness custody 118 Supervisory training-report evaluation 119 Supervisory training-leadership 120 Supervisory training-risk management 121 Investigator training-procedures 122 Supervisory training-external complaints 123 Enhance the FTO program

Phase 1 - Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 119 of 186 Pg ID 9430

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 118

July 10, 2013

SECTION THREE:
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT
This Consent Judgment sets forth procedural and operational requirements relating to the confinement facilities maintained and operated by the Detroit Police Department. The Judgment requires the revision and implementation of policies and practices that are safe, respectful, and constitutional in the areas of fire safety, emergency preparedness, medical and mental health, prisoner safety, environmental health and safety, persons with disabilities, food service, and personal hygiene. In addition, the Judgment sets forth requirements relating to the use of force in detention facilities, as well as procedures for the investigation of the use of force and complaints relating to other events occurring in these facilities. The Judgment also establishes requirements for management and supervision, the auditing of internal practices, and the training of personnel who are assigned detention responsibilities.
During our first site visit in November 2009, we reviewed required directives, supporting logs, forms, and documentation relating to the operation of the detention facilities. Accompanied by key members of the DPD Office of Civil Rights personnel, we conducted our first tour of the Detroit Police Department’s five facilities with holding cells and the Detroit Receiving Hospital.38 We have repeated our tours and inspections of some or all of these facilities during each of our subsequent site visits, and have interacted with command and key detention staff at each facility.
In addition, we have met with key CRIB command staff, Audit Team personnel, and the designated health care professional to conduct a thorough review of all requirements, DPD directives, forms, logs, and documentation relating to and required by this Judgment. Our review disclosed the need for the DPD to revise various health-related directives and to have them reviewed and approved by a health care professional. This was accomplished. In addition, we met with DPD Training staff regarding training issues, which were promptly addressed.
During our visits to and inspections of the various facilities with holding cells, we are always accompanied by CRIB staff, and assisted by the cell block supervisors and compliance officers. These inspections included our entering and examining every holding cell, interviewing detention staff, and reviewing forms and logs. When we find errors, omissions or violations during the inspections we advise facility and CRIB staff immediately of our observations.
We have worked with DPD holding facilities staff to streamline reporting mechanisms and to offer alternatives to ensure that requirements are met and are consistent with policy.
Since the implementation of the virtual precinct concept earlier in 2012, citizens can report many more crimes by telephone rather than requiring that officers either respond to the scene or citizens travel to a District or Precinct. The virtual precinct reduced the number of police reports

38 Facilities with holding cells are located in the Northeastern, Eastern, and Southwestern Districts; Sixth and Twelfth Precincts.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 120 of 186 Pg ID 9431

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 119

July 10, 2013

that the desk supervisor previously had to review thus freeing the position up for other responsibilities. We will continue to monitor this change during our next report period.
Prior to forwarding documents requested for our quarterly reviews, CRIB personnel routinely review the documents before they are forwarded to us. During this review, CRIB typically identifies errors and/or omissions and forward corrective action notices to the various commands. Written responses are required. If appropriate supervisory review occurred and errors/omissions were initially identified and corrected at the District/Precinct level, that action would have a positive bearing on compliance.
DPD and MDOC (Michigan Department of Corrections) were in negotiations during this quarter to have the State house all DPD detainees after the initial probable cause determination and processing. An Interagency Agreement was signed by both parties the first week of April 2013, and the transfer should occur during this summer.
The Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment is comprised of several different categories relating to the confinement facilities maintained and operated by DPD.

III. FIRE SAFETY POLICIES
CJ Requirement C14
The DPD shall ensure that all holding cells, and buildings that contain them, achieve and maintain compliance with the Life Safety Code within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. The City shall ensure that the Detroit Fire Marshal conducts regular and periodic inspections to evaluate whether the conditions in DPD holding cells, and buildings that contain them, are in compliance with the Life Safety Code.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The Fire Marshal Division of the Detroit Fire Department conducted its annual review and approved the Fire Safety Program (FSP) and the Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP) for all DPD buildings containing holding cells on June 7, 2012. Fire Systems of Michigan conducted inspections of the sprinkler systems during this quarter. The semi-annual inspection was completed at all facilities during unannounced visits by the Audit Team during January 2013.
The next Fire Marshal’s inspection is due in May 2013.
Accordingly, DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 121 of 186 Pg ID 9432

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 120

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement C15
The DPD shall develop and implement a comprehensive fire detection, suppression and evacuation program for the holding cells, and buildings that contain them, in accordance with the requirements of the Life Safety Code and in consultation with the Detroit Fire Department.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the second reporting period.
During this reporting period, we reviewed DPD 716, Fire Extinguisher Monthly Inspection/Inventory, and DPD 703, Fire Drill Documentation Forms, for all of the districts/precincts with holding cells; and determined that all facilities are in compliance with these requirements. We also examined a sample of the fire extinguishers at each holding facility, and found all but one of them to be fully charged.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C16
The fire safety program shall be developed in consultation with, and receive written approval by, the Detroit Fire Department. As part of developing the fire safety program, the Detroit Fire Department shall evaluate the need for and, if necessary, the DPD shall install: fire-rated separations, smoke detection systems, smoke control systems, sprinkler systems and/or emergency exits for the holding cells and buildings that contain them. The fire safety program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of the Agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Following the development of the Fire Safety Plan, the DPD made required structural changes to districts/precincts’ holding facilities, including the updating and/or installation of sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, and fire-rated doors. During our inspection of the district/precinct holding cells, we found the presence of all three.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 122 of 186 Pg ID 9433

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 121

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement C17
The DPD shall implement the fire safety program within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the plan.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has developed and implemented the required Fire Safety Plan.
During our most recent site visits to each district/precinct that maintains holding cells, we found documentation of the Fire Marshal’s inspections. The most recent inspections were conducted and documented on June 7, 2012. The next Fire Marshal’s inspection is due in May 2013. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C18
The DPD shall take immediate interim fire safety measures in all buildings that contain holding cells. At a minimum, these interim measures shall:
a. Ensure that the activation of any individual smoke alarm sounds an alarm throughout the building;
b. ensure that prisoners in holding cells have an adequate means of reporting emergency conditions to DPD staff immediately;
c. ensure that automated back-up power systems exist for all buildings containing holding cells that are capable of providing immediate power for emergency lighting, exit signs, fire alarm and smoke detection systems in the event of an electrical power failure through batteries or an emergency generator; and
d. reduce the likely spread of smoke and fire throughout the buildings by means of stairwells, garages, hazardous rooms and exposed pipes, such as ensuring that fire doors in stairwells are closed.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in full Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the first reporting period.
As previously noted, we visited each district/precinct that maintains holding cells, and determined that the DPD has made the required structural, electronic, and mechanical upgrades within the facilities. We also noted that Fire Systems of Michigan and the Fire Marshal conducted and documented inspections of suppression systems on June 7, 2012. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 123 of 186 Pg ID 9434

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 122

July 10, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C19
The DPD shall ensure that fire safety equipment is routinely tested, inspected and maintained, including the sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, manual fire extinguishers, emergency lighting and exit signs, and self-contained breathing apparatuses.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the second reporting period.
The Fire Safety Plan places responsibility for ensuring the required testing, inspections, and maintenance of the various systems, fire extinguishers, emergency lighting and signs, and equipment with the DPD Office of Facilities Management. During the previous reporting period, we found that the sprinkler system at one precinct was out of order from September 19 to October 20, due to two broken sprinkler heads. The inability to deliver water in the event of a fire for a period of one month is unacceptable and places the Department’s compliance rating in jeopardy. During this reporting period, we found all sprinkler systems in working condition. Additionally, we reviewed DPD 715 - Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells forms. There was no indication that sprinkler systems were out of order during the CRIB monthly inspections.
Fire Systems of Michigan and the Fire Marshal conduct the required inspections, which were last conducted in June 2012.
Because sprinkler heads are often broken by detainees in the holding cells – requiring the shutdown of the water delivery system – the DPD added language to the CEPP/FSP, under the auspices of the Fire Marshal, requiring that the detention staff perform visual fire inspections as an alternative when the fire detection system is disabled or not functioning.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 124 of 186 Pg ID 9435

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 123

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement C20
The DPD shall enforce immediately its no-smoking policy in the holding cells or provide ashtrays and ensure that all holding cell areas are constructed and supplied with fire-rated materials.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the first reporting period. During our most recent inspection, we did not observe any persons smoking in unauthorized areas. Also, during our review of all of the monthly inspections on DPD 715, Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells, we found no documentation that any smoking had been observed in the facilities.
DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C21 The DPD shall insure immediately that all flammable and combustible liquids in holding cell areas and the attached and nearby DPD buildings are stored properly. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Our inspection of the holding facilities found that each district/precinct was equipped with at least one yellow storage cabinet, located in the garage area, for flammable and combustible liquids. We checked the cabinets, and found flammable materials and gas storage containers. DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C22 The DPD shall remove immediately all highly-combustible kane fiber ceiling tiles from buildings that contain holding cells. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 125 of 186 Pg ID 9436

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 124

July 10, 2013

The DPD has been in continued compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph since 2005 when it closed some of the facilities where kane fiber ceiling tiles were in place, and it removed the tiles from the remaining facilities.
DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

14 Holding Cell Life Safety Code compliance In Compliance

15 Fire detection, suppression, and evacuation In Compliance

16 Fire Department consultation/evaluation

In Compliance

17 Implementation of fire safety program

In Compliance

18 Immediate interim fire safety measures

In Compliance

19 Routine testing of fire safety equipment

In Compliance

20 Enforce no smoking in holding cells

In Compliance

21 Proper storage of flammable liquids

In Compliance

22 Remove combustible cane fiber tiles

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

IV. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES CJ Requirement C23 The DPD shall ensure a reasonable level of safety and security of all staff and prisoners in the event of a fire or other emergency. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. As noted previously, Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of C24-25; DPD is in compliance with C25. Accordingly, we find this paragraph in compliance. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 126 of 186 Pg ID 9437

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 125

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement C24
The DPD shall develop a comprehensive emergency preparedness program that is approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department. This program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the programs within three months of DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the plan. At a minimum, the emergency preparedness program shall:
a. include an emergency response plan for each building that contains holding cells identifying staff responsibilities in the event of fire-related emergencies and other emergencies, including notification responsibilities, evacuation procedures and key control procedures (discussed below); and
b. require performance and documentation of fire drills for all buildings containing holding cells on all shifts every six months (documentation shall include the start and stop times of each drill, the staff members who participated in the drill, a summary of the drill, and an evaluation of the success of the drill).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CEPP identifies staff responsibilities in the event of a fire emergency to include notifications, evacuation, and key control procedures. (See C15.)
The DPD achieved full compliance in the second and subsequent reporting periods as it increased the frequency of fire drills to the 100% level required by policy. During this reporting period, we determined that the fire drills were again conducted according to policy at the 100% level.
Following our recommendations that the detention evacuation equipment be stored in the immediate vicinity of the holding cells so that it is readily accessible to officers, we found, during this reporting period, that the shackles were fully accounted for and placed individually in crates, or hanging from hooks. We determined that the detention officers had sufficient handcuffs and/or shackles for use in the event of an evacuation, and that all of the detention officers that we interviewed were aware of DPD policy to retain the assigned holding cell keys on their persons.
The DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 127 of 186 Pg ID 9438

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 126

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement C25
The DPD shall develop and implement key control policies and procedures that will ensure that all staff is able to manually unlock all holding cell doors in the event of a fire or other emergency.
At a minimum, the key control policies and procedures shall:
a. provide for emergency identification of keys by touch;
b. and require routine inventory, testing and maintenance of keys and locks.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our first site visit, we recommended that each officer working in a cell block be issued a complete set of keys. Following this recommendation, we were informed that two extra sets of keys were distributed to each district/precinct with holding cells, bringing the total at each to five – three in the cell block, one with the sergeant assigned to the public lobby, and one in the emergency key box in the lieutenants’ and sergeants’ office.
During our three previous inspections, we found that each district/precinct had, at the minimum, five sets of keys – three in the cell block, one with the sergeant assigned to the public lobby, and one in the emergency key box in the lieutenants’ and sergeants’ office. Teletype 11-0989, Holding Cell Facility Keys – Required Documentation, regarding inventory and assignment of keys by the cellblock supervisor, had been distributed. This policy directed the cellblock supervisor to conduct an inventory of the keys at the commencement and the conclusion of his/her tour of duty and document same in the MAS Desk Blotter. Subsequently, CRIB distributed Department Teletype 11-01395, which thoroughly explained the procedure for documenting the inventory and security of keys. When interviewed, the detention supervisors and officers appeared to have an understanding of their responsibility for key control.
During our most recent site visit, we determined that the supervisors and officers that we interviewed appeared to understand the process for inventory and control of the keys. The MAS Desk Blotter indicated that key inventories were entered in a timely manner.
DPD is now in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

23 Ensure reasonable safety in emergency

In Compliance

24

Develop

comprehensive

preparedness program

emergency In Compliance

25 Implementation of key control policies

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 128 of 186 Pg ID 9439

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 127

July 10, 2013

V. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES
CJ Requirement C26
The DPD shall ensure the appropriate identification of, and response to, prisoner’s medical and/or mental health conditions.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
DPD has previously had difficulties with this paragraph due to the requirements of C27-33. Those issues were addressed and subsequently this paragraph is now compliant.
During previous reporting periods, we reviewed all DPD’s Audit Team’s report of its findings of the Holding Cells and are in agreement with their findings as they have been similar to ours. The most recent audit we have reviewed of the holding cells was released on July 31, 2012 and the deficiencies noted, for the most part have been addressed. DPD released its Quarterly Status Report on March 31, 2013; we note that the Department’s internal inspections of C26 and C32g continue to show that it is in compliance with both paragraphs. We are in agreement with DPD’s assessment, as we have similar findings for the current reporting period. We have observed steady improvement during the past three reporting periods to address the deficiencies described in our reports.
Our inspections and review of the quarterly detainee file folders demonstrated progress in most areas; however, previous documentation of detainee medical information and release of medication continued to be problematic. DPD revised the Detainee Intake Form (DIS) with implementation on September 20, 2012. The document was approved by the Department’s consulting physician on August 31, 2012. The new form is completed (via hand) by the processing officer during intake screening, streamlined, and has resolved the most pressing issues with documentation from the previous form. New guidelines for the completion of the revised DIS were issued to assist processing officers conducting screening of detainees. As a result of the implementation of the revised Detainee Intake Form, it was disabled from Livescan.
Medical referrals and the thoroughness of medication logs have also sustained improvement during this and the six previous reporting periods, and the documentation of the exchange of health information between shifts remains compliant. In previous reviews, holding cell personnel did not adequately list the medical needs of the detainees on the Platoon Daily Detail Summary (PDDSL); and the shift preparing or receiving the log failed to place the date or the time on the form. DPD has rectified this problem, and those forms are now complete, with the exception of the Second Precinct failing to identify and list the names of suspected crime partners on the PDDSL’s. While four of the facilities are completing this form correctly, the Second Precinct is experiencing difficulty as its compliance rate for this reporting period is 88%. The overall compliance rate for all facilities is 96%.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed and inspected a random sample of 202 detainee file folders and observed personnel. We found that most DPD personnel are properly implementing these procedures in accordance with the DPD directives. However, with the small sample size in some instances, one employee can thwart compliance. We continue to note a few

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 129 of 186 Pg ID 9440

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 128

July 10, 2013

clerical errors and incomplete or missing documentation of medical information and medication logs.
In order to assess compliance with this paragraph, we reviewed those issues that had a direct impact on identification and response to a detainee’s medical or mental health conditions. We found 19 instances where the detainee processing time did not meet the requirement (one with no explanation for the delay and in two cases the processing officer failed to mark the box indicating the late processing). Ten detainees were taken directly from the scene to DRH; four were arrested by other agencies; one refused to be processed and the other two detainees were combative and had to be placed in a holding cell until they calmed down.
There were three instances where DPD did not indicate a release of the remaining medications to the detainee at time of discharge or transfer to another facility; one instance where medical/mental health information was not transferred from the Detainee Information Sheet to the Detainee Information Form by the processing officer; eight medications were not administered timely (275 total medications administered); three detainees were incorrectly classified; nine pages of discharge instructions were missing (there were two cases where discharge instructions were entirely missing) and in one case the conveying officer did not place his signature on the Medical Referral Form of the conveyance back to the holding facility from DRH. There was one detainee file folder where the Medical Referral Form was not included in the packet and one detainee Hospital Form could not be located.
The critical issues for DPD to address at this time for maintaining compliance with the Medical and Mental Health Care Policies (C26-33) are: sanitary conditions of the holding facilities, and ensuring that remaining medications at the time of detainee release are either given to them or transferred with them to another facility. At this point, DPD needs to fill out the required forms completely to be in compliance with this paragraph. Compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon compliance with C27-C33.
DPD is now in compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C27
The DPD shall develop a comprehensive medical and mental health screening program (CMMHSP) that shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals. This program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the program within three months of DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least every year and prior to any revisions to the programs. At a minimum, the comprehensive medical and mental health screening program shall include prisoner screening procedures and medical protocols.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 130 of 186 Pg ID 9441

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 129

July 10, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD Health Authority completed the annual review and approved the CMMHSP policies and directives. The DPD provided us with documentation indicating that the CMMHSP was approved on April 8, 2013, and the mental health portion was approved on March 13, 2013. DPD revised the Detainee Information Form with implementation on September 20, 2012 with written approval on August 31, 2012 by the Department’s consulting physician.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C28
The prisoner screening procedure, at a minimum, shall:
a. enable the DPD to identify individuals with medical or mental health conditions, including infectious diseases, chronic conditions, including disabilities, ambulatory impairments, mental health conditions, and drug/alcohol withdrawal;
b. identify persons who are at risk of committing suicide, persons who have been on heightened observation for suicide risk at any time during a past incarceration and persons who have any medical contraindications for the use of chemical sprays,
c. require that the DPD follow a standard intake procedure for each individual entering DPD custody;
d. require that intake screening be conducted within two hours of intake and through a verbal exchange between the DPD and prisoners; and
e. incorporate all health information pertaining to a prisoner acquired by the arresting or transporting officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our review of documentation and July 2012 site visit, we found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement for the first time. For this reporting period, we observed few deficiencies. There remain minor clerical errors and occasionally incomplete or incorrect completion of required forms. With few exceptions personnel documented those instances where information was critical to the detainee’s health care.
Occasionally an arrestee is taken directly to DRH from the scene, and the two-hour screening mandate from time of arrest to processing does not meet the requirement. DPD processes detainees for Highland Park Police, Wayne State University Police, Detroit Public Schools Police, and the Michigan State Police. As we have noted in previous reports, many times DPD is

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 131 of 186 Pg ID 9442

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 130

July 10, 2013

late processing these detainees, due to the other agencies not presenting them to the holding facilities until the two hours from the time of arrest has passed. Any instance in which a detainee is screened more than two hours from the time of the arrest the processing officer is required to indicate the lateness on the face sheet of the DIF and should also indicate the reason for the lateness on the third page of the DIF under the “Comments Section.” In each case, except one, staff had transported to DRH detainees needing medical attention within a reasonable time of the request or transported them directly from the scene for those detainees needing immediate attention.
There were 202 detainee file folders we reviewed that included 19 instances where the intake screening took more than two hours; however, in 10 of these cases, the arrestee was transported to DRH or another hospital directly from the scene. In one case, the processing officer indicated a backup of detainees to be processed as the cause for the delay (five detainees arrested at the same time); in four cases, the arrest was made by Michigan State Police, Highland Park Police or Wayne State University Police; and in one case, the processing was late and the reason for the delay was not documented. Occasionally there are operational issues at the facilities where screening may be delayed, due to safety of the detainee and employees or several detainees are brought into the facility at the same time.
Many of these issues would be resolved if personnel would complete all the information the forms require and the OIC approving the form investigate those in violation of the two-hour requirement at the conclusion of the detainee processing and address those issues immediately. Compliance for processing detainees (C28d) within the two-hour requirement is 99%.
The Medical/Mental High Risk Logs (DPD 661) for this reporting period revealed that high-risk detainees were observed by staff and were compliant. We reviewed DPD 661 Forms for detainees who were maintained on suicide watch or should have been placed on constant supervision. In the sample reviewed for this quarter all detainees were properly identified who were at risk for committing suicide or placed on heightened observation. In one case, although the Risk Management Assessment Form clearly indicated the prisoner was likely to harm himself, the detainee was placed on 15-minute watch. The forms met the requirements for constant supervision as required by DPD policy. While reviewing documentation for C64b (supervisors to review video of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force and external complaints) we reviewed two cases of suicide attempts by detainees and one self-inflicted injury by a detainee. In all instances video was reviewed and personnel followed proper procedures.
All facilities met or exceeded the requirement.
In some cases, medical professionals at DRH may recommend placing a detainee on constant watch or remove them from the watch (Risk Management Assessment Form from the Detroit Medical Center). In these cases, DPD personnel need to indicate these changes in the comment section of the High Risk Log or on the form when they have returned to the holding facility. If there is any question whether a detainee should be monitored every 15 minutes or placed under constant observation; the detainee should be constantly monitored.
When a detainee’s medical or mental health status changes, detention staff should update the documents accordingly and indicate the date and time of the new information. With the revised

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 132 of 186 Pg ID 9443

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 131

July 10, 2013

DIF, detainee’s medical information has been disabled from the Livescan system. Overall, we found that DPD had a 94% compliance rate with this paragraph due to the compliance of C28e (C28a, b, and c had previously been in compliance). There were 66 instances where the Detainee Input Sheet indicated that the arresting or transporting officer listed a mental or medical issue with the detainee. In 65 cases, the processing officers in the facilities transferred this information to the Detainee Information Form. DPD’s compliance rate for C28e this reporting period is 99%, an increase from the previous reporting period.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C29
The medical protocols, at a minimum, shall:
a. identify the specific actions the DPD shall take in response to the medical information acquired during prisoner screening or detention, including the need for emergency care, hospitalization, prescription medication and/or intensive monitoring; and
b. require prior supervisory review and written approval, absent exigent circumstances, of all decisions made in response to acquired medical information.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD was not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph in previous reporting periods.
During this reporting period, we reviewed a sample of 202 detainee file folders, and inspected each of the districts/precincts that maintain holding cells and the Detroit Receiving Hospital. We continue to find that staff did not follow policy in a few key areas, including:
• Fifty nine referrals of detainees in need of medical or mental health care to DRH or another local hospital and all were within policy, with the following exceptions: in one case the Medical Referral Form was not included in the file folder and in another instance it took over nine hours for the detainee to be transported to DRH after the request was made.
• One case in which the intake screening was not conducted within the two-hour timeframe and where no operational delay was indicated.
• Detainees not receiving medications prescribed by the Detroit Receiving Hospital in a timely manner. Thirty-nine detainees had medications disbursed (275 individual dosages); and in eight instances, the dosages were not administered within a reasonable time according to the prescription schedule. In one case where medications were to be dosed to a detainee every 12 hours, the detainee only received the morning dose on two consecutive days.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 133 of 186 Pg ID 9444

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 132

July 10, 2013

• Sixty-six instances where detainee medical information was listed by the arresting officer on the Detainee Input Sheet; and in one case, the processing officer did not transfer that information to the Detainee Information Form.
• Fifty-nine detainees who were sent to the Detroit Receiving Hospital for treatment or medication; in all but two, discharge instructions were included in the detainee file folders. In the 57 remaining detainees we found three instances where one or more pages of the discharge instructions were missing. For all detainees who went to DRH for treatment or medication verification we reviewed 248 individual pages of discharge instructions.
• Written prior supervisory approval was issued for all decisions made in response to acquired medical information.
• The required Hospital Prisoner Form was included in all but one of the detainees who were sent to DRH.
• Of 202 classifications of detainees into the holding facilities after screening, 199 were correctly classified.
• There were 13 Detainee Custodial Transfer Logs (detainees transferred to other DPD holding facilities) completed in the sample and one did not contain the receiving Cell Block Supervisors signature.
Overall, we found that 98% were in compliance with this paragraph – the same as the previous reporting period. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C30
The DPD shall develop and implement policy regarding infectious disease control (IDC) in consultation with medical health professionals. The policy shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical health professionals at least every year after implementation and prior to any revisions to the policy. At a minimum, the policy shall:
a. establish appropriate housing for prisoners believed to have infectious diseases; and
b. mandate measures the DPD shall take to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, including proper handling and disposal of bio-hazardous material.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our previous site visits, our inspections of the Detroit Receiving Hospital and the five DPD facilities that maintain holding cells disclosed satisfactory levels of sanitation in similar

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 134 of 186 Pg ID 9445

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 133

July 10, 2013

degrees at all of the sites with a trend toward improvement. During our most recent site visit, we found all facilities to be in compliance.
During our most recent inspection, we inspected the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) kits from each of the five holding facilities. Each kit has a list of the contents of the packets to facilitate a rapid response if needed. In one of the kits there was one item missing and when we advised staff of the issue it was replaced immediately as the item was in storage in the facility. As with the first aid kits any item used should be replaced immediately. Our inspection of the first aid kits found that the contents were satisfactory, as we have observed improvement by the detention staff in this area. We continue to recommend that detention staff open the first aid kits on a regular basis to verify that the contents have not expired.
An effective infectious disease control plan must account for the sanitation and maintenance of all plumbing and equipment; physical plant cleanliness; and documentation that a plan to maintain the physical plant is being implemented in the holding cell areas and holding cells. The DPD Infectious Disease Policy 403.0, Section 403.2-6.3, Statements 1-6, Department Equipment, vehicle or facility, affirms the importance of building maintenance and cleaning and decontamination of the facility. Administrative Message (Teletype 12-1124), released on December 14, 2012, stressed the importance of holding cell cleaning and sanitation.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C31
The DPD shall develop and implement a protocol for updating and exchanging prisoner health information. At a minimum, this protocol shall;
a. require that prisoner’s health information is recorded at intake and thereafter immediately readily available to all relevant medical and transporting personnel in a manner consistent with the relevant federal and state confidentiality statutes;
b. require that prisoner health information is continually updated to incorporate any additional relevant information acquired during his or her detention;
c. require that relevant prisoner health information is documented and communicated between consecutive shifts, such as whether a prisoner is taking medication or has a medical condition; and
d. require that prisoner health information travel with prisoners who transferred to another facility.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 135 of 186 Pg ID 9446

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 134

July 10, 2013

During previous reporting periods, our reviews of DPD form 661, Detainee Medical/Mental Health Monitoring and form 659a, Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Form; indicated that required detainee health information – such as whether a detainee is taking medication or has a medical condition – was not always being documented and communicated between consecutive shifts. This is issue has now been addressed as our reviews indicate compliance.
As noted above our reviews of these documents is important to ensure that the detainees’ health needs are met, and for the purposes of staff safety. This information must be documented, updated, and communicated between the initial shift receiving the detainee and the subsequent shifts until the detainee is released. It is critical for the oncoming shift to indicate the date and time they receive the Platoon Daily Detainee Summary and to acknowledge its accuracy to assure the continuity of health monitoring for detainees requiring it.
We reviewed DPD log 659a, Platoon Daily Detainee Summary, in the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, and found fewer errors than in our previous reports; however, the logs from the Second Precinct indicate the major deficiencies were for failing to properly identify Suspected Crime Partners (88% compliant). It should be noted that form DPD 659a was amended during the ninth reporting period to indicate for each detainee whether medications are prescribed. Detainee medications are captured on the Medication Disbursement Log (DPD 664). DPD is now appropriately capturing information and listing the medical/mental needs of the detainee on the form. All districts/precincts with holding cells, with the exception of the Second Precinct, are compliant with this paragraph with compliance rate at 97% or above. The overall compliance rate (C31c) for all holding cell facilities is 96%, a decrease of 1% from the previous reporting period.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C32
The DPD shall develop a prescription medication policy in consultation with qualified medical and mental health professionals that ensures prisoners are provided prescription medication as directed. The policy shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals and shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the policy within three months of the DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the policy shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least annually and prior to any revisions to the program. At a minimum, the policy shall:
a. indicate when the DPD shall convey prisoners taking prescription medication to the DRH or other treating hospital for evaluation;
b. require the DPD distribute to prisoners only medications that have been prescribed at the DRH or other treating hospitals;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 136 of 186 Pg ID 9447

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 135

July 10, 2013

c. require that the DPD distribute medications as prescribed and not rely on inmates to identify their need for medication;
d. require that all prisoner medications be stored in a secure location near the holding cells and travel with prisoners that are transferred;
e. require the DPD to record relevant information regarding the administration of prescription medication on an auditable form;
f. require that injected medications are administered as prescribed and in a safe and hygienic manner; and
g. require that unused mediations prescribed at the DRH or other treating hospitals are provided to prisoners upon their release.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During all of the previous reporting periods, at the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, we found Medication Logs missing critical detainee and staff information. In prior reviews detainee dosages, dosing times, signatures, the names of the persons administering the medications, and prescription release information did not always appear on the logs. Those issues had previously been addressed with the exception of C32g, prescription release information.
During the current reporting period, in our review of 202 detainee file folders, we found few instances where the DPD failed to record essential detainee and staff information. We noted, for example, that the medication logs on detainees who had been released showed that three detainees were not given their unused medications, although just above where the detention officer signs the form is a box that should be checked indicating the release. DPD, as a result of our inquiry, did determine that one of the detainees did receive their medication upon release but the failure here is the lack of documentation by personnel.
There were 39 detainees who received medications while confined in a DPD holding facility. There were a total of 275 individual dosages administered by DPD personnel. There were eight instances where the medications were not disbursed timely and in one case a detainee should have received his medication every 12 hours; however, it was disbursed once a day for two consecutive days. DPD personnel timely disbursed prescribed medications to detainees 96% of the time. We examined the Platoon Daily Detainee Summary logs, which are used to ensure that detainee health information is exchanged and communicated between shifts. During a previous reporting period, DPD included a section on the PDDSL to indicate if detainees on a monitoring status were taking medications. This serves as an immediate alert for the CBS at the beginning of the shift that informs him/her if any detainees are on medication.
During our most recent site visit, we checked all active detainee file folders in all facilities for those detainees who were on medication or on a monitoring status. Each of the medication disbursement logs were reviewed and matched with the medication contained in the medication storage cabinet. We found that the prescribed medication for each detainee was properly stored. We did not find any medication left in the cabinet from detainees who had already been released. Our inspection of medication cabinets and medications for detainees at the districts/precincts

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 137 of 186 Pg ID 9448

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 136

July 10, 2013

maintaining holding cells revealed that all was satisfactory in the location of the cabinets and storage of medications.
DPD has addressed the previous failures with the requirements of C32g, and had achieved compliance with this paragraph for the past two reporting periods. The Department must continue to focus on the concerns related to the documentation of medication disbursements and release of medications when a detainee is released or transferred; C32a through 32f are in compliance. The compliance rate for C32g is 92%, compared to the 98% we found in the last reporting period. All subsets of this paragraph, with the exception of C32g, exceed the ≥94% requirement. A failure of personnel to accurately record the release of medications to detainees in our next report will remove DPD from compliance.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C33
The DPD shall provide appropriate clothing, such as paper gowns or suicide smocks, to all prisoners placed under suicide precautions.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During previous reporting periods, we found that detention personnel were generally familiar with where the appropriate clothing items, paper gowns and/or suicide smocks, were stored. Our inspections revealed ample inventory of appropriate clothing.
During our most recent inspections in all five districts and precincts with holding cells, we found sufficient inventory of paper gowns and/or suicide smocks. The staff we interviewed was knowledgeable regarding the use of the clothing and where the appropriate clothing was stored.
We find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C34 The DPD shall remove or make inaccessible all suicide hazards in holding cells including exposed pipes, radiators and overhead bars. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 138 of 186 Pg ID 9449

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 137

July 10, 2013

During all of our previous site visits, we conducted comprehensive inspections of each of the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, as well as the Detroit Receiving Hospital cells, and did not observe any hazards that could affect detainees or staff.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 26 Prisoners’ medical/mental health conditions 27 Medical/mental health screening program 28 Medical/mental health screening procedures 29 Medical protocols 30 Infectious disease policy required 31 Prisoner health information protocol required 32 Prescription medication policy required 33 Clothing-suicide prevention 34 Removal of suicide hazards

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VI. PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES CJ Requirement C35 The DPD shall ensure a reasonable level of safety of staff and prisoners through the use of appropriate security administration procedures. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of staff and inmate safety measures required by C36-38; accordingly, the DPD is in compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 139 of 186 Pg ID 9450

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 138

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement C36
The DPD shall develop and implement a prisoner security screening program for all buildings containing holding cells. At a minimum, the program shall:
a. establish protocols based upon objective, behavior-based criteria for identifying suspected crime partners, vulnerable, assaultive or special management prisoners who should be housed in observation cells or single-occupancy cells; and
b. require that security screening information is documented and communicated between consecutive shifts.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
DPD Form 659A (Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Log [PDDSL]), revised August 2011, is used to record information on detainees with medical conditions or special needs. During this reporting period, we reviewed Eastern District logs that contained 495 entries. Eastern’s compliance rate for the month of February was 93%. All of the deficiencies were for failures to mark the “Other” alert column on a detainee with a Criminal Sexual Conduct charge. The Eastern District’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 97%, a 1% increase from the last reporting period.
We reviewed Northeastern District’s logs containing 485 entries. The Northeastern District’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 97%, a 1% decrease from the last reporting period.
We reviewed Sixth Precinct’s logs containing 336 entries. The Sixth Precinct’s compliance rate with this paragraph was 97%, which is the same as the last reporting period.
We reviewed Twelfth Precinct logs containing 217 entries. The Twelfth Precinct’s compliance rate with this paragraph for this reporting period is 98%, a 1% decrease over the last reporting period.
We reviewed Second Precinct logs containing 479 entries. The Second Precinct’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 88% for this reporting period, a 7% decrease from the last reporting period. The major deficiencies were for failure to properly identify Suspected Crime Partners (SCPs). The DPD form 659a, Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Log clearly states, “the name(s) of the SCP shall be listed in the ‘Comment’ section of this form.”
The average for all districts/precincts during this reporting period is 96% compliance for the 2,012 log entries, a decrease of 1%.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. However, Second Precinct must meet the required ≥94% compliance rate during the next reporting period to remain in compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 140 of 186 Pg ID 9451

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 139

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement C37
The DPD shall develop and implement procedures for the performance, documentation and review of routine cell checks in all holding cells to ensure safe housing. At a minimum, the procedures should:
a. require that cell checks on the general population are performed at least twice per hour and that cell checks of prisoners in observation cells and DRH holding cells are performed every 15 minutes, unless constant supervision is required; and
b. require detention officers to document relevant information regarding the performance of cell checks in an auditable log.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The duties of cell block supervisors (CBS) and detention officers relating to well-being checks are established by DPD policy. Supervisors are required to walk through the holding cell areas four times per shift to check on the well-being of the detainees. Detention officers are required to make similar visual checks every 30 minutes (or every 15 minutes for high-risk detainees). Their observations are documented on the Detention Cell Check Log (DPD 659).
At the Detroit Receiving Hospital (DRH), 15-minute well-being checks are entered on the DPD 659 Form when holding cells are occupied. The review of the DPD 659 forms from DRH this reporting period indicated an apparent compliance rate of 100%. Reporting numbers are very low for DRH due to low population counts. During this reporting period, which spans 144 hours of documentation per month, only four detainees were present in the holding cells for a total period of eight hours.
General population well-being checks are entered on the DPD 659 Form every 30 minutes at the districts/precincts. Detainees held in observation cells are monitored every 15 minutes on DPD Form 661, Detainee Medical/Mental Health Monitoring (DMMHM) logs. During the current reporting period, our review of 6,021 entries in the Detention Cell Check Logs (DPD 659) for the general detainee population from the districts with holding cell facilities reflected a 99.6% compliance rate. All of the districts/precincts scored 99% or better for each monitoring period. The Second Precinct is commended for scoring 100% for each month of the reporting period. The Department corrected previous problems with unreadable time stamps. No records were submitted during this reporting period that were not readable.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 141 of 186 Pg ID 9452

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 140

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement C38
The DPD shall record in a written policy and implement a procedure that requires detention officers to provide continual direct or on site remote observation of all observation cells while they are occupied.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
For the periods of January 25-30, February 15-20, and March 1-6, 2013, we reviewed logs for 14 detainees who required a 15-minute or constant observation watch, reported on Form DPD 661 (DMMHM Log). Numerous errors were noted with the documentation of checks every 15 minutes as required by the Consent Judgment. In the Northeastern District, one detainee had eight late or missed checks on Platoon 1, on February 8, 2013. Another detainee’s record indicated nine missed checks between 18:30 on March 6, 2013 and 07:30 on March 7, 2013. On March 7, 2013, another detainee’s record revealed nine missed checks between 00:00 and 08:00.
Other types of errors occurred also. One detainee’s record indicates that he was admitted to the holding facility on March 6 at 19:15 (Platoon 3) and was immediately placed on constant observation because of a suicide attempt four months prior to this arrest. He was also evaluated at the hospital, although the log does not indicate when the evaluation occurred. The next three Platoon logs indicate that he was placed on mental 15-minute monitoring. Then on March 8, 2013, at 00:15 (Platoon 1), the log shows the detainee back on constant observation. There is no justification in the logs that would have supported the change in evaluation status.
In the Sixth Precinct, one detainee was placed on constant observation during his stay on January 25-26, 2013. He was not evaluated at the Detroit Receiving Hospital (DRH), and the only reason given on the Form 661 was “suicide risk.” Another detainee was on mental 15-minute watch from January 25, 2013 at 14:25 until the following day at 17:15. No monitoring logs were submitted for the period of January 25 at 18:30 through January 26 at 00:30.
All districts met or exceeded the required ≥94% compliance standard for 15- or 30-minute cell checks. However, the Northeastern District should strive to improve monitoring accuracy and subsequent documentation.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 35 Security procedures to ensure safety 36 Prisoner security screening program 37 Procedures for cell checks required 38 On-site remote observation of cells

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 142 of 186 Pg ID 9453

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 141

July 10, 2013

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES
CJ Requirement C39
The DPD shall ensure that all holding cells are cleaned immediately and thereafter are maintained in a clean and sanitary manner.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During this reporting period, we evaluated all districts/precincts for general cleanliness and sanitation. The cleanliness level in the holding areas was satisfactory. Lighting continues to be an issue in areas where there is no direct light source in the toilet areas. Many of the concrete benches in the Sixth and Twelfth Precincts and the Eastern and Northeastern Districts have corroded or have been damaged over time and are no longer capable of adequate cleaning and disinfection.
Documentation of holding cell cleaning was improved overall during this reporting period. Each of the District/Precincts averaged between 98-100% compliance for this reporting period.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C40
The DPD shall design and implement a cleaning policy for all holding cells. The policy shall require routine cleaning and supervisory inspection of the holding cells and nearby areas.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
DPD Directive 305.4 (effective January 9, 2013) is the relevant document for this section; this document is reviewed on an annual basis. Additional documents have been issued to command staff for guidance purposes to ensure consistency in cleaning methods and procedures. The Holding Cell Compliance Committee (HCCC) has issued detailed cell block cleaning instructions that cover procedures, schedules, and documentation.
This requirement addresses the design and implementation of a cleaning policy for all holding cells. It also requires the routine cleaning and supervisory oversight of cleaning of the cells and nearby areas. The policy is in place and is adequate. The application of this policy has improved since our last site visit.
Automated chemical dispensers (ACD) were installed in the Sixth Precinct and the Eastern District and were in use by staff. The new system was working well in the Sixth Precinct. The supplier provided training to some members of the staff and “train the trainer” classes have been instituted to ensure adequate training of all staff on all shifts. Some Eastern District staff

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 143 of 186 Pg ID 9454

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 142

July 10, 2013

indicated they had received no training on the use of the ACD units; this was disputed by other officers.
While touring the Twelfth Precinct, we observed a bottle of bleach beside a bottle of ammonia on the floor in a housekeeping closet. Both of these products are extremely toxic and should not be present in a correctional environment, especially in close proximity to each other. Should these products come into contact with each other, a violent chemical reaction will occur, creating an explosion, fire, and the release of toxic fumes that can be fatal if inhaled. We requested that staff remove these products from the facility immediately, and asked for the removal of all bleach products in each of the districts/precincts. No other containers of ammonia were observed.
Also during our most recent site visit, we met with the director of the Detroit General Services Division regarding the difficulties the Department has in obtaining timely responses to requests for supplies and maintenance. Following our meeting, we learned that the City had approved two additional maintenance positions, which should improve the City’s response to maintenance needs in the Police Department.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C41
The DPD shall design and implement a maintenance policy for all holding cells that requires timely performance of routine maintenance and the documentation of all maintenance requests and responses in an auditable log.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The Platoon 1 Cell Block Supervisor is responsible for conducting a weekly maintenance inspection and for documenting discrepancies in the Facilities Maintenance Log (DPD 702). The Platoon 1 Cell Block Supervisor is required to submit repair orders via e-mail to the Facilities Maintenance Department.
Based on the Holding Cell Facility Logs (DPD 702), OCR prepares a monthly spreadsheet listing all current outstanding repairs and their status. Items on this spreadsheet are reviewed monthly by the HCCC. During this reporting period, HCCC meeting agendas were reviewed and confirmed that current facility repairs were being discussed.
This section of the Consent Judgment requires “timely performance of routine maintenance.” Compliance with this requirement remains challenging due to the age of the facilities and furnishings and the lack of availability of replacement parts. We continue to find satisfactory response times in addressing repair issues when staff and parts are available.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 144 of 186 Pg ID 9455

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 143

July 10, 2013

DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C42
The DPD shall provide adequate heating and ventilation for all buildings containing holding cells.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
No HVAC issues were identified during our most recent site visit. As we toured the holding cells each day, we checked the temperatures in the cell areas, and found the temperatures in each of the holding facilities to be within the limits established by the Department (between 66°F and 85°F). Measured temperatures in the cell blocks were in the 70°F – 75̊°F range.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C43
The DPD shall repair all broken or malfunctioning lighting, toilets, sinks and windows in holding cells and observation cells.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our most recent inspection, we continued to find only isolated instances of malfunctioning lights, toilets, and sinks. Repairs are being made promptly when parts are available. The facilities and the equipment are old and outdated. It can be difficult to locate replacement parts for some of the toilet and sink units. When these malfunctions occur in the holding cells, the cells are taken out of service and signage is posted on the front of the cell to prevent usage until repairs are completed. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 145 of 186 Pg ID 9456

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 144

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement C44
The DPD shall ensure that lighting in all cell block areas is maintained at an appropriate level for all tasks related to the housing of DPD detainees, including but not necessarily limited to, security, safety, cleaning and disinfection of housing areas.39
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
As in past visits, during our most recent site visit, lighting levels were determined to be marginally sufficient in the cell areas. In the Eastern District, the toilet areas are particularly dark; these areas were not adequately cleaned at the time of this inspection. This lighting deficiency is also present in some of the cells in the Sixth Precinct. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph at this time.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C45
The DPD shall provide all prisoners with reasonable access to toilets and potable water 24 hours-a-day.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
No issues were identified during our most recent site visit. All prisoners had access to toilets and potable water at all times. Cells with plumbing deficiencies were not being used and signage was posted accordingly. Based on the published directive and our observations of conditions of the physical plant in the district/precinct holding cells, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

39 Amended by Court Order dated April 23, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 146 of 186 Pg ID 9457

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 145

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement C46 The DPD shall ensure that all Hepa-Aire purifiers comply with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Agency standards. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. All Hepa-Aire purifiers have been permanently removed from the district/precinct holding cell areas. DPD is in full compliance with the requirements of this Consent Judgment paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 39 Clean and maintain holding cells 40 Holding cell cleaning policy required 41 Holding cell maintenance policy required 42 Provide adequate heating and ventilation 43 Repair broken/malfunctioning cell elements 44 Insure sufficient cell lighting 45 Provide reasonable access to toilets and water 46 Hepa-Aire purifiers comply with standards

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VIII. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
CJ Requirement C47
The DPD shall ensure that persons with disabilities are provided with reasonable accommodations.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
No issues were identified during our most recent site visit. The Northeast District (NED) is the designated ADA-compliant holding facility; all detainees with disabilities requiring special accommodations are housed in this facility. A wheelchair is available at NED for detainee use as needed. During our most recent site visit, we found that detention staff in the districts/precincts continue to demonstrate competency in the use of Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD). In addition, the TDD equipment was working properly in all sites. DPD detention staff are now required, per policy, to conduct tests on a monthly basis to ensure the equipment is

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 147 of 186 Pg ID 9458

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 146

July 10, 2013

working properly. In each holding facility, detention staff were able to demonstrate the use of the equipment. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C48
The DPD shall develop and implement a policy concerning the detention of individuals with disabilities in consultation with qualified medical and mental health professionals. The policy shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least every year and prior to any revisions to the program.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The provisions of this requirement are covered in DPD 305.1, Detainee Intake, and DPD 305.5, Detainee Health Care. These policies were reviewed and approved by qualified medical and mental health professionals on April 8, 2013 and March 13, 2013 respectively.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 47 Reasonable accommodation for disabled 48 Detention of persons with disabilities

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

IX. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES CJ Requirement C49 The DPD shall ensure food is stored and served in a sanitary manner and in compliance with state and local health codes. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 148 of 186 Pg ID 9459

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 147

July 10, 2013

Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of C50; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. See C50. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C50
The DPD shall develop and implement a food service policy that shall be approved in writing by a qualified sanitarian. At a minimum, the food service policy shall:
a. require that the meal plan is initially approved in writing by a qualified dietician and, hereafter, is reviewed and approved in writing by a qualified dietician at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the program;
b. require that all food is stored and handled in a sanitary manner;
c. ensure that all prisoners are provided with an alternative meal if they are unable to eat the standard meal for religious or dietary reasons; and
d. ensure that food service is provided to all prisoners who are held over six hours.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. DPD’s Detainee Food Service and Hygiene Items Policy 305.8, was revised by the Detroit Police Department, dated January 9, 2013.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed Desk Blotter logs for the periods of January 25-30, February 15-20, and March 1-6, 2013. Food service documentation improved slightly during this reporting period. We considered instances of missed documentation to be in compliance if supervisory oversight and corrective actions were reported. However, a review of the districts’ Desk Blotter logs for meal service documentation revealed compliance rates ranging from 100% in the Twelfth Precinct, 99% in the Eastern District and the Sixth Precinct, and 97% in the Second Precinct Northeastern District. The Department’s overall compliance rate was 98% for this reporting period. All District/Precincts are in compliance with this paragraph.
The Detention Refrigeration Log, DPD form 655, is used to capture daily refrigerator temperatures and weekly cleaning and sanitization information on a monthly basis. This revised form was implemented on June 7, 2012, Department-wide. During this reporting period, we found documentation that the refrigerators had been cleaned weekly and refrigerator temperatures were satisfactory. Expiration dates on the food were up to standard. All districts were 100% compliant with the refrigeration logs.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 149 of 186 Pg ID 9460

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 148

July 10, 2013

¶ Requirements 49 Ensure sanitary food storage and service 50 Food service policies and practices

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

X. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES
CJ Requirement C51
The DPD shall ensure that personal hygiene items should include; soap, toothbrushes, toothpaste, toilet paper, a comb, deodorant, and feminine hygiene products. The DPD shall implement this provision within one month of effective date of this Agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
In the current reporting period, we inspected each area where the hygiene kits are stored to determine if the kits were readily available, and found that in all five facilities there were an adequate number of hygiene kits to distribute to detainees when needed. Feminine hygiene products were also available in all sites. Our interviews with the PDOs demonstrate an understanding of the importance of providing personal hygiene items to the detainees on a daily basis. Detainees indicated they had no problems obtaining personal hygiene items when needed.
The DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement is 100%. Accordingly, we find the Department in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 51 Make available personal hygiene items

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance

CJ Requirement C52
The DPD shall require that any use of force on prisoners in holding cells complies with the DPD’s use of force policies and procedures.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the previous reporting period, we examined 11 SIRs regarding incidents occurring at detention facilities. All of the cases were in compliance with DPD’s use of force policies and procedures. Two of the cases were attempted suicides, one of which required the officers to use

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 150 of 186 Pg ID 9461

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 149

July 10, 2013

force to extract the detainee. Nine of the 11 cases should have included video reviews; nine (100%) included sufficient reviews utilizing facility and handheld camera recordings.40
During this reporting period, we examined eight SIRs regarding incidents occurring at detention facilities. All of the cases were in compliance with DPD’s use of force policies and procedures. Two of the cases were attempted suicides. All eight of the cases included video review; in one instance, following the initial review, the investigating supervisor was unable to conduct a follow-up review due to technical difficulties. This issue was reported the Technical Support Unit.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C53
The DPD shall revise and augment its policies regarding prisoners to require that:
a. officers utilize appropriate precautions when interacting with a prisoner who has previously demonstrated he or she is recalcitrant or resistant, including: summoning additional officers; summoning a supervisor; and using appropriate restraints;
b. absent exigent circumstances, officers notify a supervisor before using force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell; and
c. the supervisor assesses the need to use force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell, direct any such use of force and ensure the incident is videotaped.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
All districts/precincts that maintain holding cells are equipped with some level of videotaping/digital recording equipment that is linked to a camera system that monitors hallways and common areas as well as most, but not all, cells. In addition to the mounted video equipment, the detention districts/precincts have been issued handheld cameras that can be used for planned extractions. Our visits to the various holding facilities found that supervisors were aware of the handheld cameras and had received some training in their use. All supervisors contacted during our most recent site visit were aware of the cameras’ location, and were aware of the need to check the recorders to ensure that the batteries were functional. In the previous

40 Two cases were not applicable; in one, there was no equipment installed in an interview room; and in the second, there was a technical problem that was reported to Tech Support.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 151 of 186 Pg ID 9462

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 150

July 10, 2013

reporting period, we found that there were eight SIR investigations of incidents occurring in detention facilities cases; only three of these cases were cell extractions.
During this reporting period, we reviewed eight cases occurring in DPD detention facilities. One of the cases was a detainee injury in which no force was required or used; two others were attempt suicide cell extractions and minimal force was utilized. In six of the eight cases, information regarding detainees who had previously demonstrated recalcitrant or resistant behavior was available.41Four of the cases in which force was used were cell extractions. The remaining four incidents occurred either in an interview room, the processing area, or as the officers attempted to place a detainee in a cell. In six (75%) of those eight cases, appropriate precautions were taken, to include the summoning of a supervisor and the utilization of additional officers.
Of the eight use of force cases, four were cell extractions.42 Supervisors were notified and were present at all four extractions. The handheld camera was not utilized in any of the cell extractions. In reviewing the remaining four cases involving uses of force on detainees, we find that they are primarily uses of force involving detainees refusing to cooperate during processing or detainees being placed in their cells from the processing area. Supervisors were notified and were present at the four non-cell extraction incidents. Sufficient personnel were also present to deal with the situations. Video was available and reviewed in the eight cases, including one noncell extraction in which the handheld camera was utilized.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement C54 The DPD shall not handcuff prisoners to benches for longer periods of time than are necessary. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

¶ Requirements 52 Use of force policies

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance

41 There were three cases in December, two cases in January, and one in February.
42 Two in December, one at Eastern District and one at the Northeast District; one in January at Eastern District; and one in February at the Second Precinct.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 152 of 186 Pg ID 9463

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 151

July 10, 2013

53 Revise policy re use of force with prisoners 54 Handcuffing of prisoners to benches

In Compliance In Compliance

Not in Compliance In Compliance

XII. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW
CJ Requirement C55
The DPD shall require that all uses of force, injuries to prisoners and in-custody deaths occurring in the DPD holding cells are investigated in compliance with the DPD’s general incident investigation policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found the DPD out of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during all of the previous reporting periods.
During the last reporting period, we requested 11 cases. Two were attempted suicides, one of which required the use of force to resolve and three were detainee injuries. Nine of the cases made the 10-day requirement (82%), and 10 (91%) of the 11 met the 30-day requirement. Of the nine cases that could have included video review, all included acceptable reviews. As with the SIR investigations involving uses of force outside of the detention facilities, we continue to encourage staff to conduct more critical reviews of the investigations. There was only one case in which the handheld camera was utilized. There were no in-custody deaths in the cell block areas.
During this reporting period, we reviewed eight cases. Two were attempted suicides, both of which required the use of force to resolve and one was a detainee injury with no force utilized. Seven of the cases made the 10-day requirement (87%), and six (75%) of the eight met the 30day requirement. All eight cases included acceptable reviews. As with the SIR investigations involving uses of force outside of the detention facilities, we continue to encourage staff to conduct more critical reviews of the investigations. There was only one case in which the handheld camera was utilized; not a cell extraction. There were no in-custody deaths in the cell block areas.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 153 of 186 Pg ID 9464

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 152

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement C56
The DPD shall require that all uses of force occurring in the DPD holding cells are reported and investigated in compliance with the DPD’s use of force investigation policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the last reporting period, we found that nine of the 11 cases had opportunities for video recordings and reviews.43 Nine (100%) contained acceptable reviews; DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
During this reporting period, we found that all of the eight cases had opportunities for video recordings and reviews. Eight (100%) contained acceptable reviews; DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C57
The DPD shall require that all injuries to prisoners occurring in DPD holding cells are reported and investigated in compliance with the DPD’s prisoner injury investigation policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the last reporting period, we reviewed two attempted suicides and three detainee injuries. One of the attempted suicides required minimal force to remove the detainees from the cell. The attempted suicides and the detainee injury were investigated in conformity with the requirements in C57. The detainees involved in the two attempted suicides were promptly transported to DRH for treatment.
During this reporting period, we reviewed two attempted suicides and one detainee injury. The two attempted suicides required minimal force to remove the detainees from the cell. The attempted suicides and the detainee injury were investigated in conformity with the requirements in C57. The detainees involved in the two attempted suicides were promptly transported to DRH for treatment.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

43 One incident had no equipment installed in the area, and the other experienced technical difficulties which were reported to Tech Support.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 154 of 186 Pg ID 9465

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 153

July 10, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
• The issues that impact the quality of use of force investigations as described in the Use of Force section of the Consent Judgment are applicable to the use of force investigations of incidents occurring in the cell block area. The remedies we have recommended in those areas remain constant for the Conditions of Confinement requirements. Timely and thorough investigations, coupled with critical command level reviews, are the keys to achieving compliance. We have noted improvements in video review and the use of the handheld portable cameras.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to review all force, injury, and complaint incidents originating from detention facilities.
• Monitor the supervisory review of video captured in the detention areas, and, where appropriate, monitor the use of handheld cameras in each detention facility.
• Conduct field visits to various detention facilities to verify the Department’s adherence to policy requirements.

¶ Requirements 55 Use of force investigations 56 Use of force investigations 57 Injury to prisoner investigations

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

XIII. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS CJ Requirement C58 The DPD shall ensure that it accepts and processes all external complaints regarding incidents occurring in holding cells consistent with the DPD’s external complaint policies. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. We found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during all of the previous reporting periods.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 155 of 186 Pg ID 9466

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 154

July 10, 2013

During this reporting period, the Department closed four complaints originating from detention facilities – two in January, one in February, and one in March. All complaints were accepted and processed in accordance with DPD policy. Three involved demeanor and procedure allegations, and one involved missing property – a cell phone. OCI retained investigation of the cases.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C59
The DPD shall ensure that all external complaints it receives regarding incidents occurring in holding cells are investigated and reviewed consistent with the DPD’s policies concerning external complaint investigations and review.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during the first reporting period, but not in compliance during successive reporting periods.
OCI closed four complaints originating from detention facilities during the reporting period. Two were closed more than 90 days after complaints were made. In one case involving a demeanor allegation, there was no reference to checking for video evidence. While we realize that not all areas of the holding facilities are monitored by video cameras, this must be a necessary investigative step for complaints emanating from these facilities. In another case, the investigator requested video recordings 82 days after the complaint was lodged, and then closed the case without ever receiving the results.
In summary, the detention cases exhibited some of the issues delineated in CJ requirements U2733, impacting DPD’s compliance with this requirement. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

Critical Issues:
• The issues that impact the quality of use of force investigations and OCI investigations, as outlined in CJ requirements U27–33 and U61–69 are also evident in the cases reviewed for requirements C58–59. As these issues are addressed Department-wide, we hope to see a positive impact on the subset of cases originating from detention facilities.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 156 of 186 Pg ID 9467

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 155

July 10, 2013

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to review all force, injury, and complaint incidents originating from detention facilities.
• Check, in applicable cases, for the appropriate use of handheld cameras, now that they are deployed in all detention facilities.
• Conduct field visits to various detention facilities to verify members’ knowledge of and the Department’s adherence to policy requirements.

¶ Requirements 58 Receipt of external complaints 59 Investigation of external complaints

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance Not in Compliance

XIV. GENERAL POLICIES CJ Requirement C60 In developing, revising, and augmenting the policies discussed in this Agreement, the DPD shall ensure that all terms are clearly defined. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. We found the DPD in Phase 2 compliance in all of the previous reporting periods. That status continues in this reporting period. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C61
The DPD shall continue to make available proposed policy revisions to the community, for review, comment and education. Such policy revisions shall also be published on the DPD’s website to allow comments to be provided directly to the DPD.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
See U71. The DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 157 of 186 Pg ID 9468

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 156

July 10, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 60 Clearly define all terms in policies 61 Policy changes available to community

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

XV. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
CJ Requirement C62
The DPD shall routinely evaluate the operation of the holding cells to minimize harm to staff and prisoners.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During this reporting period, CRIB staff inspected all of the facilities with holding cells and the DRH each month and documented their findings on Form 715 Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells. Upon review of the completed forms, we found that all forms contained critical findings – e.g., broken toilets and sprinkler heads, and inoperable video cameras. Requests for repairs had been made and were documented on the maintenance log. All 715 forms were complete with all of the required signatures.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C63 The DPD shall operate the holding cells in compliance with DPD’s comprehensive risk management plan including implementation of:
a) the risk management database; b) the performance evaluation system; c) the auditing protocol; d) regular and periodic review of all DPD policies; and e) regular meetings of the DPD management to share information and evaluate patterns of
conduct by DPD that potentially increase the DPD’s liability.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 158 of 186 Pg ID 9469

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 157

July 10, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Phase 2 compliance with this requirement is unchanged since the last report. The components of this requirement incorporate compliance requirements detailed in the Use of Force Consent Judgment and are applicable across the Department’s patrol and holding cell personnel. These include U91 with regard to personnel evaluations, U92-U99 which address audit requirements, policy review and monthly risk related reviews and U78-90 which establish requirements for the risk management database. Our findings of compliance with those requirements are reflected in the finding with regard to C63.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C64
The DPD policy on video cameras shall be revised and augmented to require:
a. the installation and continuous operations of video cameras in all prisoner processing areas of the DPD holding cells within one year of the effective date of this Agreement;44
b. supervisors to review videotapes of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force and external complaints;
c. that the DPD retain and preserve videotapes for at least 90 days, or as long as necessary for incidents to be fully investigated; and
d. that the DPD conduct and document periodic random reviews of prisoners processing area camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes and conduct periodic random surveys of prisoners processing area video recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our previous inspections of holding cells, we observed the operation of video cameras in all processing areas and throughout the holding facilities. We noted that CRIB and/or detention staff conducts monthly random reviews of videos in processing areas as well as specific reviews when a use of force incident occurs.
During our January 2011 site visit, the Parties determined that video cameras were not required outside of the processing areas. During our previous site visits, the video cameras in all of the districts/precincts that maintain holding cells were operational in the processing areas.

44 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 159 of 186 Pg ID 9470

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 158

July 10, 2013

During our January 2013 inspection, we reviewed 37 Detainee Processing Area Video Forms, and found five instances where video was not available for review. In two of the instances, occurring on October 29, 2012, the technical issues of retrieving the archived video was being addressed by DPD and the City. In three of the reviews on December 4, 2012, the video could not be accessed by the holding facility. We have observed that not all staff in the holding facilities are familiar with the mechanisms of retrieving archived video, and recommend that OCR be notified immediately when a supervisor cannot retrieve those videos.
During this reporting period we reviewed 36 Detainee Processing Area Video Forms (DPD-713, revised 05/12) from each of the five holding facilities and found that the Eastern District and the Northeastern District are still experiencing problems accessing archived video. On January 9, 2013, the Eastern District was unable to access archived video on three separate occasions; and on March 31, 2013, between the hours of 02:00 and 04:00, the district was able to view only one hour of the two-hour timeframe.
The Northeastern District reported that they were unable to review archived video on January 9, 2013 on two separate occasions and on March 31, 2013 they reported that retrieval was sporadic. The issues with retrieving archived video has been ongoing at both the Eastern and Northeastern Districts since July 2012 when we could not review the archived video while conducting our onsite assessment. We were assured at that time that a relatively inexpensive fix would correct the ongoing problems. The Second Precinct, the Sixth Precinct and the Twelfth Precinct have not had problems with retrieving the video.
DPD has purchased handheld video cameras to achieve compliance with C53, subparagraph c, which states: “The DPD shall revise and augment its policies regarding prisoners to require that: the supervisor assesses the need to use force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell, direct any such use of force and ensure the incident is videotaped.” Personnel in the five facilities were able to activate the handheld cameras. This equipment should be routinely checked to ensure its operability.
During this reporting period, we reviewed eight cases, within or at the holding facilities that involved a use of force or a prisoner injury. In one case, there was a preplanned cell extraction where the handheld video camera should have been utilized but was not. Fortunately, a camera previously installed in the cell had captured the incident on video. Corrective action was taken in this case. In another case a detainee refused to exit a scout car and a supervisor retrieved the handheld camera and videoed the vehicle extraction. In all other cases involving a use of force or detainee injury where video was available, the supervisor reviewed the video and included it in the findings of the report. Video is generally available for review immediately after an incident, however, if the review is conducted several weeks in the past it is sporadic at the Eastern and Northeastern District. Commanding officers are taking a more active role in use of force and prisoner injury investigations in the holding facilities by making inquiries about the use of video as an evidentiary and management tool.
The ability to pull up archived video at two of the holding facilities has not improved and should be addressed by DPD immediately. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph due to the remaining issues previously described in C64c. In January 2013, the Department advised that they had addressed the hardware issues and was working on correcting the minor bugs remaining in the system. Issues still remain in the system and DPD should find and implement a

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 160 of 186 Pg ID 9471

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 159

July 10, 2013

solution. Many of the issues of storing archived video should be resolved when the Michigan Department of Correction begins housing DPD detainees later this year. DPD’s compliance rate for subset C64c is 89%; all other subsets are in compliance.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement C65
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled semiannual audits, covering all DPD units and commands that investigate uses of force, injuries to prisoners and allegations of misconduct in holding cells, including;
a. reviewing a statistically valid sample of command, IAD, and Homicide Section investigations;
b. evaluating whether the actions of the officer and the subject were captured correctly in the investigative report;
c. evaluating the preservation and analysis of the evidence;
d. examining whether there is consistency in use of force and injured prisoner investigations throughout the DPD;
e. evaluating the appropriateness of the investigator’s conclusions; and f. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.45
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its Combined Use of Force and Allegations of Misconduct in Holding Cells Investigations Audit for the audit period ending January 31, 2013. We reviewed the audit for that reporting period; and found that the Audit Team conducted a comprehensive audit regarding uses of force, injuries to prisoners, and allegations of misconduct in holding cells. The respective command staff were notified of the deficiencies and responded
45Amended to reflect the below stipulated language contained in the Court order of April 15, 2009:
The audits required by paragraphs 65 to 71 in this Agreement shall be submitted on a semiannual basis with the first and second semiannual periods ending on January 31 and August 31, 2004. Subsequent semiannual periods shall end on January 31, 2005, and every six months thereafter. Each of these audits may be conducted on an annual rather than a semiannual basis when the Monitor concludes that the most recently submitted audit for the same topic is compliant, and the remaining requirements of this paragraph have been met for the prior audit of that topic. The DPD shall issue all audit reports to the Chief of Police and also provide copies to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take nondisciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 161 of 186 Pg ID 9472

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 160

July 10, 2013

to the Command Action Notices with non-disciplinary corrective action and/or training as appropriate. The next semi-annual audit will have been completed by July 31, 2013. Accordingly, we continue to find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C66
The DPD shall create a Holding Cell Compliance Committee that is responsible for assuring compliance with requirements of this Agreement. The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate compliance with fire detection, suppression and evacuation program, including:
a. testing a sample of smoke detectors and sprinklers;
b. testing the back-up power systems;
c. reviewing a sample of fire equipment testing and maintenance records; and
d. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that meets monthly and collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB audit team conducted the semi-annual Fire Safety Practices and Policies Audit that was completed for January 31, 2013. The audit was comprehensive and indicated that deficiencies were discovered relating to fire safety. The Audit Team found broken sprinkler heads at three of the precincts with holding cells, an open Fire Door at one district, and cigarette butts on the ground at all districts/precincts. The respective command staff were notified of the deficiencies and responded to the Command Action Notices with non-disciplinary corrective action and/or training as appropriate. The next audit is scheduled to be completed on July 31, 2013.
During this reporting period, we inspected the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, and examined the policies and practices related to Departmental fire safety. Our current findings are documented in C14-22.
Accordingly, we continue to find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 162 of 186 Pg ID 9473

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 161

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement C67
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled audits in all buildings containing holdings cells to evaluate emergency preparedness, including;
a. reviewing a sample of key and fire equipment maintenance and inventory records; interviewing selected detention officers about their participation in fire drills and on their responsibilities under emergency preparedness program and testing their ability to identify keys necessary to unlock all holding cell doors; and
b. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit team completed the Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program audit for the period ending January 31, 2013. We confirmed that the DPD met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The Audit Team conducted tabletop exercises to determine the knowledge and skills of the personnel working in the Detention areas. The percentage of total correct answers was 97%, Department-wide. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for July 31, 2013.
The DPD developed and published a Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP) addressing safety and security, as required. The CEPP includes an emergency response plan for each district/precinct (see C24) and a key control system requirement (see C25).
During our most recent inspection of all districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, we examined the policies and practices related to the Emergency Preparedness Program. Our findings are discussed above in C23-25.
The DPD has conducted and documented fire drills, as required. Accordingly, we continue to find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with these requirements of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C68
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate the medical/mental health programs and policies, including:
a. reviewing a sampling of hospitals referral forms in comparison to prisoner intake forms to evaluate the accuracy of the intake screening and whether appropriate action was taken;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 163 of 186 Pg ID 9474

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 162

July 10, 2013

b. observing intake screening interviews to assess thoroughness;
c. reviewing a sampling of the prescription medication log to ensure that medications were administered as prescribed and that their distribution was accurately recorded; and
d. issuing a written report regarding the finding of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The most recent approval letter for the Comprehensive Medical/Mental Health Screening Program (CMMHSP) was signed by a medical and mental health Professional from the City’s Health Department on February 29, 2012.
The most recent semi-annual audit was completed for January 31, 2012. The audit is comprehensive and addresses the deficiencies by issuing Command Action Notices to the appropriate command staff. Included in the audit are the responses from the commanders, indicating training or issuance of non-disciplinary or disciplinary notices. The Audit Team found deficiencies again in C26, C28, C28d, C29, C29a, C31, C31c, C32, C32e, and C32g, Department-wide. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for July 31, 2013.
During this reporting period, we visited the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, and examined the policies and operational practices related to the Medical and Mental Health Program. Our findings are discussed above in C26-34.
We conclude that the DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C69
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate detainee safety programs and policies, including;
a. reviewing a sampling of security screening records, including written supervisory approvals, to ensure that prisoners are being properly screened and housed;
b. reviewing a sampling of the cell checks logs to ensure that checks are being accurately and regularly performed and that cell checks logs are receiving supervisory review and written approval; and
c. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 164 of 186 Pg ID 9475

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 163

July 10, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its audit results for the Detainee Safety Program on January 31, 2013. We reviewed the current audit independently, and found that many of the deficiencies founded are similar to our findings during our inspections. The audit team determined that there were deficiencies at the Twelfth, Sixth, and Second Precincts – specifically in C35 and C36. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for July 31, 2013.
Additionally, we independently reviewed the operational implementation of policies and practices related to the Detainee Safety Program during our visits to all five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells and the DRH. Our findings are discussed in C35-38.
We conclude that the DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of the requirements of this paragraph. Accordingly, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C70
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate the environmental health and safety programs, including:
a. inspecting holding cells and surrounding areas to ensure that they are clean and clear of debris and that the lighting, sinks, and toilets are operable;
b. reviewing a sampling of cleanings and maintenance logs to ensure they are properly maintained and reflected the scheduled performance of the requisite cleaning and maintenance tasks;
c. reviewing the systems in place for assuring that all prisoners have reasonable access to potable water and toilets 24 hours a day;
d. observing whether holding cells are free of any potential suicide hazards; and
e. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 165 of 186 Pg ID 9476

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 164

July 10, 2013

The CRIB Audit Team completed its first combined semi-annual audit of the Environmental Health and Safety Program, Detainee Food Services and Personal Hygiene Policies and issued their findings on January 31, 2012. The audits were combined for efficiency reasons. They cover C70-71 and focus on Paragraphs C34, C39-45, and C49-51. Additionally, CRIB staff conducts monthly audits of the elements of this paragraph and documents the results on DPD Form 715 Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells. We reviewed the current Audit Team Report from January 31, 2013 and found it to be comprehensive. The Audit Team listed one area of concern, C41, Documentation of Maintenance Requests and Repairs. There were continuing deficiencies found at the Second, Sixth, and Twelfth Precincts. We continue to conduct inspections separately on operational implementation of policies and practices of the five districts/precincts with holding cells and the DRH. Our findings for the paragraph are discussed above in C39-46. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for July 31, 2013.
DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C71
The Holding cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled semiannual audits of all building containing holding cells to evaluate the food service program, including:
a. reviewing a statistically valid sample of food service documentation to evaluate whether prisoners who are held over six hours receive regular and adequate meals;
b. assuring that food is handled in a sanitary manner; and
c. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its command-specific audit on the DPD food service program and hygiene practices on January 31, 2012. This was the first combined audit that also included Personal Hygiene Policies and Environmental Health and Safety Policies. We found the audit to be comprehensive and meeting the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this and the previous paragraph, C70. We reviewed the results of the audit that was conducted for January 31, 2013, and as stated in the previous paragraph, found it to also be comprehensive.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 166 of 186 Pg ID 9477

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 165

July 10, 2013

We continue to visit the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells. We examined the implementation of the policies and practices related to the food service program and hygiene practices. Our findings are discussed in C49-50. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for July 31, 2013. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C72
The audits required by paragraphs 65 to 71 in this Agreement shall be submitted on a semiannual basis with the first and second semiannual periods ending on January 31 and August 31, 2004. Subsequent semiannual periods shall end on January 31, 2005, and every six months thereafter. Each of these audits may be conducted on an annual rather than a semiannual basis when the Monitor concludes that the most recently submitted audit for the same topic is compliant and the remaining requirements of this paragraph have been met for the prior audit of that topic. The DPD shall issue all audit reports to the Chief of Police and also provide copies to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.46
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CRIB is mandated under this Consent Judgment paragraph to provide written reports for the Chief of Police and specified commanders. In previous reporting periods, we found that the various reports and field responses were unacceptable, in that these reports were specific to the district/precinct and did not receive sufficient attention. The CRIB conducted a review of the audit process, and subsequently changed the audit process to focus on individual commands. These command-specific audits were anticipated to result in clearer command accountability and increased awareness to issues that are identified through the audit process.
For the last reporting period, we received and reviewed the command-specific audits for the period ending January 31, 2013. The audits included are Medical and Mental Health Program and Policies; Combined Environmental Health and Safety; Detainee Food Service and Personal Hygiene Practices; Fire Safety Practices and Policies; Allegations of Misconduct in Holding Cells and Uses of Force in Holding Cells Combined; and Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program. We also reviewed the Corrective Action Notices from the commands that were submitted prior to February 15, 2013. The next set of audits is due to be completed by
46 Amended by Court Order, dated April 15, 2009.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 167 of 186 Pg ID 9478

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 166

July 10, 2013

July31, 2013. We will report on these audits in our third quarterly report. Although we find the audits to be comprehensive and accurate, we cannot recommend that they be conducted on an annual basis due to the excessive number of repeat deficiencies that continue to be discovered.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 62 Evaluation of holding cell operation 63 Operate cells in compliance with risk plan 64 Augment policy regarding video cameras 65 Quarterly audits required 66 Fire safety audits required 67 Emergency preparedness audits required 68 Medical/mental health program audit 69 Detainee safety audits required 70 Environmental health/safety audits 71 Food service program audits required 72 Audit results to Chief and Commanders

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

CJ Requirement C73
The DPD shall provide comprehensive pre-service and in-service training to all detention officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During past site visits, we have conducted surveys to evaluate the comprehensiveness of training provided to detention officers, and determine the Department’s compliance with its policies requiring that officers who are assigned detention duties have been afforded detention training. DPD steadily improved in this area. In our January 2011 review, we found for the first time that DPD was in compliance with this requirement. The Department continued throughout 2011 and 2012 in compliance; over 95% of the officers who were assigned to detention duties in 2011 had been trained in detention as required.
During our April 2013 site visit, we interviewed Training staff and randomly sampled the Daily Details for precincts and districts where detention responsibilities are fulfilled. Our survey

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 168 of 186 Pg ID 9479

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 167

July 10, 2013

involved three randomly selected days (Sunday, January 6; Monday, February 25; and Tuesday, March 6, 2013). We found that 162 (97%) of 167 officers and supervisors who fulfilled detention duties during the three days had received detention training during the past year.
The Department is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C74
The DPD shall create and maintain individual training records for all detention officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training, completed for all training completed on or after the effective date of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
In July 2011, we found that, for the first time, DPD had completed the entry of all training records since 2003 into the Michigan MITN automated records system. During our most recent site visit, we again verified the accuracy of the DPD Training records (see U108) and their entry into the MITN system. DPD was able to produce an accurate and current list of officers and supervisors who received in-service training. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C75 The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors of detention officer and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in emergency preparedness. Such training shall include drills and substantive training in the following topics:
a. Emergency response plans and notification responsibilities; b. Fire drills and use of fire extinguishers and other fire suppression equipment; c. Key control drills and key control policies and procedures; and d. Responding to emergency situations, including scenarios detention officers likely will
experience. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 169 of 186 Pg ID 9480

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 168

July 10, 2013

CJ Requirement C76
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in the medical/mental health screening programs and policies. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. prisoner intake procedures and medical and mental health protocols, including protocols for transferring or housing prisoners with infectious diseases, disabilities and/or requiring increased monitoring;
b. recording, updating and transferring prisoner health information and medications
c. the prescription medication policy, including instructions on the storage, recording and administration of medications; and
d. examples of scenarios faced by detention officers illustrating proper intake screening and action in response to information regarding medical and mental health conditions.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
This requirement addresses training to be afforded to all detention officers, supervisors, and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee. In our January 2013 review, we found that all (100%) members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee received this training. As noted in C73, we found in our random survey that 97% of the officers and supervisors serving in detention duties received the required annual detention training. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C77
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in detainee safety programs and policies. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. the security screening program, including protocols for identifying and promptly and properly housing suspected crime partners, vulnerable, assaultive or special management prisoners;
b. protocols for performing, documenting and obtaining supervisory review of holding cell checks;
c. protocols concerning prisoners in observation cells, including protocols for direct and continual supervision, for spotting potential suicide hazards and providing appropriate clothing; and

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 170 of 186 Pg ID 9481

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 169

July 10, 2013

d. examples of scenarios faced by detention officers illustrating appropriate security screening, segregation and monitoring techniques.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
This requirement addresses training to be afforded to all detention officers, supervisors, and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee. Since we determined that all (100%) members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee and our random review of training files during this reporting period showed that 97% of the officers serving in detention duties received this training, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C78 The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in environmental health and safety and hygiene. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. cell block cleaning and maintenance protocols; and b. sanitary food preparation and delivery protocols. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

73 Pre-service and in-service training

In Compliance

74 Maintain records training

In Compliance

75 Emergency preparedness training

In Compliance

76 Medical/mental health training

In Compliance

77 Detainee safety programs training

In Compliance

78 Environmental, safety, and hygiene training In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 171 of 186 Pg ID 9482

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 170

July 10, 2013

APPENDIX A: Use of Force – Directives/Policies

USE OF FORCE POLICY

14

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

15

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; and Training Directive 04-3,

Use of Force Continuum, effective May 9, 2005.

16

See paragraph #15 above.

17

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

18

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, approved by DOJ April 14, 2005, effective March 19, 2012; and

DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30,

2012.

19

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

20

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective September 27, 2012, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective August 4, 2011 which replaced DPD Directive 304.1, effective November 2010;

and Directive 304.5, Training, effective July 10, 2012, which replaced Directive 304.5, Training,

effective May 13, 2011.

21

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective September 27, 2012, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective August 4, 2011, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1, effective November 2010,

and in Directive 304.5, Training, effective July 10, 2012, which replaced Directive 304.5, Training,

effective May 13, 2011.

22

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective September 27, 2012, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective May 2, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and August 4, 2011).

23

See paragraph #22 above. Also, Directive 304.5, Training, effective July 10, 2012, which replaced

Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011.

24

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 304.4, PR 24

Collapsible Baton, effective July 1,2008 (revised November 1, 2010); DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; and Training Directive

04-3, Use of Force Continuum, effective May 9, 2005.

25

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 304.3, Chemical Spray

Device, effective July 2, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010); and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

26

See paragraph #25 above.

INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW

27

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct

Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; DPD Directive 102.6 Citizens Complaints, effective July 1,

2008 (revised November 2010) (revised April 13, 2011) (revised December 29 2012); Training

Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009); Office of the

Chief Investigator, Standard Operating Procedure, July 1, 2010; and Internal Affairs Standard

Operating Procedure, January 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 172 of 186 Pg ID 9483

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 171

July 10, 2013

28

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 102.4,

Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; and

29

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 102.4,

Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; DPD Directive 203.3, Notifications,

effective February 22, 2012; Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006

(revised October 24, 2009); Internal Affairs Standard Operating Procedure, (January 2011); and

Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedure (July 1, 2010).

30

See paragraph #29 above.

31

Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, dated February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009).

32

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 102.4,

Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; Training Directive 04-4, Garrity

Protocol, effective February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009); Internal Affairs Standard Operating

Procedure (January 2011); and Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedure (July 1,

2010).

33

See paragraph #32 above.

34

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective May 2, 2005 and revised August 4, 2011 (revised September 27, 2012); and

Training Directive 11-01, Reporting/Documenting The “Acquiring of a Target” effective August 4,

2011, Training Directive 11-01a, Reporting/Documenting The “Acquiring of a Target” Audio/Video

Review of the Incident, effective April 11, 2012

35

See paragraph #34 above and DPD Directive 203.3, Notifications, effective February 22, 2012.

36

See paragraph #34 above.

37

See paragraph #34 above. Also DPD Joint Incident Shooting Team Standard Operating Procedures

and DPD Training Directive 04-07, Use of Force/Detainee Injuries or Allegations of Injuries

Reporting and Investigating, effective November 21, 2005.

38

See paragraph #37 above.

39

DPD Special Order 09-13, Command Level Force Review Team (CLFRT) dated March 2, 2009,

replaced with DPD Special Order 11-02, effective January 1, 2011; and DPD Directive 101.9, Special

Purposes Committees, effective February 22, 2012 (revised September 27, 2012).

40

See paragraph #39 above.

41

See paragraph #39 above.

ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES

42

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 2010 (revised December

6, 2012 and March 7, 2013).

43

See paragraph #42 above.

44

See paragraph #42 above (202.1); 202.2, Search and Seizure, effective May 2, 2005; revised

November 2010; 203.9, Custodial Questioning, effective November 20, 2010 (revised February 6,

2013); and 404.1, Definitions, effective November 20, 2010.

45

See paragraph #42 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 173 of 186 Pg ID 9484

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 172

July 10, 2013

46

DPD Directive 203.9, Custodial Questioning, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 20, 2010

(revised November 17, 2011 and February 6, 2013).

47

See paragraph #46 above.

48

See paragraph #46 above.

49

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 20, 2010 (revised

December 6, 2012 and March 7, 2013).

50

See paragraph #49 above.

51

See paragraph #49 above.

52

DPD Directive 305.2, Detainee Registration, and effective September 12, 2005 (revised July 26,

2012).

53

See paragraph #52 above.

54

See paragraph #52 above.

55

See paragraph #52 above.

56

DPD Directives 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 20, 2010) (revised

December 6, 2012 and March 7, 2013) and 305.2, Detainee Registration, effective September 12,

2005 (revised July 26, 2012). Also Training Directive #04-01, Confinement of Material Witness,

effective March 1, 2005.

57

See paragraph #56 above.

58

See paragraph #56 above.

59

See paragraph #56 above.

60

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 20, 2010) (revised

December 6, 2012 and March 7, 2013); and DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May

9, 2005 (revised March 3, 2010 and January 9, 2013).

EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS

61

DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 2010) (revised

December 29, 2012); IAD Standard Operating Procedures, Sections 1 and 3 (January 2011); and OCI

Standard Operating Procedure, effective July 24, 2003 (revised April 29, 2004, and July 1, 2010)

(revised July 6, 2012).

62

Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedures, effective July 24, 2003 (revised April

29, 2004, and July 1, 2010).

63

DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 2010) (revised

April 13, 2011) (revised December 29, 2012).

64

See paragraph #61 above. Also see DPD Directive 102.6 (revised December 29, 2012).

65

See paragraph #63 above.

66

See paragraph #61 above.

67

See paragraph #61 above.

68

See paragraph #65 above.

69

See paragraph #61 above. Also DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations,

effective July 1, 2008; and Training Directive 04-4 Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006

(revised October 24, 2009).

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 174 of 186 Pg ID 9485

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 173

July 10, 2013

GENERAL POLICIES

70

DPD Directives 101.1, Directive System, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) (revised

May 2, 2012) and 404.1, Definitions, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010).

71

DPD Directive 101.1, Directive System, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) (revised

May 2, 2012). The DPD also utilizes a Protocol for Proposed Policy Revisions; an SOP outlining

procedures for posting proposed policies to the website; and a flow chart (Visio-DPD Policy Flow

Chart) that tracks the movements of proposed policy revisions through the Department and public

review.

72

DPD Directive 102.3, Code of Conduct, effective November 1, 2009 (revised November 1, 2010)

(revised July 24, 2012) (revised December 6, 2012).

73

On November 6, 2007, the DPD agreed to a 1:10 ratio of supervisors to officers in patrol and

specialized units.47 Also Directive 101.10, Organization and Management, effective March 30, 2011.

74

DPD Directive 102.3, Code of Conduct, effective November 1, 2009 (revised November 1, 2010)

(revised July 24, 2012) (revised December 6, 2012).

75

See paragraph #74 above. Also DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective May 2. 2005 (revised

November 1, 2010 and August 4, 2011) (revised September 27, 2012).

76

Directives 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised effective March 1 2010)

(revised July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013) and 305.7, Transportation of Detainees, effective February

29, 2012.

77

DPD Directive 202.7, Foot Pursuits, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) (revised May

26, 2011).

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

78

DPD Directive 401.13, Management Awareness System, effective November 6, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010).

79

See paragraph #78 above.

80

See paragraph #78 above.

81

See paragraph #78 above. Also see the DPD Data Input Plan, approved by the Department of Justice,

June 9, 2011.

82

See paragraph #81 above.

83

See paragraph #78 above.

84

See paragraph #78 above.

85

See paragraph #78 above.

86

See paragraph #81 above.

87

See paragraph #78 above.

88

See paragraph #78 above.

89

See paragraph #78 above.

47Section I, Paragraph of the UOF CJ defines a supervisor as a sworn DPD employee at the rank of sergeant or above and non-sworn employees with oversight responsibility for DPD employees.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 175 of 186 Pg ID 9486

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 174

July 10, 2013

90

See paragraph #81 above.

91

DPD Directive 401.2, Performance Evaluation Ratings, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1,

2010).

92

DPD Audit Protocol, effective September 30, 2011. Annual revision required.

93

See paragraph #92 above.

94

See paragraph #92 above.

95

See paragraph #92 above.

96

See paragraph #92 above.

97

See paragraph #92 above.

98

DPD Directive 303.3, In-Car Video, effective March 8, 2012 (revised September 4, 2012 and March

7, 2013).

99

DPD Directive 304.5 Training, effective May 13, 2011 (revised July 10, 2012).

100

DPD Directive 303.3, In-Car Video, effective March 8, 2012 revised September 4, 2012 and March 7,

2013).

101

See paragraph #100 above. Also, Teletype #11-1468, Roll Call Informational Bulletin, Use of

Department Issued In-Car Video Equipment and Body Microphones.

102

See paragraph #100 above.

103

DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective July 1, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010) (revised May 2, 2012) and the related DPD Discipline Matrix (DPD22a).

104

See paragraph #103 above.

105

See paragraph #103 above.

TRAINING

106

DPD Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011 (revised July 10, 2012).

107

See paragraph #106 above.

108

See paragraph #106 above.

109

See paragraph #106 above.

110

See paragraph #106 above.

111

See paragraph #106 above.

112

See paragraph #106 above.

113

See paragraph #106 above. Also Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective August 4, 2011 (revised

September 27, 2012).

114

See paragraph #106 above.

115

See paragraph #106 above.

116

See paragraph #106 above.

117

See paragraph #106 above.

118

See paragraph #106 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 176 of 186 Pg ID 9487

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 175

July 10, 2013

119

See paragraph #106 above.

120

See paragraph #106 above.

121

See paragraph #106 above.

122

See paragraph #106 above.

123

See paragraph #106 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 177 of 186 Pg ID 9488

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 176

July 10, 2013

APPENDIX B: Conditions of Confinement – Directives/Policies

FIRE SAFETY POLICIES

14

DPD Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan (CEPP), which includes a Fire Safety Plan (FSP)

requiring compliance with the Life Safety Code and inspections. The FSP was approved by DOJ on

May 23, 2006. The Fire Marshal reviews the FSP annually; the last review was conducted on June 7,

2012. Also, DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective July 6, 2012 (revised January 9,

2013).

15

See paragraph #14 above.

16

See paragraph #14 above.

17

See paragraph #14 above.

18

See paragraph #14 above.

19

See paragraph #14 above.

20

See paragraph #14 above.

21

See paragraph #14 above.

22

See paragraph #14 above.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES

23

DPD Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan (CEPP), effective May 2011 and DPD Directive

305.4, effective April 21, 2011 (revised July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013).

24

See paragraph #23 above.

25

See paragraph #23 above.

MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES

26

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake Assessment; effective May 2, 2012; 305.5, Detainee Health

Care and; effective February 22, 2012; 403.2, Infectious Disease Control Plan, effective February 29,

2012, reviewed and updated by a qualified health care professional on February 17, 2012 and

February 29, 2012 as required. DPD Directive 305.5 cited above along with forms and logs,

comprises the Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening program (CMMHSP).

27

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

28

See paragraphs #26.

29

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.1).

30

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 403.2).

31

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

32

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

33

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.1)

34

See paragraph #26 above.

PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES

35

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake, effective May 2, 2012; Directive 305.2, Detainee

Registration (revised July 26, 2012); Directive 305.3, Detainee Personal Property, effective May 20,

2010 (revised November 3, 2011); DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective February 1,

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 178 of 186 Pg ID 9489

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 177

July 10, 2013

2008 (revised July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013); Directive 305.5, Detainee Health Care, effective February 22, 2012;Directive 305.7, Transportation of Detainees; effective February 29, 2012 and Directive 305.8, Detainee Food Service and Hygiene, effective May 2, 2012 (revised July 19, 2012 and January 9, 2013).

36

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.1)

37

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.4).

38

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.1 and 305.4).

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES

39

DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective February 1, 2008 (revised July 6, 2012 and

January 9, 2013). Annual review and revision required.

40

See paragraph #39 above.

41

See paragraph #39 above.

42

See paragraph #39 above.

43

See paragraph #39 above.

44

See paragraph #39 above.

45

See paragraph #39 above.

46

See paragraph #39 above.

POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

47

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake and Assessment, effective May 2, 2012 (revised February 29,

2012); and 305.5, Detainee Health Care, effective February 22, 2012, approved and updated by a

qualified medical and mental health professional on February 17, 2012 and February 29, 2012. Also

the Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening Program (CMMHSP), reviewed by the

Consulting Department Physician, April 8, 2013.

48

See paragraph #47 above (DPD Directive 305.1).

FOOD SERVICE POLICIES

49

DPD Directive 305.8, Detainee Food Service, effective May 2, 2012 (revised July 19, 2012 and

January 9, 2013).

50

See paragraph #49 above.

PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES

51

See paragraph #49 above.

USE OF FORCE AND RESTRAINTS POLICIES

52

DPD Directives 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 1, 2010) (revised

July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013) and 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive

201.11, Use of Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

53

See paragraph #52 above.

54

See paragraph #52 above.

INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 179 of 186 Pg ID 9490

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 178

July 10, 2013

55

DPD Directives 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and 305.4, Holding Cell Areas,

effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 1, 2010) (revised July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013) and DPD

Directive 201.11, Use of Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30,

2012.

56

See paragraph 55 above. Also DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012 and

DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August

30, 2012.

57

See paragraph #55 above.

EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS

58

See paragraph #55 above. Also see DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008

(revised November 2010) (revised April 13, 2011) (revised December 6, 2012).

59

See paragraph #58 above.

GENERAL POLICIES

60

DPD Directive 404.1, Definitions, effective November 2010.

61

DPD Directive 101.1, Written Directive System, effective November 2010 (revised May 2, 2012).

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

62

DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised April 21, 2011) (revised

July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013).

63

DPD Directive 401.13, Management Awareness System, effective November 6, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010); DPD Directive 401.2, Performance Evaluation Ratings, effective July 1, 2008

(revised November 1, 2010); and DPD Audit Protocol, effective September 30, 2011.

64

See paragraph #62 above.

65

DPD Audit Protocol meeting generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS), effective

August 31, 2008 (revised October 31, 2010 and September 11, 2011).

66

See paragraph #65 above.

67

See paragraph #65 above.

68

See paragraph #65 above.

69

See paragraph #65 above.

70

See paragraph #65 above.

71

See paragraph #65 above.

72

See paragraph #65 above.

TRAINING

73

Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011(revised July 10, 2012).

74

See paragraph #73 above.

75

See paragraph #73 above.

76

See paragraph #73 above.

77

See paragraph #73 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 180 of 186 Pg ID 9491

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 179

July 10, 2013

78

See paragraph #73 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 181 of 186 Pg ID 9492

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 180

July 10, 2013

APPENDIX C: Acronyms
The following is a listing of acronyms frequently used in our quarterly reports.

ACRONYM AT BOPC CAM CBS CCR CDDT CEPP CFD CI City CJ CLBR CLFRT CLO CLI CME CMMHSP CO COC CJ CRIB DCCL DDHWP DDMHIL DFD DFF DFO/PDO DDHWP

DEFINITION Audit Team Board of Police Commissioners Command Accountability Meeting Cell Block Supervisor Citizen Complaint Report Curriculum Design and Development Team Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program Critical Firearm Discharge Chief Investigator City of Detroit Consent Judgment Command Level Board of Review Command Level Force Review Team Compliance Liaison Officer Command Level Investigation Confidential Medical Envelope Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening Program Commanding Officer Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment Civil Rights Integrity Bureau Detention Cell Check Log Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Program Daily Detainee Meal and Hygiene Items Log Detroit Fire Department Detainee File Folders Detention Facility Officer Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Promotion

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 182 of 186 Pg ID 9493

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 181

July 10, 2013

DIF DOJ DPD DRH EMS EPP ERP FI FIS FSP FSPP FY GAS HCCC IA IAD IMAS ITS JIST MAS MCOLES MITN OCI OCR OIC PDDSL PDO PEERS PFC PI PSA

Detainee Intake Form Department of Justice Detroit Police Department Detroit Receiving Hospital Emergency Medical Services Emergency Preparedness Program Emergency Response Plan Force Investigations (interchangeable with FIS) Force Investigation Section Fire Safety Program Fire Safety Practices and Policies Fiscal Year Government Auditing Standards Holding Cell Compliance Committee Internal Affairs Internal Affairs Division Interim Management Awareness System Information Technology Services Joint Incident Shooting Team Management Awareness System Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards MCCOLES Information and Tracking System Office of the Chief Investigator Office of Civil Rights Officer in Charge Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Log Police Detention Officer Performance Evaluation and Enhancement Review Session Policy Focus Committee Performance Indicator Public Service Announcement

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 183 of 186 Pg ID 9494

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 182

July 10, 2013

RFP RMB SIR SME SMT SOP TA UOF CJ UOF USAO WCPO WCJ

Request for Proposals Risk Management Bureau Supervisor’s Investigation Report Subject Matter Expert Senior Management Team Standard Operating Procedure(s) Technical Assistance Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention Consent Judgment Use(s) of Force United States Attorney’s Office Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office Wayne County Jail

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 184 of 186 Pg ID 9495

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 183

July 10, 2013

APPENDIX D: Monitoring Team
Robert S. Warshaw, Monitor Chief (Ret.) Charles D. Reynolds, Deputy Monitor

Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) J. Rick Brown
Evaluates compliance with U16-17 and U19, General Use of Force Policy; U22, Use of Firearms Policy; U24, Intermediate Force Device Policy; U25-26, Chemical Spray Policy; U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34-36, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; and U37-41, Review of Critical Firearm Discharges and In-Custody Deaths.

Division Chief (Ret.) Rachel M. Burgess
Evaluates compliance with U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; U61-63, External Complaints; U64-66, Intake and Tracking; and U67-69, External Complaint Investigations; C14-22, Fire Safety Policies; C23-25, Emergency Preparedness Policies; C60-61, General Policies; and C65-72, Management and Supervision.

Commander (Ret.) John M. Girvin
Evaluates compliance with U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U61-63, External Complaints; U64-66, Intake and Tracking; U67-69, External Complaint Investigations; and C5859, External Complaints.

Chief (Ret.) Eduardo Gonzalez
Evaluates compliance with U14-19, General Use of Force Policy; U22, Use of Firearms Policy; U24, Intermediate Force Device Policy; U25-26, Chemical Spray Policy; U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34-36, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; and U70-72 and U74-77, General Policies.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 185 of 186 Pg ID 9496

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 184

July 10, 2013

John M. Klofas, Ph.D.
Evaluates compliance with U78-90, Risk Management Database; U91, Performance Evaluation System; U92-97, Oversight; and U103-105, Discipline.

Leonard F. Rice, M.E.S., R.S.
Evaluates compliance with C35-38, Prisoner Safety Policies; C39-46, Environmental Health and Safety Policies; C47-48, Policies Concerning Persons with Disabilities; C49-50, Food Service Policies; and C51, Personal Hygiene Policies.

Chief (Ret.) Billy R. Riggs
Evaluates compliance with U42-43, Arrest Policies; U44-45, Investigatory Stop Policies; U4648, Witness Identification and Questioning Policies; U49-51, Prompt Judicial Review Policies; U52-53, Hold Policies; U54-55, Restriction Policies; U56-57, Material Witness Policies; U58, Documentation of Custodial Detention; U59-60, Command Notification; C26-34, Medical and Mental Health Care Policies; and C64, Management and Supervision Policies.

Asst. Director (Ret.) Joseph R. Wolfinger
Evaluates compliance with U20-21 and U23, Use of Firearms Policy; U73, Pre-Service and InService Training for all Detention Officers; U98-99, Oversight; U100-102, Use of Video Cameras; U106-111, Oversight and Development; U112, Use of Force Training; U113, Firearms Training; U114, Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training; U115-117, Custodial Detention Training; U118-120, Supervisory Training; U121-122, Investigator Training; U123, Field Training; C73, Pre-Service and In-Service Detention Training; C74, Retention of Detention Officer Training Records; C75, Detention Officer Emergency Preparedness Training; C76, Detention Officer Medical/Mental Health Training; C77, Detainee Safety Programs and Policies; and Environmental Health and Safety and Hygiene Training.

Robin Busch-Wheaton Editor

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 652-1 Filed 07/11/13 Pg 186 of 186 Pg ID 9497

FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 185

APPENDIX E: Detroit Police Department Management Dashboard Data
The table below presents data on measures relevant to the requirements set forth in the Consent Judgments. The data were compiled by the Detroit Police Department, and are displayed for presentation by the Monitoring Team. These data are presented here with the consent of the Police Department and serve simply as a means to provide information relevant to issues raised in the Consent Judgments.

Dashboard Data: Detroit Police Department 4/12-3/13

2013 April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec January February March 12	
  month	
  graph

Total	
  Arrests

1926 2294 1960 1827 1728 1460 1481 1508 1423 1386 1244 1703

Number of Events per 1000 Arrests

Uses	
  of	
  Force Firearms	
  Discharge Citizen	
  Complaints Traffic	
  Crashes Civil	
  Litigation Vehicle	
  Chases Disciplinary	
  Action	
  Closed	
  Date

63.86 64.08 32.65 49.26 63.08 46.58 47.94 72.94 28.81 49.78 61.90 36.99 0.52 2.62 0.51 3.28 3.47 2.05 5.40 2.65 0.00 1.44 4.02 1.17 32.19 44.03 35.20 67.87 54.40 46.58 74.27 39.12 54.81 66.38 28.94 29.36 4.67 6.10 6.63 3.83 3.47 10.27 7.43 3.98 9.84 6.49 8.84 7.63 4.15 4.36 0.00 10.95 13.31 3.42 6.08 5.97 7.73 1.44 1.61 0.00 8.31 5.23 6.12 2.74 4.05 6.16 7.43 7.29 5.62 3.61 2.41 7.05 1.56 3.92 1.53 5.47 14.47 4.11 1.35 0.00 0.70 25.25 8.84 0.00

Arrests	
  for	
  Assault	
  and	
  Battery	
  on	
  a	
  PO	
  

8.83 14.39 7.65 10.40 10.42 10.27 14.18 24.54 7.73 15.15 18.49 3.52

Resisting	
  or	
  Obstructing	
  Arrests

21.81 20.49 15.82 21.35 29.51 24.66 16.21 33.82 18.97 19.48 19.29 25.25

Disorderly	
  Conduct	
  Arrests

3.12 7.41 4.08 3.28 5.21 4.11 2.03 5.97 4.92 0.72 8.84 0.00

Interfering	
  Arrests

1.56 3.49 2.55 3.83 2.89 0.00 2.70 3.98 0.70 0.72 0.00 1.17

Total	
  Consent	
  Judgment	
  noted	
  Arrests	
  (above	
  4)	
   35.31 45.77 30.10 38.86 48.03 39.04 35.11 68.30 32.33 36.08 46.62 29.95

July 10, 2013

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
-vs-
CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN and the DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant. /

Case number 03-72258 Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

ORDER Ten years ago, on July 18, 2003, the City of Detroit (“City”) entered into two consent judgments with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in response to allegations that the City, through its Police Department (“DPD”) had engaged in a pattern or practice of (1) using unlawful levels of force in its arrests and detentions, and (2) providing unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful living conditions to prisoners confined in the DPD’s holding cells. The Monitor’s most recent Quarterly Report found that the City is in compliance with 91% of the Consent Judgments’ requirements. The Court recognizes the achievement of the City in reaching this level of compliance. However, the Court notes with concern that the out-ofcompliance paragraphs are some of the Consent Judgments’ most critical requirements. In particular, the Court is troubled by the continuing difficulties the DPD has in documenting and investigating the use of force by its officers. On November 16, 2012, the Court directed the City to identify the individuals responsible
1

for ensuring compliance within six designated areas of the Consent Judgments. The Court has

become aware that significant personnel changes have occurred at the Department that affect this

directive. In particular, the individual identified as responsible for the Conditions of Confinement

Consent Judgment is no longer employed by the Department. The Court additionally directs the City

to identify the head of the Department’s Civil Rights Integrity Bureau (“CRIB”). Further, the Chief

is required to notify the Court through the Monitor before personnel changes are made within CRIB.

The Court notes that the City has entered unchartered territory with the appointment of

Kevyn Orr as Emergency Manager. So that the record is clear as to accountability, the City shall

submit, within a week of the date of this Order, a description of the line of authority above the Chief

of Police, including but not limited to the supervisory roles of the Mayor, Emergency Manager, and

Chief Compliance Officer. The City must identify to whom the Chief ultimately reports, including

any intermediate supervisors.

The Court reminds the Chief of his continuing obligation to consult with the Monitor on all

decisions that could impact compliance with the Consent Judgments, including but not limited to

(1) the procurement of equipment, (2) the issuance of new or alteration of existing policies and

special orders, and (3) changes in executive personnel. The Chief is directed to communicate weekly

with the Monitor. The City is reminded of its continuing obligation to comply with this Court’s

Orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

July 19, 2013 Detroit, Michigan

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. United States District Judge

2

 2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 1 of 190 Pg ID 9527

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT

Independent Monitor
Robert S. Warshaw Office of the Independent Monitor Police Performance Solutions, LLC
October 14, 2013

	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   El ev e nt h	
   Q u ar te rl y	
   R e p or t

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 2 of 190 Pg ID 9528
Table of Contents
SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 10
SECTION TWO: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT .............................................................................................. 15 III. USE OF FORCE POLICY ................................................................................................................................. 15 A. General Use of Force Policy ........................................................................................................................... 18
CJ Requirement U14........................................................................................................................................... 18 CJ Requirement U15........................................................................................................................................... 18 CJ Requirement U16........................................................................................................................................... 19 CJ Requirement U17........................................................................................................................................... 20 CJ Requirement U18........................................................................................................................................... 21 CJ Requirement U19........................................................................................................................................... 21 CJ Requirement U20........................................................................................................................................... 21 CJ Requirement U21........................................................................................................................................... 22 B. Use of Firearms Policy .................................................................................................................................... 22 CJ Requirement U22........................................................................................................................................... 22 CJ Requirement U23........................................................................................................................................... 23 C. Intermediate Force Device Policy ................................................................................................................... 23 CJ Requirement U24........................................................................................................................................... 23 D. Chemical Spray Policy .................................................................................................................................... 23 CJ Requirement U25........................................................................................................................................... 23 CJ Requirement U26........................................................................................................................................... 25
IV. DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW............................................................................ 26 A. General Investigations of Police Action.......................................................................................................... 26 CJ Requirement U27........................................................................................................................................... 26 CJ Requirement U28........................................................................................................................................... 28 CJ Requirement U29........................................................................................................................................... 31 CJ Requirement U30........................................................................................................................................... 34 CJ Requirement U31........................................................................................................................................... 37 CJ Requirement U32........................................................................................................................................... 37 CJ Requirement U33........................................................................................................................................... 41

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 3 of 190 Pg ID 9529

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 2

October 14, 2013

B. Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations ............................................................................................... 43 CJ Requirement U34........................................................................................................................................... 43 CJ Requirement U35........................................................................................................................................... 44 CJ Requirement U36........................................................................................................................................... 46 CJ Requirement U37........................................................................................................................................... 47 CJ Requirement U38........................................................................................................................................... 48 CJ Requirement U39........................................................................................................................................... 50 CJ Requirement U40........................................................................................................................................... 50 CJ Requirement U41........................................................................................................................................... 52

V. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES ........................................................................ 53 A. Arrest Policies.................................................................................................................................................... 55 CJ Requirement U42........................................................................................................................................... 55 CJ Requirement U43........................................................................................................................................... 55 B. Investigatory Stop Policies ................................................................................................................................ 56 CJ Requirement U44........................................................................................................................................... 56 CJ Requirement U45........................................................................................................................................... 56 C. Witness Identification and Questioning Policies ............................................................................................... 59 CJ Requirement U46........................................................................................................................................... 59 CJ Requirement U47........................................................................................................................................... 59 CJ Requirement U48........................................................................................................................................... 60 D. Prompt Judicial Review Policies ....................................................................................................................... 61 CJ Requirement U49........................................................................................................................................... 61 CJ Requirement U50........................................................................................................................................... 61 CJ Requirement U51........................................................................................................................................... 62 E. Hold Policies ...................................................................................................................................................... 63 CJ Requirement U52........................................................................................................................................... 63 CJ Requirement U53........................................................................................................................................... 63 F. Restriction Policies.............................................................................................................................................. 65 CJ Requirement U54........................................................................................................................................... 65 CJ Requirement U55........................................................................................................................................... 65 G. Material Witness Policies .................................................................................................................................. 65 CJ Requirement U56........................................................................................................................................... 65 CJ Requirement U57........................................................................................................................................... 66 H. Documentation of Custodial Detention ............................................................................................................. 66 CJ Requirement U58........................................................................................................................................... 66

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 4 of 190 Pg ID 9530

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 3

October 14, 2013

I. Command Notification........................................................................................................................................ 67 CJ Requirement U59........................................................................................................................................... 67 CJ Requirement U60........................................................................................................................................... 68

VI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS ............................................................................................................................ 71 CJ Requirement U61........................................................................................................................................... 72 CJ Requirement U62........................................................................................................................................... 72 CJ Requirement U63........................................................................................................................................... 73
A. Intake and Tracking ........................................................................................................................................... 73 CJ Requirement U64........................................................................................................................................... 73 CJ Requirement U65........................................................................................................................................... 73 CJ Requirement U66........................................................................................................................................... 74
B. External Complaint Investigations..................................................................................................................... 74 CJ Requirement U67........................................................................................................................................... 74 CJ Requirement U68........................................................................................................................................... 77 CJ Requirement U69........................................................................................................................................... 77

VII. GENERAL POLICIES ..................................................................................................................................... 80 CJ Requirement U70........................................................................................................................................... 80 CJ Requirement U71........................................................................................................................................... 80 CJ Requirement U72........................................................................................................................................... 81 CJ Requirement U73........................................................................................................................................... 81 CJ Requirement U74........................................................................................................................................... 82 CJ Requirement U75........................................................................................................................................... 82 CJ Requirement U76........................................................................................................................................... 83 CJ Requirement U77........................................................................................................................................... 83

VIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION ....................................................................................................... 84 A. Risk Management Database........................................................................................................................... 85 CJ Requirement U78........................................................................................................................................... 85 CJ Requirement U79........................................................................................................................................... 86 CJ Requirement U80........................................................................................................................................... 87 CJ Requirement U81........................................................................................................................................... 90 CJ Requirement U82........................................................................................................................................... 90 CJ Requirement U83........................................................................................................................................... 91 CJ Requirement U84........................................................................................................................................... 92

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 5 of 190 Pg ID 9531

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 4

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U85........................................................................................................................................... 94 CJ Requirement U86........................................................................................................................................... 94 CJ Requirement U87........................................................................................................................................... 94 CJ Requirement U88........................................................................................................................................... 95 CJ Requirement U89........................................................................................................................................... 96 CJ Requirement U90........................................................................................................................................... 96 B. Performance Evaluation System ........................................................................................................................ 97 CJ Requirement U91........................................................................................................................................... 97 C. Oversight............................................................................................................................................................ 98 CJ Requirement U92........................................................................................................................................... 98 CJ Requirement U93........................................................................................................................................... 98 CJ Requirement U94........................................................................................................................................... 99 CJ Requirement U95........................................................................................................................................... 99 CJ Requirement U96......................................................................................................................................... 100 CJ Requirement U97......................................................................................................................................... 100 CJ Requirement U98......................................................................................................................................... 101 CJ Requirement U99......................................................................................................................................... 102 D. Use of Video Cameras ..................................................................................................................................... 102 CJ Requirement U100....................................................................................................................................... 102 CJ Requirement U101....................................................................................................................................... 103 CJ Requirement U102....................................................................................................................................... 105 E. Discipline ......................................................................................................................................................... 107 CJ Requirement U103....................................................................................................................................... 107 CJ Requirement U104....................................................................................................................................... 108 CJ Requirement U105....................................................................................................................................... 108

IX. TRAINING ...................................................................................................................................................... 110 A. OVERSIGHT AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................... 110
CJ Requirement U106 ........................................................................................................................................... 110 CJ Requirement U107....................................................................................................................................... 111 CJ Requirement U108....................................................................................................................................... 112 CJ Requirement U109....................................................................................................................................... 113 CJ Requirement U110....................................................................................................................................... 113 CJ Requirement U111....................................................................................................................................... 114
B. USE OF FORCE TRAINING ............................................................................................................................... 114 CJ Requirement U112....................................................................................................................................... 114

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 6 of 190 Pg ID 9532

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 5

October 14, 2013

C. FIREARMS TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 115 CJ Requirement U113....................................................................................................................................... 115
D. ARREST AND POLICE-CITIZEN INTERACTION TRAINING ...................................................................... 116 CJ Requirement U114....................................................................................................................................... 116
E. CUSTODIAL DETENTION TRAINING ............................................................................................................. 117 CJ Requirement U115....................................................................................................................................... 117 4CJ Requirement U116..................................................................................................................................... 118 CJ Requirement U117....................................................................................................................................... 118
F. SUPERVISORY TRAINING ............................................................................................................................... 119 CJ Requirement U118....................................................................................................................................... 119 CJ Requirement U119....................................................................................................................................... 119 CJ Requirement U120....................................................................................................................................... 120
G. INVESTIGATOR TRAINING ............................................................................................................................ 120 CJ Requirement U121....................................................................................................................................... 120 CJ Requirement U122....................................................................................................................................... 121
H. FIELD TRAINING .............................................................................................................................................. 121 CJ Requirement U123....................................................................................................................................... 121

SECTION THREE: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT......................................................................................................................................... 121 III. FIRE SAFETY POLICIES .......................................................................................................................... 123
CJ Requirement C14......................................................................................................................................... 123 CJ Requirement C15......................................................................................................................................... 124 CJ Requirement C16......................................................................................................................................... 124 CJ Requirement C17......................................................................................................................................... 125 CJ Requirement C18......................................................................................................................................... 125 CJ Requirement C19......................................................................................................................................... 126 CJ Requirement C20......................................................................................................................................... 127 CJ Requirement C21......................................................................................................................................... 127 CJ Requirement C22......................................................................................................................................... 127

IV. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES .............................................................................................. 128 CJ Requirement C23......................................................................................................................................... 128 CJ Requirement C24......................................................................................................................................... 129 CJ Requirement C25......................................................................................................................................... 130

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 7 of 190 Pg ID 9533

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 6

October 14, 2013

V. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES ............................................................................ 131 CJ Requirement C26......................................................................................................................................... 131 CJ Requirement C27......................................................................................................................................... 132 CJ Requirement C28......................................................................................................................................... 133 CJ Requirement C29......................................................................................................................................... 131 CJ Requirement C30......................................................................................................................................... 135 CJ Requirement C31......................................................................................................................................... 136 CJ Requirement C32......................................................................................................................................... 137 CJ Requirement C33......................................................................................................................................... 138 CJ Requirement C34......................................................................................................................................... 140 CJ Requirement C35......................................................................................................................................... 140 CJ Requirement C36......................................................................................................................................... 141 CJ Requirement C37......................................................................................................................................... 141 CJ Requirement C38......................................................................................................................................... 141

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES....................................................................... 143 CJ Requirement C39......................................................................................................................................... 143 CJ Requirement C40......................................................................................................................................... 144 CJ Requirement C41......................................................................................................................................... 144 CJ Requirement C42......................................................................................................................................... 145 CJ Requirement C43......................................................................................................................................... 146 CJ Requirement C44......................................................................................................................................... 146 CJ Requirement C45......................................................................................................................................... 147 CJ Requirement C46......................................................................................................................................... 147

VIII. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES............................................................... 148 CJ Requirement C47......................................................................................................................................... 148 CJ Requirement C48......................................................................................................................................... 149

IX. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES .......................................................................................................................... 149 CJ Requirement C49......................................................................................................................................... 149 CJ Requirement C50......................................................................................................................................... 150

X. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES ................................................................................................................ 150 CJ Requirement C51......................................................................................................................................... 150 CJ Requirement C52......................................................................................................................................... 151

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 8 of 190 Pg ID 9534

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 7

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement C53......................................................................................................................................... 151 CJ Requirement C54......................................................................................................................................... 152

XII. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW .................................................... 152 CJ Requirement C55......................................................................................................................................... 153 CJ Requirement C56......................................................................................................................................... 154 CJ Requirement C57......................................................................................................................................... 154
XIII. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS ........................................................................................................................ 154 CJ Requirement C58......................................................................................................................................... 154 CJ Requirement C59......................................................................................................................................... 155
XIV. GENERAL POLICIES................................................................................................................................... 156 CJ Requirement C60......................................................................................................................................... 156 CJ Requirement C61......................................................................................................................................... 157
XV. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION ........................................................................................................ 158 CJ Requirement C62......................................................................................................................................... 158 CJ Requirement C63......................................................................................................................................... 159 CJ Requirement C64......................................................................................................................................... 160 CJ Requirement C65......................................................................................................................................... 161 CJ Requirement C66......................................................................................................................................... 162 CJ Requirement C67......................................................................................................................................... 163 CJ Requirement C68......................................................................................................................................... 164 CJ Requirement C69......................................................................................................................................... 165 CJ Requirement C70......................................................................................................................................... 166 CJ Requirement C71......................................................................................................................................... 167 CJ Requirement C72 ......................................................................................................................................... 168 CJ Requirement C73 ......................................................................................................................................... 169 CJ Requirement C74 ......................................................................................................................................... 170 CJ Requirement C75 ......................................................................................................................................... 171 CJ Requirement C76 ......................................................................................................................................... 171 CJ Requirement C77 ......................................................................................................................................... 171 CJ Requirement C78 ......................................................................................................................................... 172

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 9 of 190 Pg ID 9535

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 8

October 14, 2013

APPENDIX A: USE OF FORCE - DIRECTIVES/POLICIES .......................................................................... 174

APPENDIX B: CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT - DIRECTIVES/POLICIES ........................................ 180

APPENDIX C: ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................ 184

APPENDIX D: MONITORING TEAM ............................................................................................................... 187

APPENDIX E: Detroit Police Department Management Dashboard Data………………………………….. 189

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 10 of 190 Pg ID 9536

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 9

October 14, 2013

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION
On October 5, 2009, the Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr., United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division (the Court), appointed me to serve as the Independent Monitor of the Use of Force and Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgments in the case United States of America v. City of Detroit, Michigan (the City) and the Detroit Police Department (DPD) No. 03-77758, decided in June 2003. With this appointment and assisted by a team of highly respected professionals, I assumed responsibility for monitoring compliance with the requirements of these Judgments – the implementation of a compilation of generally accepted professional police and confinement policies, procedures, and related practices.
Our Team conducted our first quarterly site visit in November 2009, and has conducted subsequent site visits each subsequent calendar quarter. There has been, of course, considerable change within the City and the Detroit Police Department during our engagement.
Similar to previous reports, the issuance of this report follows an onsite visit to assess and guide the Department’s ongoing efforts. This report includes our assessment of the Department’s compliance with each of the requirements contained in Judgments. Our findings are based on the results of discussions and meetings with City and DPD staff, observations of operational activities, inspections of facilities, and our review of documents and data covering the period of April 1, through June 30, 2013.
The body of this report is comprised of our assessments of compliance with the individual requirements of the Consent Judgments. We include introductory narratives for each major section of the Use of Force Judgment and one overall narrative for the Conditions of Confinement Judgment. Following these narratives are their respective requirements and our comments regarding the compliance status for each. After these are summary notations of Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance. A statement of “Critical Issues” follows the reviews of the requirements in each major section of the Judgment. A brief statement of “Next Steps” follows, in which we describe a plan of work for the next visit including a discussion of the data we plan to review. Finally, a table summarizes the compliance finding for that particular section of the Judgment.
Our Team determines compliance through an examination of policies and implementation of practices that support each requirement in the Consent Judgments. Phase 1 compliance is dependent upon the development and adoption of a policy or set of procedures that supports each Consent Judgment requirement. Phase 2 compliance is dependent on the effective implementation of the practices necessary to meet the requirements, consistent with the applicable policy. Full compliance is dependent on both Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance. Accordingly, we note our finding of “in compliance” or “not in compliance” for each requirement.
Additionally, in the limited circumstances where substantial work and time is required to achieve implementation of a policy or procedure and the related practices, and where ongoing progress is clearly evident, we recognize that progress with the designation “pending compliance.” Where there are circumstances in which we are unable to fully determine the compliance status of a requirement due to a lack of data or other reasons, we identify that status with the designation “deferred.”

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 11 of 190 Pg ID 9537

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 10

October 14, 2013

Verification of compliance with the many parts of the Consent Judgments requires the analysis of multiple instances of activity, reviewing cases, or observations of the practical application of policies and procedures. In those circumstances, our first option is to conduct an analysis-based on a review of all cases or data. Where that is not appropriate or possible, we rely on statistically valid samples of the population. To reach conclusions based on analyses of cases, a minimal standard must be met. To achieve compliance based on these analyses, we have determined that more than 94% of relevant indicators must conform to the provisions articulated in the Judgments.
The independent monitoring of two Consent Judgments is a complex process involving complex issues. The delivery of police services to a community – and the simultaneous retention of the public trust – are perhaps the most fundamental and sacred roles of government. In the course of our responsibilities, we endeavor, at all times, to fulfill our mandate in a manner consistent with these principles.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the sixteenth quarterly report of the Independent Monitor in the case of United States of America v. City of Detroit No. 03-72258. The report covers the period of April 1, through June 30, 2013; and is based on our site visit of July 15, through July 19, 2013; and our subsequent analyses of relevant data from this period. Consistent with the practice we established in our first review, we continue to assess all requirements of both active Judgments for compliance. Our report has generally assessed 110 requirements in the Use of Force Judgment, and an additional 65 requirements in the Conditions of Confinement Judgment. In this executive summary, I will review the levels of compliance found for the reporting period.
As a result of an agreement with the Parties, during this reporting period, we again limited our assessments to include: all requirements in both Consent Judgments that are not in compliance; as well as particular requirements that were selected by the Parties (specifically, 25% of the compliant requirements) and the Monitor (specifically, 50% of the remaining compliant requirements). This resulted in 39 requirements – 36 from the Use of Force Consent Judgment, and three from the Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment – that we did not assess during this reporting period; we are considering these requirements to be in sustained compliance.1
With regard to Phase 1 (policy) compliance, for the eighth consecutive reporting period, we found the City and the Police Department in compliance with all requirements of both Judgments. Following the practice we established in previous reports, all references to supporting policies, directives, and other relevant documents are listed in Appendices A (Use of Force) and B (Conditions of Confinement).
As noted above, the Department is again in Phase 1 compliance with all 110 (100%) of the Use of Force requirements. For the current reporting period, we also found the Department in Phase
1 The requirements that we did not assess include: U14; U19; U20; U21; U23; U26; U31; U41; U44; U54; U55; U56; U57; U58; U61; U62; U63; U64; U65; U66; U70; U71; U72; U74; U76; U77; U81; U85; U86; U87; U88; U89; U120; U121; U122; U123; C54; C75; and C78.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 12 of 190 Pg ID 9538

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 11

October 14, 2013

1 and Phase 2 compliance (full compliance) with 97 (88%) of the 110 Use of Force requirements. This is a decline of one requirement from the level found in our last report. During this reporting period, one Use of Force requirement (U18, regarding the use of force policy) is again deferred.
The Department is again in Phase 1 compliance with all 65 (100%) of the Conditions of Confinement requirements. This level has been maintained since the fourth reporting period. For the first time, we also found the Department in Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance (full compliance) with all of the 65 requirements. The current figures are presented in the table below.

Sixteenth	
  Quarterly	
  Report	
  Summary

Use of Force Cond of Conf

Total

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2

Paragraph Numbers Number of Requirements Pending Compliance Not in Compliance Deferred In Compliance

14-123

110 110

0

0

0

12

0

1

110

97

14-78

65

65

0

0

0

0

0

0

65

65

175 175

0

0

0

12

0

1

175 162

Percent in Compliance

100% 88% 100% 100% 100% 93%

In summary, this is the eighth consecutive report in which we have found DPD in Phase 1 compliance with all (100%) of the 175 monitored requirements. We found the Department to be in full compliance (that is, both Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance) with 162 (93%) of the 175 monitored requirements of the applicable paragraphs of both Consent Judgments. One additional compliance determination is deferred. The overall level reflects an increase of compliance, by two requirements, than was reflected in our last report. That level is achieved with an increase in three requirements in the Conditions of Confinement Judgment overcoming the decline in compliance with one requirement under the Use of Force decision.
The chart below illustrates the levels of compliance achieved on both Judgments and across all 16 reporting periods. It shows the nearly continuous improvement in overall compliance levels since our first report.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 13 of 190 Pg ID 9539

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 12

October 14, 2013

The table below provides the summary data illustrating the status of compliance over the course of all of our quarterly reporting periods.

Q uarterly	
  R eport
Report 1 Report 2 Report 3 Report 4 Report 5 Report 6 Report 7 Report 8 Report 9 Report 10 Report 11 Report 12 Report 13 Report 14 Report 15 Report 16

Use of Force Phase 1 Phase 2
81% 24% 94% 41% 96% 49% 98% 62% 97% 61% 99% 68% 99% 75% 100% 79% 100% 82% 100% 84% 100% 85% 100% 86% 100% 85% 100% 85% 100% 89% 100% 88%

Percent in Compliance

Cond of Conf

Total

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2

83% 37%

82% 29%

92% 51%

93% 44%

95% 54%

96% 51%

100% 51%

99% 58%

100% 60%

98% 61%

100% 58%

99% 65%

100% 68%

99% 72%

100% 75% 100% 78%

100% 77% 100% 80%

100% 83% 100% 83%

100% 85% 100% 85%

100% 88% 100% 87%

100% 92% 100% 88%

100% 95% 100% 90%

100% 94% 100% 91%

100% 100% 100% 93%

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 14 of 190 Pg ID 9540

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 13

October 14, 2013

With this report, the Department has continued to edge forward in overall compliance, but that has occurred exclusively through progress on the Conditions of Confinement requirements. Bearing in mind the changes in the Department’s responsibilities for confinement, it is clear that much work lies ahead with regard to the Use of Force requirements. With this report, the Department is not in compliance on 13 of those requirements. As we have repeatedly noted, some of the most complex and difficult requirements – those that lie closest to the core of sound and constitutional police practice – are the ones that remain to be fully embraced, despite the Department’s laudable successes on the large volume of other requirements. It should not be surprising that those that remain pose the greatest challenge. It is a point well illustrated by the decline to “out of compliance” on U28 reflected in this report. The problems with investigations – in this case, command level investigations -- have been vexing. We have noted this repeatedly. The tenuousness of the status of compliance with this particular requirement was clearly identified in our last report.
We also noted our concerns about the adequacy of stop and frisk data as required in U45. We must repeat that concern here. Without improvements in that data, it is impossible not to question the manner in which such tactics are carried out.
The implications of missing accounts of police behavior are also at issue with regard to uses of force by officers. The Consent Judgments recognize the value of video and audio recordings to investigations in cases where there may be differing accounts of incidents involving force. During the quarter, we reviewed 80 SIR investigations. When the cars without recording equipment, those with faulty equipment, and the times when no units were assigned, were considered, the number to be evaluated was reduced to 46 cases or 57% of the total. Only 22 of those cases, just 27% of all the investigations, had video/audio that could be reviewed. Such findings make clear the need for the Department to more aggressively manage the compliance process.
As we noted in the introduction to this report, in our monitoring of these Consent Judgments, we have been witness to dramatic changes in the City and its Police Department. The recent months have brought with them some of the most significant of those changes. Despite them, however, the Consent Judgments stand as enduring commitments made to the people of Detroit. In our quarterly reports, we have marked the progress on meeting those commitments, and yet we also note the substantial distance that lies ahead to the fulfillment of those commitments.

Chief (Ret.) Robert S. Warshaw, Monitor

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 15 of 190 Pg ID 9541

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 14

October 14, 2013

The Monitoring Team: Chief (Ret.) Charles D. Reynolds, Deputy Monitor
Lt. Colonel (Ret.) J. Rick Brown Division Chief (Ret.) Rachel M. Burgess
Commander (Ret.) John M. Girvin Chief (Ret.) Eduardo Gonzalez John M. Klofas, Ph.D. Leonard F. Rice, M.E.S., R.S. Chief (Ret.) Billy R. Riggs
Asst. Director (Ret.) Joseph R. Wolfinger Robin Busch-Wheaton, Editor

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 16 of 190 Pg ID 9542

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 15

October 14, 2013

SECTION TWO:
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT
III. USE OF FORCE POLICY
This section of the Consent Judgment, containing paragraphs U14 through U26, requires that DPD review and revise its general use of force, firearms, and chemical spray policies; select an intermediate impact device and develop guidelines on its use; and provide appropriate training relating to the use of force. To determine compliance with this section’s various requirements, we verify that DPD has both developed the required policy and effectively implemented the policy, including providing any necessary and appropriate training.
DPD has conducted the requisite reviews and revisions of policies, which have been approved by the Department of Justice. The revised policies include a force continuum that identifies lethal and less lethal force options; relates the force options to the types of conduct by the individuals justifying the various force options; and describes de-escalation, disengagement, and other appropriate tactics and responses. The revised firearms policies address qualification requirements, approved firearms and ammunition, and a prohibition on the firing at or from moving vehicles. DPD also selected an intermediate impact device, developed guidelines on its use, and provided the required training. The chemical spray policy requires, when appropriate, a verbal warning prior to the deployment of chemical spray; sets forth requirements for decontamination, medical assistance, and requires supervisory approval if the chemical spray is to be used against a crowd. It prohibits officers from using chemical spray on a handcuffed individual in a police vehicle or keeping a sprayed individual facedown.
To assess implementation of these policies for this and previous reporting periods, we visited police districts, precincts, and other commands; met and discussed operational activities with command, supervisory, and training staff; observed training classes; reviewed arrest, use of force, and related police reports; and reviewed investigations of force, detainee injuries, and allegations of force.
To assess compliance with the requirements relating to the issuance and carrying of authorized weapons and ammunition, we examined the investigations of critical firearm discharges by FI. During this reporting period, we reviewed documentation that included six critical firearm discharges.
The DPD selected the PR-24 collapsible baton as its impact device, and provided training on its use to 2,158 members (97%) through the fourth quarter of the fiscal year. In the use of force reports we reviewed during this reporting period, there were no PR-24-related incidents where a subject was struck in the head. We reviewed instances of chemical spray deployments during this reporting period, and found that there were seven cases in which chemical spray was utilized. A warning was articulated or danger documented prior to its use in all seven of those cases.
There were 293 use of force report numbers issued during the second quarter of 2013, an increase of 10% over the 266 issued during the last quarter.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 17 of 190 Pg ID 9543

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 16

October 14, 2013

During this reporting period, DPD continued its practice of issuing Roll Call Information Bulletins that are designed to improve member compliance with DPD policy reflecting the Consent Judgment requirements. Below are some examples of some of the pertinent bulletins relating to both Judgments; these were issued between January 4, and March 28, 2013.

DATE 4/1/2013 4/4/2013 4/5/2013 4/11/2013 4/11/2013 4/12/2015 4/12/2013 4/13/2013 4/18/2013 4/18/2013 4/19/2013 4/19/2013 4/19/2013
4/26/2013
4/26/2013
5/3/2013
5/7/2013
5/11/2013

TT # 13-0290 13-0302 13-0305 13-0304 13-0330 13-0336 13-0337 13-0339 13-0362 13-0370 13-0375 13-0376 13-0377
13-0395
13-0396
13-0421
130436
13-0442

SUBJECT
Privilege Restriction And Exception Form UF008/DPD700Guidelines For The Use Of The Form
Addendum to Teletype 130276 Regarding Needs Assessment Survey for 2013-2014, 40 hour In Service Curriculum
Roll Call Info [13-14] Citizen Complaint Report (DPD512) Available In MAS Confidentiality of Citizen Complaint Report
Field Training Officer (FTO) Certification Course
Blight Training / Re-Certification
Patrol Re-Orientation Training
Second Precinct Monthly Power Washing And Sanitizing
Roll Call Info [13-15] Handicapped Detainees
Patrol Re-Orientation Training Re-Flash
Roll Call Info [13-16] Preparation of the Activity Logs (DPD250)
Commands With Holding Cell Areas
LEIN Certification Courses to be Held at Training
Handling of Homeless Persons
Posting of a New Training Directive On The Detroit Police Department’s Intranet - Proper Documenting of Material Inconsistencies in the Supervisor Investigation and Report (UF002a-S.I.R.)
Roll Call Info [13-17] Use of Force/Detainee Injuries During Secondary Employment
Roll Call Info [13-18] Providing of Advisements, Warnings, and Verbal Persuasion, When No Exigent Circumstances Exist, Before Utilizing Force - Documentation Requirements By Involved Members
Posting of Revised Police Manual Directive 303.3 (In-Car Video Camera) on the Detroit Police Department Intranet
Roll Call Info [13-19] Procedures for Supervisors Conducting Interviews in Conjunction with an Administrative Investigation

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 18 of 190 Pg ID 9544

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 17

October 14, 2013

DATE 5/13/2013 5/17/2013 5/17/2013 5/22/2013 5/23/2013 5/24/2013 5/30/2013 5/31/2013 5/31/2013
6/6/2013
6/6/2013
6/6/2013
6/7/2013 6/12/2013 6/14/2013 6/18/2013 6/20/2013 6/27/2013 6/28/2013

TT # 13-0446 13-0459 13-0460 13-0469 13-0476 13-0479 13-0502 13-0508 13-0507
13-0532
13-0533
13-0534
13-0540 13-0554 13-0567 13-0581 13-0593 13-0643 13-0647

SUBJECT
First Session of Patrol Rifle June 3, 2013-June 7, 2013 Posting of Revised Directives On The Detroit Police Department’s Intranet Webpage
Roll Call Info [13-20] Bomb, Explosives or Incendiary Devices
Bi-Annual Firearms Qualification Training Schedule
Inspection and Qualification of Patrol Rifles
Roll Call Info [13-21] Crime Scene Preservation Mobile Field Force
Transportation of Detainees
Roll Call Info [13-22] Discontinuation of the Detroit Receiving (DRH) Hospital Detail - New Procedures Bi-Annual Firearms Qualification And 40-Hour In-Service Training Make-Up Week Schedule
Roll Call Info [13-23] Operating Rules for Department Vehicles Revocations of Police Powers and Firearms for Members who Failed to Complete the Bi-Annual Firearms Qualifications and Mandatory 40-Hour In-Service Training
Addendum Bi Annual Firearms Qualification and 40-Hour InService Training Make-Up Week
2013-2014 Mandatory Annual In-Service Training Program
Roll Call Info 13-24 Firearms / Personal Protective Vests
Inspection and Qualification of Patrol Rifles Roll Call Info [13-25] Prompt Judicial Review Policy
2013 Training Dates For Detention Officer And Cell Block Supervisor Certification And Recertification
Roll Call Info [13-26] Firearms - Medical Deferment

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 19 of 190 Pg ID 9545

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 18

October 14, 2013

A. General Use of Force Policy CJ Requirement U14 The DPD shall revise its use of force policies to define force as that term is defined in this Agreement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U15
The use of force policy shall incorporate a use of force continuum that:
a. identifies when and in what manner the use of lethal and less than lethal force are permitted;
b. relates the force options available to officers to the types of conduct by individuals that would justify the use of such force; and
c. states that de-escalation, disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units are often the appropriate response to a situation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our previous reviews of use of force reports found that they lacked sufficient documentation or specificity with regards to de-escalation and details of actual disengagement to make a definitive determination regarding Phase 2 compliance. In the last reporting period, we found that 84% of the Command Level Investigations we reviewed contained sufficient explanations of officers’ efforts to de-escalate or implement some of the disengagement responses suggested in U15c.
Command Level Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 80 Command Level Investigations, which described the conduct of individuals against whom force was used and the corresponding response from the involved officers.2 In evaluating officers’ de-escalation techniques, we eliminated 26 incidents in which there were no opportunities to attempt deescalation.3 We evaluated 54 cases; in 42 (78%) of them, we found evidence of some efforts at
2 We randomly selected 99 cases for review. Of these, 19 had no SIR investigations, leaving 80 cases for review. Of the 13 cases eliminated, eight were assumed by Force Investigations; one was a canine deployment with no contact; and 10 were acquired target incidents which do not require SIR investigations. 3 Twenty-six were eliminated: five in March; 12 in April; and nine in February. Cases that were eliminated included, but were not limited to, the subject fleeing as soon as he sees officers; subjects engaged in assaults as officers arrived; subject striking officers without warning; detainee injury; canine apprehensions with no contact, and attempted suicides.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 20 of 190 Pg ID 9546

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 19

October 14, 2013

de-escalation, a 6% reduction from the last reporting period. We continue to recommend that DPD emphasize the importance of de-escalation techniques as a means of avoiding violent confrontations between citizens and police, and to emphasize the importance of adequately documenting the steps taken by the officers to minimize the use of force. Increased video/audio recordings of encounters with the citizens would prove beneficial in documenting compliance with this requirement.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement for Command Level Investigations.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U16
The use of force policy shall reinforce that individuals should be provided an opportunity to submit to arrest before force is used and provide that force may be used only when verbal commands and other techniques that do not require the use of force would be ineffective or present a danger to the officer or others.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 181 uses of force reports, of which 165 were applicable to this paragraph. We found that 156 (95%) of the 165 included verbal commands and an opportunity to submit to arrest prior to the use of force; or provided a reason why the verbal command was not given.4
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level Investigation portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 17 force investigations and found that officers appropriately used verbal commands and provided an opportunity for subjects to submit to arrest prior to the use of force in five cases. The remaining 11 cases were not applicable due to exigent circumstances existing that prevented the use of verbal commands or no force was used by DPD personnel. One of the aforementioned 11 cases included an on-duty accidental discharge.
In one of the above cases, the officer’s use of a kick to the head on a person in custody was found excessive; the officer is currently facing disciplinary action.
The requirements of this CJ paragraph were not applicable in seven cases. One of these cases involved a vehicle pursuit ending in a crash; the other six involved firearm discharges where

4 The base was reduced from 181 to 165, due to 11 detainee injuries and five with no time for commands due to the exigency of the situations.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 21 of 190 Pg ID 9547

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 20

October 14, 2013

exigent circumstances existed and in which opportunities to give verbal commands were not present.
DPD officers in the seven applicable cases where verbal commands were given and subjects were given the opportunity to submit to arrest are in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. This represents a 100% compliance rate. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Force Investigations portion of this paragraph.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U17
The use of force policy shall prohibit the use of chokeholds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we reviewed 181 uses of force reports and 80 Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs).5 There was one case in which a subject claimed that he was choked. Although the investigation and interview of independent witnesses disproved the allegation, Force Investigations (FI) was notified – but did not assume the case. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for Command Level Investigations.
Force Investigations: Our review of 17 force investigations for this reporting period identified no incidents wherein a DPD officer used a chokehold to restrain a subject.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

5 The terms Command Level Investigations and Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs) are used interchangeably throughout the quarterly report.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 22 of 190 Pg ID 9548

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 21

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U18
The DPD shall develop a revised use of force policy within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The policy shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the revised use of force policy within three months of the review and approval of the DOJ.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the effective field implementation of the requirements contained in paragraphs U14-17 and U19. We found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with U14, U16, U17, and U19, but not in compliance with U15; therefore, DPD remains in deferred Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Deferred

CJ Requirement U19 The use of force policy shall provide that a strike to the head with an instrument constitutes a use of deadly force. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U20
The DPD shall revise its use of firearms policies to provide that officers must successfully qualify with their department-issued firearm and any other firearm they are authorized to use or carry on-duty on a bi-annual basis, as described in paragraph 113.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 23 of 190 Pg ID 9549

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 22

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U21
Officers who fail to re-qualify shall be relieved of police powers and relinquish immediately all department-issued firearms. Those officers who fail to re-qualify after remedial training within a reasonable time shall be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

B. Use of Firearms Policy
CJ Requirement U22
The firearm policy shall prohibit shooting at or from a moving vehicle except in exceptional circumstances. The policy shall also prohibit officers from intentionally placing themselves in the path of a moving vehicle.6
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: During this reporting period, we reviewed 181 uses of force reports and 80 Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs), and found no incidents involving officers firing at or from moving vehicles. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for use of force reports in this requirement.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 16 FI investigations, and found no incidents involving an officer firing at a moving vehicle. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for Force Investigations in this requirement.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

6 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011; approved by the BOPC, November 3, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 24 of 190 Pg ID 9550

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 23

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U23
The DPD shall identify a limited selection of authorized ammunition and prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition. The DPD shall specify the number of rounds DPD officers shall carry.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U24
The DPD shall select an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The DPD shall develop a policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: During this reporting period, we reviewed 181 uses of force reports, and found no strikes to the head with the designated intermediate force device (PR-24). DPD reported it had provided training on its use to 2,158 members (98%) through the fourth quarter of the fiscal year. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for use of force reports.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 17 cases completed by FI; there was one case where an intermediate force device (PR-24) was used.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for Force Investigations.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Chemical Spray Policy
CJ Requirement U25
The DPD shall revise its chemical spray policy to require officers to:
a. provide a verbal warning and time to allow the subject to comply prior to the use of chemical spray, unless such warnings would present a danger to the officer or others;
b. provide an opportunity for decontamination to a sprayed subject within twenty minutes of the application of the spray or apprehension of the subject;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 25 of 190 Pg ID 9551

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 24

October 14, 2013

c. obtain appropriate medical assistance for sprayed subjects when they complain of continued effects after having been de-contaminated or they indicate that they have a pre-existing medical condition (e.g., asthma, emphysema, bronchitis or heart ailment) that may be aggravated by chemical spray and if such signs are observed the subject shall be immediately conveyed to a local hospital for professional medical treatment; and
d. obtain the approval of a supervisor any time chemical spray is used against a crowd.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 181 uses of force reports and 80 Command Level Investigations. We found seven deployments of chemical spray, with warnings or danger articulated in all seven (100%) of the cases.7 This is an increase from the 80% registered during the last reporting period. During our evaluation of decontamination requirements, we found that all seven cases provided details of decontamination within 20 minutes of spraying or capture. This is an increase from the 80% registered during the last reporting period. There were six complaints of ill effects from the spraying noted in the seven cases and all were dealt with appropriately.8
As we continue to note, the use of chemical spray by DPD officers is very limited; consequently, the Department must continue to emphasize the importance of attention to all of the details regarding the use of chemical spray.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for Command Level Investigations.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 17 cases completed by FI, and there was one case of chemical spray being used during the arrest of a subject; however, the spray had no effect on the subject and it was not documented in the report whether or not a warning was given prior to deployment or whether the subject was decontaminated after being taken into custody. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the reporting of the use of chemical spray in use of force investigations.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

7 This number includes two cases in March, three cases in April, and two cases in May. 8 This number includes two in March, three in April, and one in May.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 26 of 190 Pg ID 9552

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 25

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U26
The DPD shall prohibit officers from using chemical spray on a handcuffed individual in a police vehicle. The DPD shall also prohibit officers from keeping any sprayed subject in a face down position, in order to avoid positional asphyxia.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

Critical Issues:
• The issue of how best to determine DPD’s efforts at deescalating and disengaging with respect to use of force situations remains a perplexing issue, and one that affects DPD’s compliance with several of the requirements. As we have noted above, an improved reliance on body microphones and a strict requirement that officers utilize them when engaging Detroit citizens could prove beneficial to better documenting the de-escalation techniques. Unfortunately, in spite of our recommendations regarding attention to this detail, there has been no improvement in reliance on the video/audio equipment. While DPD previously advised that the issues experienced with the Data 911 Video System have been resolved and the system operational again, we find officers continuing to experience difficulties with their microphones. We again strongly recommend that DPD conduct an Investigation and Report regarding the microphones in an effort to determine if, in fact, they will ever be made to work properly. If following that review the determination is made that the issues are related to user errors, DPD must implement procedures to address the user errors effectively. The proper use of the recording equipment is one of the cornerstones of the use of force investigative process and remains one which is not only unavailable to the investigators, but also to the Monitoring Team, which is charged with verifying that the information in the investigative reports is accurate.
DPD continues to provide improved documentation of the application of de-escalation measures, and we encourage the Department to continue to emphasize the importance of practicing de-escalation and documenting same.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to monitor the numbers of use of force reports generated during the next reporting period, and continue to discuss with DPD the issue of documenting the deescalation of use of force situations in an effort to identify a sound methodology for measuring the effort. We will monitor any increase in the reliance on audio recordings to enhance the documentation provided by the officers. If DPD continues to ignore the recommendations regarding the investigation of its failure to record encounters with citizens, it may become necessary to obtain a court order directing DPD to conduct the

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 27 of 190 Pg ID 9553

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 26

October 14, 2013

investigation and report of the problems associated with obtaining video/audio recordings of DPD the encounters. We will also meet with CRIB personnel to further discuss issues associated with use of force compliance.

¶ Requirements 14 Revise use of force policies 15 The use of lethal, less lethal force 16 Opportunity to submit to arrest 17 Prohibit chokeholds 18 Approval of policy 19 Strike to the head-deadly force 20 Bi-annual firearms qualification 21 Failure to qualify with firearms 22 Prohibit firing at vehicles 23 Selection of ammunition 24 Intermediate force device 25 Chemical spray policy 26 Spraying handcuffed subjects

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Deferred In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

IV. DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW
A. General Investigations of Police Action
CJ Requirement U27
The DPD and the City shall revise their policies regarding the conduct of all investigations to ensure full, thorough, and complete investigations. All investigations shall, to the extent reasonably possible, determine whether the officer’s conduct was justified and the DPD and the City shall prohibit the closing of an investigation being conducted by the DPD and/or the City simply because a subject or complainant is unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate, including a refusal to provide medical records or proof of injury.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with these requirements, we meet on a quarterly basis with Command, Internal Affairs, Force Investigations, OCI and other staff. We also review relevant investigative and other reports, including the Department’s quarter status reports.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 28 of 190 Pg ID 9554

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 27

October 14, 2013

Command Level Investigations: To assess DPD’s Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for this reporting period, we again met with relevant staff and reviewed 181 uses of force reports resulting in 80 SIRs.9 There were no instances where a SIR was closed simply because a subject or complainant was unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate, including a refusal to provide medical records or proof of injury. We also found sufficient justification for officers’ conduct in all 80 (100%) of the SIRs.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: In our previous reports, we noted that our reviews of FI and JIST investigations – which included critical firearm discharges, pursuits, and allegations of excessive force – found these investigations sufficiently detailed to support the findings relating to the conduct of the officer(s) in each case. In addition, no investigations were closed because the subject or complainant was unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate. Although we noted lack of detail or required specificity in early cases, FI addressed these issues with strengthened supervision and in-service training.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 17 FI cases, and found all in compliance with the requirements. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI cases portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During our previous reviews of completed cases, we noted that while the case files generally contained sufficient facts to support a determination that justified or did not justify an officer’s actions, there were several inconsistencies between investigators, and some cases lacked the necessary information to reach a proper determination.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled cases from the 273 cases that were closed in April, May, and June 2013. (This represents a 6% increase in closed cases over the previous reporting period.) Generally, the investigations established sufficient facts to support determinations that justified or did not justify the actions of the officer(s) or non-sworn member of the Department.10
We noted six cases that we believe were closed prematurely, as compared to only one such case during the previous reporting period. In two of these cases, the investigators failed to attempt to contact potential witnesses. They indicated in their summaries that no witnesses were identified, despite the fact that potential witnesses were referenced in the Citizen Complaint Reports (CCRs) and the complainants’ statements. In another case, the complainant indicated that his contact with DPD officers was filmed by a television news crew. The investigator did not follow up on this potential evidence, but rather put the burden on the complainant to obtain any video that might exist. In two other cases, the investigators failed to explore additional allegations put

9 Many of the command-level investigations contained multiple uses of force forms. Canine deployments with no contact, acquired target cases, and cases assumed by FI were removed from the numbers reported as SIRs.
10 If an allegation appropriately received a finding of unfounded or not sustained, justification for the conduct was not assessed since, by definition, its occurrence was either refuted or not substantiated.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 29 of 190 Pg ID 9555

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 28

October 14, 2013

forth in the complainants’ interviews. In the remaining case, a possible subject officer was identified. That officer was out on extended sick leave and was not interviewed, but his identity could have led to the possible identification of the other officers involved. This was not explored.
While complainants failed to cooperate in 25% of the cases, their lack of cooperation was not a factor in the closing of these cases. Invariably, the narrative contained in the Citizen Complaint Report (CCR) served as the complainant’s statement in these instances.
With a 94% compliance rate, the City remains in compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph, but risks falling out of compliance if it does not achieve greater than 94% compliance during the next reporting period.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, we interviewed IAD supervisors and selected staff, and reviewed the 31 cases that were closed by IAD in April, May and June 2013. We assessed the investigations for consistency with the procedures contained in applicable DPD directives and generally accepted law enforcement techniques – specifically relating to procedural fairness, timeliness, confidentiality, and the meticulous reporting of facts and results of an investigation.
We found that all of the cases were sufficiently investigated – including six cases where the complainants and/or witnesses failed to respond to requests to be interviewed. All of the cases met the requirements of this paragraph.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U28
The DPD and the City shall ensure that investigations are conducted by a supervisor who did not authorize witness or participate in the incident and that all investigations contain:
a. documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene during the incident and a canvas of the scene to identify civilian witnesses;
b. thorough and complete interviews of all witnesses, subject to paragraph 31 below and an effort to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements;
c. photographs of the subject’s(s’) and officer’s(s’) injuries or alleged injuries; and
d. documentation of any medical care provided.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: During the previous reporting period, we determined the following:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 30 of 190 Pg ID 9556

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 29

October 14, 2013

• There were no cases in which the investigating supervisor authorized, witnessed, or participated in the incident. This resulted in a 100% compliance rate. In 72 (97%) of the cases, the names of all of the officers involved or on the scene during the incident were included. In 73 (99%) of the cases, the investigating supervisor conducted a canvass to identify civilian witnesses, or explained why a canvass was not conducted.
• Thorough and complete interviews were conducted in 66 (89%) of the cases. Investigating supervisors must illicit pertinent details from members while conducting their interviews and ask follow-up questions that can clarify information being provided. Continued critical reviews at the command level can help to improve compliance with this requirement.
• Material inconsistencies were addressed in 17 of 24 applicable cases (71%).11
• In 55 cases, photos should have been requested for officer or subject injuries. The reports noted that photos were ordered in 58 (95%) of the cases. Fifty-seven of the cases could have included documentation of medical care; 56 (98%) did. Not all of the administered medical care was related to police actions. Thirteen of the cases involved care ranging from psychiatric evaluations to a need for medications.
During this reporting period, we determined the following:
• There was one case in which an involved supervisor conducted an interview of the subject. This resulted in a 99% compliance rate. In 78 (98%) of the cases, the names of all of the officers involved or on the scene during the incident were included. In all 80 (100%) of the cases, the investigating supervisor conducted a canvass to identify civilian witnesses, or explained why a canvass was not conducted.
• Thorough and complete interviews were conducted in 72 (90%) of the cases. Investigating supervisors must illicit pertinent details from witnesses while conducting their interviews and ask follow-up questions that can clarify information being provided. Continued critical reviews at the command level can help to improve compliance with this requirement.
• Material inconsistencies were addressed in 12 of 24 applicable cases (50%).12
• In 66 cases, photos should have been requested for officer or subject injuries. The reports noted that photos were ordered in 58 (88%) of the cases. Sixty-eight of the cases could have included documentation of medical care and 66 (97%) did. Not all of the administered medical care was related to police actions. Thirteen of the cases involved care ranging from psychiatric evaluations to a need for medications.
In our last quarterly report, we cautioned DPD regarding the consequences of a failure to achieve >94% compliance with the requirements contained herein. The Department failed to achieve that

11 In 50 of the 74 SIRs reviewed, there were no inconsistencies identified. 12 In 56 of the 80 SIRs reviewed, there were no inconsistencies identified.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 31 of 190 Pg ID 9557

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 30

October 14, 2013

level in several provisions; and consequently, DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance for the Command Level Investigations during this reporting period.
Force Investigations: Our previous reviews of force investigations found appropriate documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene of the various incidents. The cases also contained witness interviews (recorded and written). The investigations we reviewed also contained documentation of canvasses for civilian witnesses and any medical care provided.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 17 force investigations.13 The case files included complete documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene of the various incidents, canvasses for civilian witnesses in all applicable cases, and any medical care that was provided.
The investigations contained witness interviews, both written and recorded. We noted continued improvement by FI in addressing material conflicts in investigations; however, we noted in one critical firearm discharge investigation that material inconsistencies were not addressed. (Refer to paragraph U38 for additional details.) Investigators used recorded statements and video evidence to address material inconsistencies and identify when officers or citizens were untruthful during an investigation. Photographs were taken as required.
We reviewed two cases in which the canvasses were performed two and eight days respectively after the alleged occurrence, adversely affecting their investigative value. In another case where force was used in a DPD detention facility, the investigator noted a canvass was not applicable because video footage identified the only persons present for the event. Yet DPD should have made an effort to identify any witnesses that may have heard or observed any of the event outside of the camera view.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled OCI investigations. All were investigated by investigators who did not authorize, witness, or participate in the incidents being investigated. In 13 cases, involved officers were not identified by both name and badge number. One case was transferred to Internal Affairs based on the allegations and before steps were taken to identify the officers involved. Three cases involved officers from other jurisdictions and were appropriately referred to those agencies. Another case alleged inadequate service that did not involve a specific officer. In the remaining cases, OCI took diligent steps to identify involved personnel. If they were not identified, they were listed as “unknown.”
In all but two of the cases retained for investigation by OCI, investigators attempted to contact potential witnesses when appropriate. In one, a complainant indicated that her boyfriend was present for the incident; and in another, the complainant indicated that his teenage son was in his vehicle when he was stopped by DPD officers. OCI made no attempts to contact these potential witnesses. In many of the other cases, witnesses refused to cooperate, but investigators documented their steps to try to obtain statements.
13 These investigations included six critical firearm discharge events.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 32 of 190 Pg ID 9558

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 31

October 14, 2013

In all of the cases alleging excessive force that were retained by OCI, photographs were referenced where appropriate. In most of the cases, force could not be substantiated and use of force documentation, including photographs, did not exist. In three cases, it was appropriate to reference medical care; and in all of these cases, the documentation was included in the investigative packages.
With greater than 94% compliance with the paragraph requirements, the City is in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: We reviewed the 31 cases that were completed by IAD during this reporting period. The investigations consistently included the names and badge numbers of all officers who were involved in or on the scene during an incident. In two of the cases, the complainant could not identify the officer(s) that were the subject of their complaints. IAD expended particular efforts in identifying officers when allegations of criminal misconduct were reported and the officer(s) was unknown to the complainant. IAD conducted canvasses to identify witnesses or obtain any video recordings that might be available from businesses near the location. IAD has the capacity to access recordings from in-car video storage from the division’s desktop computers. If any related evidence has been recorded, it can be requested from the Technical Services Unit within a 90-day period. In an effort to resolve the allegations, in-car video was requested in 12 of the cases where video should have been recorded. Four videos and one audio recording were available to be used in the investigations. We also found in the cases that we reviewed that witnesses were interviewed, and that the investigators made an effort to resolve inconsistencies between witness statements.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not In Compliance

CJ Requirement U29
The DPD and the City shall revise their procedures for all investigatory interviews to require:
a. officers who witness or are involved in an incident to provide a timely statement regarding the incident (subject to paragraph 31 below);
b. whenever practicable and appropriate, interviews of complainants and witnesses be conducted at sites and times convenient for them, including at their residences or places of business; and
c. that all IAD, OCI and Critical Firearm Discharge Investigations shall also include inperson video or audio tape-recorded interviews of all complainants, witnesses, and involved DPD officers and prohibit group interviews. In cases where complainants/witnesses refuse in-person video or audio tape recorded interviews, written statements shall be taken and signed by the complainant/witness along with a signed refusal statement by the complainant/witness.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 33 of 190 Pg ID 9559

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 32

October 14, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: During the previous reporting period, we determined that in 64 (86%) of the 74 cases we reviewed, timely statements were taken from officers who were involved in or witnessed the incident. This percentage is a decrease from the 95% noted in our last report. The interviews of complainants and witnesses were conducted at sites and times convenient for them in 73 (99%) of the 74 cases we reviewed.
During this reporting period, we determined that in 68 (85%) of the 80 cases we reviewed, timely statements were taken from officers who were involved in or witnessed the incident. This percentage is a decrease from the 86% noted in our last report. The interviews of complainants and witnesses were conducted at sites and times convenient for them in 80 (100%) of the cases we reviewed.
In our last quarterly report, we cautioned DPD regarding the consequences of a failure to achieve >94% compliance with the requirements contained herein. The Department failed to achieve that level in conducting timely interviews of the involved officers; and consequently, DPD is found to be out of Phase 2 compliance for the Command Level Investigations during this quarter.
Force Investigations: In previous reporting periods, we noted that statements were generally taken at sites and times convenient for the person(s) being interviewed. However, we expressed concerns that statements from witness officers were unnecessarily delayed, or that investigators instead relied on the officer’s Crisnet report. We noted that there were significant delays in taking Garrity statements due to the practice of awaiting prosecution declinations from the District Attorney. We also noted our concerns regarding the variance in practice between FI and Homicide members of the Joint Incident Shooting Team (JIST) when interviewing witnesses and taking statements. Specifically, we were concerned with the practice adopted by Homicide members of JIST to take written, rather than recorded, statements. This is a longstanding issue that the Department has not yet addressed.
To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed 17 closed FI cases, and continued to find much the same as described above. Statements were generally taken at sites and times convenient for the person(s) being interviewed. Statements of non-police witnesses were generally taken in a timely manner, usually within minutes or hours of the event; however, statements from involved officers or witness officers under the provisions of Garrity were sometimes unnecessarily delayed.
We found that Garrity interviews of involved officers in all of the cases ranged from nine to 70 days from the date of the incident. In addition, we noted Garrity interviews of witness officers ranged from 16 to 267 days from the date of the incident. We have discussed with FI our concern regarding interview delays for a host of reasons – not the least of which is credibility. We have discussed with FI our concern regarding interview delays for a host of reasons – not the least of which is credibility; however, this problem has not been resolved. As we have previously noted, officers’ recollections of the facts, weeks and months after an event, particularly one involving the use of deadly force, are externally and perhaps significantly affected by news accounts and their interactions with friends, family, and colleagues, and thus, often altered. The practice of delaying interviews, for whatever reason, mitigates the accuracy

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 34 of 190 Pg ID 9560

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 33

October 14, 2013

and credibility of the information provided by officers. In addition, aside from investigative reasoning regarding the delaying of interviews of involved officers, we find no legitimate basis to delay interviews of witness officers; quite the contrary, there is a compelling need to interview all witnesses – including witness officers – in an expeditious manner.
As reported, the delays discussed above often result from the desire to await a declination decision from the District Attorney. Accordingly, we examined 17 cases closed by FI during this reporting period, and found seven where a prosecutorial decision from the Wayne County District Attorney’s Office was sought with the following results:
• Five cases involved critical firearm discharge events and two involved other force-related events. In two of the five critical firearm discharge events reviewed by the District Attorney, the prosecutorial declination letter cites insufficient evidence exists of any crime, which is understandable in these incidents. These declinations further underscore the DPD’s need for ballistics examinations and complete crime scene analysis. Without this critical evidence, the District Attorney does not have all the evidence or information necessary to render a decision based on all the facts.
• In six of the seven cases, FI conducted Garrity interviews prior to the prosecutorial decision by the District Attorney.
• One of the seven cases includes a request for a prosecutorial decision that is still pending receipt.
• None of the seven cases included Garrity interviews that were not completed within 30 days after the prosecutorial decision was rendered or completion of the criminal investigation, as required by paragraph U38.
There are few situations requiring more diligence or a professional police response than an allegation or a perceived use of excessive force – especially when involving a critical firearm discharge. All warrant a priority, thorough response and expeditious conclusion. We encourage the DPD, with the cooperation of the District Attorney, to resolve these issues.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph, with a compliance rate of 93%.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During previous reporting periods, we noted ongoing issues with untimely interviews, particularly of officers. Interviews of sworn personnel frequently take place many months after the incident complained of. Often, no reason is given for the delay other than the difficulty in scheduling the interviews. We noted that complainant/witness and officer interviews were, with limited exceptions, properly recorded.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled investigations. Timely interviews of involved parties – particularly officers – showed improvement but continue to be an issue. In five of the cases we reviewed, employee interviews were untimely. In one other case, we were unable to ascertain when an interview took place. The investigative summary indicated that the officer was interviewed in November 2012, a physical impossibility for a complaint lodged in March 2013. This type of mistake occurs when investigators use a previously completed investigation as a template for a current investigation, a practice we discourage but OCI command continues to permit. At a minimum, supervising investigators

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 35 of 190 Pg ID 9561

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 34

October 14, 2013

have the responsibility to closely read the investigations of their subordinates and identify the inconsistencies resulting from this practice.
Complainants were identified as uncooperative in 25 of the investigations we reviewed. OCI investigators relied on the synopsis contained in the Citizen Complaint Report in these cases. When complainants and witnesses were available for interviews, they were recorded, either over the telephone or in person. When interviews were conducted, they were administered and recorded in accordance with requirements.
With a 95% compliance rate, the City is in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: During earlier reporting periods, we found that the DPD directive requiring timely statements from officers was inconsistently applied. Interviews of involved witness officers were often delayed with little justification other than unavailability. There were exceptions involving pending criminal proceedings against officers in some cases.
During this reporting period, timely interviews were appropriately conducted in 30 of the 31 cases that were completed during this quarter. (One investigation was transferred to IAD from OCI after 89 days.)
When the Internal Affairs Alert Teams, who are available or on-call 24 hours a day, respond to a complaint or allegation of criminal activity or serious misconduct by a Department member, preliminary interviews are conducted immediately and according to DPD directives.
In all of the investigations, complainants and witnesses were interviewed at times and sites convenient for them. DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U30
The DPD and the City procedures for all investigatory interviews shall prohibit:
a. the use of leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s(s’) actions when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques; and
b. the use of interviews via written questions when it is contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command-Level Investigations: During the previous reporting period, we found that in 99% of cases, the question-and-answer format, without the use of leading questions, was used to document officer interviews in the SIR.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 36 of 190 Pg ID 9562

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 35

October 14, 2013

During this reporting period, we found that in 79 (99%) of 80 cases, the question-and-answer format, without the use of leading questions, was used to document officer interviews in the SIR.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level portion of this requirement.
Force Investigations: Our previous review of FI cases for compliance with these requirements found instances where leading questions were contained in written statements. Additionally, when listening to randomly selected recorded interviews conducted by various investigators, we noted that investigators asked leading questions in 80% of the interviews.
We also noted that the details of Garrity interviews are often adversely affected by the excessive delays in scheduling them. Officers being interviewed are routinely referring to their Crisnet reports and/or do not have a recollection of specific details because so much time has elapsed between the incident and the day of their interview. We noted that investigators routinely fail to ask appropriate follow-up questions leaving the interviews appearing to revolve around reporting – not investigating. Finally, we noted our continued concern with investigators’ lack of preparation to conduct Garrity interviews.
To assist with our assessment of compliance for this reporting period, we listened to eight randomly selected recorded interviews of police officers. We noted that, although the interviews were not primarily based on leading questions, the use of leading questions has not been entirely eliminated and still on occasion surface. We continue to have a concern with the tendency of some interviewing officers to preface questions with “Do you remember…do you recall” or similar phrases, which tend to prompt “I do not remember…I do not recall” responses. This has been a persistent deficiency that can be and should be addressed. While recognizing that interviewing skills must be acquired through training and experience and also that the DPD has attempted to address these issues, the overall quality of the interviews remains marginally acceptable.
Additionally, we compared the officers’ spoken words with the documented summaries of the interviews prepared by FI investigators that are included in their investigative reports. We are mindful that in use of force incidents generated by DPD policy, and not routinely initiated by a citizen complaint, require prompt reporting and preparation of Crisnet reports by all involved officers contemporaneous to the event. The review of officers’ Crisnet reports prior to their Garrity interviews provides a useful snapshot to FI investigators of what occurred at the time of the event. During our review of the eight recorded interviews, we noted that the investigators’ summaries are generally consistent with the recordings. We also noted that investigators failed to ask probing questions when opportunities were present. In one excessive force case, the investigator failed to follow up on available documentation to support a member’s version of the event. Additionally, the investigation and review process did not address the fact several DPD scout cars were on scene with operational mobile video recorders that were not activated by officers as required by policy. This information was obtained during a recorded interview, but was not investigated. We caution FI to continue to review these investigations diligently to ensure that significant facts involving the use of force are thoroughly investigated and accurately documented.
During our review of the aforementioned eight recorded interviews, we noted the following: investigators often do not prepare adequately for their interviews; key dates – and at times, facts

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 37 of 190 Pg ID 9563

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 36

October 14, 2013

– were in conflict or confusing; and more probing questions should have been asked relating to how the officers’ actions interfaced with DPD policy, specifically involving vehicular pursuits, the intentional pointing of firearms while acquiring a target, and critical firearm discharges. These interviews are the most significant interviews police personnel can face, and must be approached seriously by the Department. We noted in one interview that we could hear loud laughter occurring outside of the interview area. These types of events can reduce the significance of Garrity or compelled interviews in the eyes of personnel. Accordingly, we continue to encourage the DPD to seek comprehensive interview training, and also to carefully supervise and critique all interviews in order to avoid a future non-compliant finding.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: OCI supplied digitally recorded interviews for both sworn and civilian interviewees for a randomly selected subset of our review sample. During this reporting period, we listened to 96 interviews (56 employees, 40 citizens) associated with 23 cases. Generally, investigators are employing proper interviewing techniques, using open-ended rather than leading questions.
During this reporting period, we noted only one instance in which leading questions were used inappropriately. In general, we were not provided with written questions, although it is probable that they were used to structure interviews in most, if not all, of the cases involving interviews.
In the past, we have noted a wide disparity in the interviewing skills of OCI’s investigators, and have recommended that supervising investigators either observe the interviews conducted by OCI’s investigators or listen to the recordings, in order to identify training needs and provide appropriate, individualized corrective measures. The supervising investigators provided documentation that they either observed, or reviewed recordings of, interviews in 65 cases during the reporting period. This represents a 20% increase when compared to the last reporting period. We note, however, that one supervising investigator was responsible for half of these reviews.
The City is in compliance with the OCI portion of this requirement.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: Since the first reporting period, we have found no evidence of the use of leading questions during IAD interviews. In all cases, we sought evidence in the case summary that the investigators had asked particular questions to clarify complainants’ and witnesses statements, and/or physical evidence. During this period, we reviewed audiorecorded interviews from two investigations, and found no evidence of the use of leading questions.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 38 of 190 Pg ID 9564

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 37

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U31 The DPD and the City shall develop a protocol for when statements should (and should not) be compelled pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U32
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding all investigatory reports and evaluations to require:
a. a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident, including a detailed account of the subject’s(s’) or complainant’s(s’) and officer’s(s’) actions and an evaluation of the initial stop or seizure;
b. a review of all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence;
c. that the fact that a subject or complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense shall it justify discontinuing the investigation;
d. reasonable credibility determinations, with no automatic preference given to an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement or discounting of a witness’s statement merely because the witness has some connection to the subject or complainant
e. an evaluation of whether an officer complied with DPD policy;
f. an evaluation of all uses of force, including the officer’s tactics, and any allegations or evidence of misconduct uncovered during the course of the investigation;
g. all administrative investigations to be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard;
h. written documentation of the basis for extending the deadline of a report and evaluation and provide that the circumstances justifying an extension do not include an investigator’s vacation or furlough and that problems with investigator vacations or workload should result in the matter being reassigned; and
i. any recommended non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action be documented in writing.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our assessment of compliance with the Phase 2 requirements of this paragraph included interviews with relevant staff; and a review of closed command-level, FI, IAD, and OCI cases.
Command Level Investigations: During the current reporting period, we found the following:
• The data reflects a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident, including a detailed account of the subject(s) or complainants and officer(s) actions in 61

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 39 of 190 Pg ID 9565

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 38

October 14, 2013

(76%) of the investigations, a decrease from the 82% registered during the last reporting period. Some of the issues that continue to adversely affect compliance in this area include: insufficient details in any of the interviews; interviews that appear almost verbatim from officer to officer; officers providing statements which are evasive and nebulous, and investigators not asking follow-up questions; investigators failing to address discrepancies between officer statements; and investigators failing to interview complainants/victims.14 In 80 (100%) of the cases, an evaluation of the initial stop or seizure was conducted. In 22 (48%) of the 4 6 cases evaluated, all of the relevant evidence – including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence – was reviewed.15 This is a decrease from the 63% we found during the last reporting period. We continue to assert that the review of both video and audio recordings of citizen contacts with DPD members is essential to use of force investigations and consequently we continue to recommend, in the strongest of terms, that DPD initiate all of the corrective actions necessary to ensure that encounters are captured in both video and audio recordings. Given that most uses of force occur out of the line of sight for the video, the audio recordings take on greater importance. DPD must continue to work on improving the audio capability of its system – and make every effort to determine if the failures to capture audio recordings at the scenes are system issues or user errors, and then institute the appropriate corrective measures. Commands must make every effort possible to review available video/audio recordings prior to the submission of the SIR. The failure to have these reviews conducted prior to the submission of the final report is an unacceptable practice.
• Seventy-nine (99%) of the investigations contained evidence that reasonable credibility determinations, with no automatic preference given to an officer’s statement over a nonofficer’s statement, were made to reach conclusions regarding the investigations. Eighty (100%) of the investigations contained an evaluation of whether or not an officer complied with DPD policy. Sixty-seven (100%) of the cases that we reviewed contained an evaluation of the use of force.16 Officers’ tactics were evaluated in 78 (98%) of the 80 cases reviewed. There was one case identified in which the force used was found to be excessive. Seventy-nine (99%) of the 80 cases were evaluated on a preponderance of the evidence standard.
• Seventy-two (90%) cases included no extension request; the remaining eight cases (100%) contained documentation for the delays. We continue to urge DPD to provide guidance to the various commands regarding the importance of properly documenting the extensions and the returns of reports for corrections routinely documented in the Timeline section of the SIRs. Documents returned for corrections should reflect the new due dates.

14 This is not an all-inclusive list.
15 Thirty-four of the cases reflected either no equipment installed or officers assigned to walking beats, leaving 46 cases to evaluate. In at least one instance, no one followed up on obtaining a copy of a video from a CVS before it was taped over.
16 Thirteen cases were eliminated, as they were detainee injuries or attempted suicides, with no use of force.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 40 of 190 Pg ID 9566

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 39

October 14, 2013

• There were 71 SIRs in which corrective action might have been taken; corrective action was documented in 67 (94%) of the investigations. Inclusive in the corrective action were misconduct investigations, negative administrative counseling registers, re-instructs, re-training, written reprimands, and verbal counseling.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level Investigations portion of this requirement.
Force Investigations: Our review of completed FI cases for previous reporting periods found them to be in overall compliance, but we noted cases wherein there was no evaluation of the initial stop and/or seizure; no reference to the presence or absence of circumstantial evidence; and a lack of reference to the conducting of credibility determinations.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we examined 17 completed case files and noted the continued inclusion of a detailed account of the facts of the event.17 Investigators evaluated the initial stop/contact in each case, but need to more thoroughly evaluate available direct, circumstantial, and physical evidence. For example, investigators need to review related police reports; medical documentation for injured subjects; and autopsy reports. Investigators miss opportunities to complete thorough and factual investigations when evidence is obtained and not properly analyzed. This also includes the lack of satisfactory ballistics examinations. Lastly, command/supervisory personnel are reviewing a number of these investigations and are rendering findings based upon incomplete information.
During this reporting period, there were no instances where a subject’s court-related appearances had any effect on the outcome of investigations.
The files documented some reasonable credibility determinations, but demonstrated the need for FI to continue to provide training on this issue. We found that investigations contained reviews of tactics and identified officers’ unrelated conduct violations. Findings were based mostly on a preponderance of evidence standard, and recommended referrals for disciplinary intervention were documented.
We noted during this assessment that extensions were properly requested and documented in four cases; however, three of the four cases did not include documentation that indicated a specific length of time authorized for the extension as required by this paragraph. We recognize the challenges inherent with effective case management, and recognize the continued efforts of DPD – particularly the FI staff – to address them.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: We noted in our previous reports that OCI investigations were most often not completed within the prescribed 90-day timeframe. Requests for extensions were frequently submitted well after the case was overdue, and adequate justification of the need for the extension was rarely provided. The delay in securing timely interviews has been a recurring problem that has impacted the quality of the investigations. However, OCI investigations have

17 These investigations included six critical firearm discharge events.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 41 of 190 Pg ID 9567

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 40

October 14, 2013

generally been factual and complete, and more often than not the preponderance of evidence standard is used in reaching determinations.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected cases. One case was received in 2012, with the remainder being received this year. In all of the cases, there was a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident complained of. We noted one case in which an additional allegation was raised during an interview, but not documented or addressed. In this complaint, which involved improper demeanor allegations in a precinct lobby, the complainant also alleged that an officer was rude to other civilians present. Video evidence appears to indicate that there was some type of disagreement between an officer and at least one of these other citizens, but this allegation was not explored during the officer interviews.
We noted one case in which OCI did not consider relevant evidence that was potentially available. The complainant indicated that a specific television news channel recorded his interaction with officers, yet no effort was made by the investigator to follow up on this lead.
We observed that investigators generally explore the availability of video evidence in cases where it is appropriate. In 47 cases, investigators inquired as to the availability of video. In 29, or 62%, of these cases, video evidence was not available. This is concerning, given the large monetary and resource investment that DPD has made in this technology. We continue to recommend that investigators inquire about video as early in the investigation as possible, as retention times for both DPD and private sources can result in the deletion of video evidence before it can be acquired.
We found no evidence where a complainant’s conviction or guilty plea had a bearing on the investigation. Credibility assessments were generally lacking for both officers and complainants/witnesses. In all of the cases we reviewed, we noted appropriate evaluation of whether officers complied with DPD policy.18
In four cases, OCI investigators appropriately discovered potential misconduct during the course of their investigations. In two cases, officers were sustained for truthfulness issues based on the content of their statements to OCI investigators. In another case, it was discovered that an officer improperly filled out a log sheet and failed to wear a nametag. In the remaining case, a supervisor was sustained for failing to supervise an officer who did not follow through on his direction to correct an accident report.
In seven cases, the preponderance of evidence standard was not used. This is based on our determination that different findings were warranted based on the documentation provided for our review. For example, allegations that were unfounded or exonerated by investigators would more appropriately be classified as not sustained based on the information in the case file. As is our practice, each of these cases will be discussed in detail with OCI staff during our next site visit.
Six of the cases we reviewed were not completed within the prescribed 90-day time period. Written requests for extension were not submitted in any of these cases. Per OCI policy, if cases
18If an allegation appropriately received a finding of unfounded or not sustained, evaluation of policy compliance was not assessed since, by definition, its occurrence was either refuted or not substantiated.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 42 of 190 Pg ID 9568

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 41

October 14, 2013

are not completed within 90 days, investigators are obligated to submit extension requests justifying the need for additional time to complete the cases.
There were no cases in which corrective action or specific disciplinary action was recommended as a result of the investigation. All sustained cases were referred to the Office of the Chief of Police “for appropriate action.”
We note that neighborhood canvasses are being conducted on a timelier basis, but we nonetheless reviewed several cases in which the canvasses were performed so long after the alleged occurrence as to have no investigative value. We have repeatedly recommended that canvassing be one of the first few investigative steps taken by investigators after they are assigned their cases.
In summary, although appropriate directives are in place, our analysis of OCI investigations does not yet support a Phase 2 compliance finding with this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: Our review during this reporting period found that the IAD investigative packages continue to be well organized, and elements of the investigation are easy to locate. We found that the IAD investigations were conducted in a professional manner. The supervisor meets with the investigators every two weeks to discuss the case progress and grant extensions when necessary. During this review of 31 completed IAD investigations, we found that there were precise descriptions of the incidents and reviews of all relevant evidence. There were 10 cases that exceeded the 90-day requirement. Four cases were delayed due to the criminal court process. Four cases were delayed awaiting decisions from the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office. Two cases were held at the Office of the Chief Investigator for six weeks and 89 days, respectively, before being transferred. In those cases, extensions were requested and appropriately granted. Appropriate credibility determinations were made in all of the cases, and ultimately the determinations were made using the preponderance of evidence standard. In nine of the 31 investigations, additional DPD policy violations were identified and sustained.
DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U33
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding the review of all investigations to require:
a. investigations to be reviewed by the chain of command above the investigator;
b. the reviewing supervisors to identify any deficiencies in those investigations and require the investigator to correct any deficiencies within seven days of the submission of the report and evaluation to the reviewing supervisor;
c. the reviewing supervisors to recommend and the final reviewing authority to refer any incident with training, policy or procedural implications to the appropriate DPD unit;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 43 of 190 Pg ID 9569

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 42

October 14, 2013

d. appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action when an investigator fails to conduct or reviewing supervisor fails to evaluate an investigation appropriately; and
e. a written explanation by any supervisor, including the Chief of Police, who disagrees with a finding or departs from a recommended non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action, including the basis for the departure.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our assessment of compliance with the Phase 2 requirements of this paragraph included interviews with staff; and a review of closed command-level, FI, IAD, and OCI cases.
Command Level Investigations: Our assessment for this reporting period found that in 80 (100%) of the 80 SIRs reviewed there was a chain of command review above the investigator. DPD identified deficiencies in 78 (98%) of 80 cases, with 67 (84%) requiring corrections within seven days of submission. We found a number of instances where timelines were incomplete, not reflecting new return/submission dates. We again caution the command reviewers that they need to conduct critical reviews of these investigations to correct these issues before the report is entered into MAS. In two of the cases, the reviewing supervisor made recommendations that training, policy, or procedural issues be referred to the appropriate DPD unit. In two instances, the final reviewing authority referred the matter to an appropriate DPD unit. There were five instances of DPD taking corrective action for investigations that were not conducted properly; the corrective action included re-instruction, training, and the issuance of corrective memos. There were two instances where appropriate actions were taken for investigations that had not been evaluated appropriately by the reviewing supervisor. There were two instances in which written explanations were provided by a supervisor who disagreed with a finding by a subordinate. As we have previously mentioned, the review of SIRs by the command level remains the most critical step in the conduct of these investigations. With specific training and more critical command reviews of the investigations, DPD will be able to improve the quality of investigations conducted at the command level. It is incumbent on the Inspectors and Commanders to continue to ensure that deficiencies in the investigations are corrected, and to consult the appropriate units if any procedural or tactical issues are identified.
DPD is not in compliance with the Command Level Investigations portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: In our previous reviews of FI cases for compliance with these requirements, we noted that the case files included chain of command reviews and recommended referrals to training. The investigations also included references to supervisors’ requests for additional information or investigative work.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 17 completed FI cases. Although it appears, based on our discussions with FI staff, that supervisory reviews and evaluations are occurring, we recommend that these reviews continue to be more thoroughly documented.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: In our previous reports, we noted our inability to determine what appropriate supervisory intervention has taken place when investigations are deficient.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 44 of 190 Pg ID 9570

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 43

October 14, 2013

While there has been evidence of supervisory review in most cases, when investigations are returned, specific issues and corrective measures were usually not documented. Glaring deficiencies such as chronic timeliness issues, which would warrant counseling and/or discipline, were not addressed in writing.
For the current reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 100 closed investigations. During this reporting period, 70 cases were returned for deficiencies. Most of these were for spelling, grammar, and formatting. In nine of the cases, deficiencies were either missed or not corrected within seven days. In two cases, witnesses identified in the initial complaints and in the complainants’ statements were not contacted. Another case involved the untimely transfer of the case to Internal Affairs. The remainder involved issues such as lack of investigative activity for long periods of time, improper findings, and failure to submit proper extension requests.
We did not review any cases in which a reviewer disagreed with the recommended findings of the investigator.
The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of the paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: During this reporting period, the IAD supervisor used the case management system, Case Trax, to record any deficiencies and instructions in the investigators’ progress notes. All of the investigations were reviewed and approved by the chain of command above the investigators within the required timeframe.
IAD is in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

B. Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations
CJ Requirement U34
The DPD shall revise its reporting policies to require officers to document on a single auditable form any prisoner injury, use of force, allegation of use of force, and instance in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the previous reporting period, we reviewed 175 auditable forms, and found that 165 (94%) were prepared correctly and documented the prisoner injuries, uses of force, and allegations of force. The forms include 23 forms that were referred to FI/IAD, and one in which the officers acquired a target.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 181 auditable forms, and found that 164 (91%) were prepared correctly and documented the prisoner injuries, uses of force, and allegations of force. The forms include 17 forms that were referred to FI/IAD, and one in which the officers acquired a target.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 45 of 190 Pg ID 9571

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 44

October 14, 2013

We caution DPD that if it fails to achieve >94% Phase 2 compliance during the next reporting period, we will consider the Department to be out of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for Command Level Investigations. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U35
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding use of force and prisoner injury notifications to require:
a. officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or prisoner injury;
b. that upon such notice, a supervisor shall respond to the scene of all uses of force that involve a firearm discharge, a visible injury or a complaint of injury. A supervisor shall respond to all other uses of force on a priority basis. Upon arrival at the scene, the supervisor shall interview the subject(s), examine the subject(s) for injury, and ensure that the subject(s) receive needed medical attention;
c. the supervisor responding to the scene to notify IAD of all serious uses of force, uses of force that result in visible injury, uses of force that a reasonable officer should have known were likely to result in injury, uses of force where there is prisoner injury; and
d. IAD to respond to the scene of, and investigate, all incidents where a prisoner dies, suffers serious bodily injury or requires hospital admission, or involves a serious use of force, and to permit IAD to delegate all other use of force or prisoner injury investigations to the supervisor for a command investigation.19
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the previous reporting period, we reviewed 74 Command Level Investigations cases and found that in 73 (99%), a supervisor was notified following a use of force or a prisoner injury. There were 28 cases in which the use of force involved a firearms discharge, a visible injury, or a complaint of injury; and a supervisor responded to all of them. Supervisors responded to other uses of force on a priority basis in the remaining 45 cases. In combination, a supervisor responded to 73 (99%) of the 74 cases reviewed.
In 70 (94%) of the 86 cases, a supervisor interviewed the subject at the scene, at the district/precinct, or at DRH.20 Also, in 72 (97%) of the 74 cases, a supervisor examined the
19 Amended by Court Order dated September 15, 2008. 20 In some instances, a subject is moved to the District/Precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 46 of 190 Pg ID 9572

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 45

October 14, 2013

subject for injury and ensured that the subject received needed medical attention.21 Either Force Investigations (FI) or the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) was notified in 28 of the cases, and assumed responsibility for 10 of them. There were three allegations of choking. In one instance, FI assumed the case. In another, the investigating supervisor resolved the allegation; FI was notified in that case, as well, and allowed the Command to handle the investigation. There was one allegation that was not resolved by the investigation or referred to FI.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 80 Command Level Investigations cases and found that in 79 (99%), a supervisor was notified following a use of force or a prisoner injury. There were 17 cases in which the use of force involved a firearms discharge, a visible injury, or a complaint of injury. A supervisor responded to 16 of them. Supervisors responded to other uses of force on a priority basis in the remaining 63 cases. In combination, a supervisor responded to 79 (99%) of the 80 cases reviewed.
In 76 (95%) of the 80 cases, a supervisor interviewed the subject at the scene, at the district/precinct, or at DRH.22 Also, in 73 (99%) of 74 cases, a supervisor examined the subject for injury and ensured that the subject received needed medical attention.23 Notifications were made to FI, IAD or Notifications and Control (N&C) on 54 occasions; there were 22 instances where N&C was contacted and they advised the incident did not warrant FI notification (95%). Notifications were not made in four of the 80 cases. FI assumed responsibility for eight cases. There was one allegation of choking and it was resolved through the Command Level Investigation. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for Command Level Investigations with this paragraph.
Force Investigations: Our review of 17 FI cases relevant to this requirement found that no officers failed to report the use of force to supervisors as required.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

21 In some instances, a subject is moved to the District/Precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject.
22 In some instances, a subject is moved to the District/Precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject.
23 In some instances, a subject is moved to the District/Precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject. The number examined is reduced to 74 from 80 due to six having no injuries.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 47 of 190 Pg ID 9573

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 46

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U36
The DPD shall revise its use of force and prisoner injury investigation policies to require:
a. command use of force preliminary investigations to be completed within 10 days of the incident. These investigations shall include a synopsis of the incident, photographs of any injuries, witness statements, a canvas of the area, and a profile of the officer’s prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct, and a first-line supervisory evaluation. The final command use of force investigation shall be completed within 30 days of the incident;
b. IAD investigations to be completed within 90 days of the incident; and
c. copies of all reports and command investigations to be sent to IAD within 7 days of completion of the investigation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: In the last reporting period, we found that 92% of the preliminary investigations were completed within 10 days of the event. All of the reports included a synopsis of the incident. There were photographs of injuries in five of the files, an improvement over the prior reporting period. In 99% of the cases, the canvass and witness information was included in the file. Officers’ prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct were included in 99% of the cases. Seventy-four first-line supervisor evaluations were made in all of the cases. The final command use of force investigations were completed within 30 days in 85% of the cases. Copies of completed Command Level Investigations were transmitted to IAD within seven days of completion of the investigations in 88% of the cases.
We noted at that time that DPD must place greater attention to the requirements dealing with the 10- and 30-day reporting requirements and the transmission to FI of the completed reports within the seven-day requirement. These issues appear to be related to a lack of a tracking system and we would once again encourage DPD to install a more sophisticated system than currently exists.
During this reporting period, we found that 74 (92%) of the preliminary investigations were completed within 10 days of the event. There were photographs of injuries in seven of the files, an improvement over the five in the last reporting period. In 80 (100%) of the cases, the canvass and witness information was included in the file. Officers’ prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct were included in 80 cases (100%). Eighty first-line supervisor evaluations were made in the cases (100%). The final command use of force investigations were completed within 30 days in 76 (95%) of the cases. Copies of completed Command Level Investigations were transmitted to IAD within seven days of completion of the investigations in 76 (95%) of the cases. DPD must place greater attention to the requirements dealing with the 10- and 30-day reporting requirements and the transmission to FI of the completed reports within the seven-day requirement. These issues appear to be related to a lack of a tracking system and we would once again encourage DPD to install a more sophisticated system than currently exists.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 48 of 190 Pg ID 9574

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 47

October 14, 2013

Force Investigations: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 17 completed FI cases.24 Three of the 17 cases we reviewed were untimely. We continue to recommend that DPD closely evaluate case management and related issues, including staffing, and more closely monitor FI investigators’ time management and report preparation to more expeditiously complete these investigations.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph, with a compliance rate of 82%.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U37 The DPD has created a Shooting Team, composed of officers from the Homicide Section and IAD. The Shooting Team shall respond to the scene and investigate all critical firearms discharges and in-custody deaths.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Previously, we found that the JIST appropriately responded to critical firearm discharge events; accordingly, we found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. There were six critical firearm discharge investigations completed during this reporting period. JIST appropriately responded to all of the events.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

24 These investigations included six critical firearm discharges.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 49 of 190 Pg ID 9575

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 48

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U38
The DPD shall develop a protocol for conducting investigations of critical firearm discharges that, in addition to the requirements of paragraphs 27-36, requires
a. the investigation to account for all shots fired, all shell casings, and the locations of all officers at the time the officer discharged the firearm;
b. the investigator to conduct and preserve in the investigative file all appropriate ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests; and
c. the investigation to be completed within 60 days of the incident. If a Garrity statement is necessary, then that portion of the investigation may be deferred until 30 days from the declination or conclusion of the criminal prosecution.25
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our review of critical firearm discharge investigations for previous reports noted a number of significant issues relating to the requirements of this paragraph. We found that although investigators inventoried the officers’ ammunition to assist with determining the number of shots fired, and collected shell casings at the scene, there were instances where the number of shots believed to have been fired did not match the inventory of officers’ ammunition and/or the number of retrieved shell casings. We emphasized the importance of accounting for all rounds that are fired, and where there appears to be a discrepancy due to the described magazine problems, documenting it in the case reports. The DPD attributed this to an ongoing problem with the ammunition magazines that sometimes prevented officers from loading them to capacity and indicated its intent to correct the problem with the issuance of replacement equipment.
In addition, we noted that while the locations of officers were generally described, the files do not consistently include diagrams depicting their positions. We also expressed concern regarding the absence of gunshot residue and DNA collection and analysis. The DPD advised that gunshot residue analysis is no longer available; that DNA analysis is limited and that there are significant delays in ballistics analyses, which are conducted by the State Crime Lab. These have been – and remain – issues mitigating the ability of FI to conduct complete and timely critical firearm discharge investigations. And finally, we have repeatedly expressed concern with the failure to complete these investigations within the required 60-day time limit.
To assess compliance with requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed six completed critical firearm discharge investigations. One involved an off-duty critical firearm discharge, and the way in which it was investigated and reviewed is troubling. There are material conflicts in the investigation regarding how the decedent was positioned and where she was shot at the time of the critical firearm discharge. (This conflict also extends to the CLFRT analysis, and will be further discussed in U40.) Also, we found the FI’s analysis deficient for the following reasons: (1) command personnel did not address the three critical witness statements missing from the Homicide Unit; (2) the officer’s t-shirt and boxer shorts that the bullet passed through were not
25 Consent Judgment amendment, April 23, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 50 of 190 Pg ID 9576

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 49

October 14, 2013

collected as evidence nor retained for trajectory analysis; (3) the lack of a thorough ballistics examination, Gun Shot Residue Testing (GSR), and crime scene analysis; (4) the bullet removed from the victim was never recovered by the DPD, placed into evidence, and submitted to the MSP Lab; (5) the failure to administer a Breathalyzer or blood test to the officer – who admitted (prima facie evidence, contrary to FI’s position) consuming alcoholic beverages – as required by DPD policy; (6) the DPD’s focus on a worn holster when the weapon should have also been examined for any malfunctions or alterations to the trigger; and (7) the DPD’s failure to address the secondary policy violation on the amount of ammunition carried in the off-duty Department weapon contrary to policy that might have been part of the reason for the discharge.
The best practice is to investigate all critical firearm discharge events that result in death or serious bodily injury as a homicide until proven otherwise. Investigating in this manner protects the integrity of the investigation and all evidence until a thorough and comprehensive review and subsequent findings can be made. It is troubling that in the case described above, although there were witnesses and physical evidence available, that the Medical Examiner’s report indicated, in part, “the manner of death is indeterminate.” We recommend that the DPD reopen this investigation and reassess how this incident occurred.
We have noted and discussed with the DPD that on occasion officers are given the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of an investigation. The benefit of the doubt should only be given to officers only after all the facts and evidence have been completely collected, thoroughly investigated, and analyzed at the completion of an investigation.
The investigations that we reviewed described the locations of the officers; however, the diagrams that were included did not specifically indicate the officers’ locations when their firearms were discharged. The locations of shell casings were noted; however, we are concerned that FI did not reconcile the number of shots that were believed to have been fired in two firearm discharge events. We have continuing concerns regarding the lack of gunshot residue tests (in five cases) where such tests would have served as an investigative aid in determining whether or not the suspect discharged a firearm and the lack of ballistic testing on firearms and shell casings.
We are aware that the DPD relies on the Michigan State Laboratory for ballistic testing, and have been advised that the present lab protocols and procedures do not allow for some of the required testing and analysis. This must be addressed.
Five, or 83%, of the six critical firearm discharge investigations we reviewed were timely.
These above-cited ongoing issues are significant and continue to mitigate the quality, thoroughness, and credibility of these investigations. Each critical firearm discharge must be investigated with a focus on whether the deadly force was used in accordance with DPD policy, regardless of whether or not it resulted in injury or death. Crime scene activities and the analyses of all evidence – including important ballistic evidence – often form the basis for making appropriate decisions regarding these most serious issues. Therefore, the deficiencies described herein and in our previous reports must be addressed.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 51 of 190 Pg ID 9577

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 50

October 14, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U39
The DPD shall require a Command-level Force Review Team to evaluate all critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths. The team shall be chaired by the Deputy Chief who directly supervises IAD. The DPD shall establish criteria for selecting the other member of the team.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The Team is chaired by the Commander, Internal Affairs/Force Investigations, and includes Deputy Chiefs, the Training Commander, and a specified Chief of Police designee.
The DPD submitted three CLFRT reports that met the composition requirements of this paragraph during this reporting period. The reports assessed included three critical firearms discharges.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U40 The DPD policy that defines the Command-level Force Review Team’s role shall require the team to:
a. complete its review of critical firearm discharges that result in injury and in-custody deaths within 21 days from the completion of the investigation and require the Chief of Police to complete his or her review of the team’s report within 14 days;26
b. comply with the revised review of investigations policies and procedures; c. interview the principal investigators; and d. prepare a report to the Chief of Police in compliance with the revised investigatory
report and evaluation protocol. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
26 Amended by Court Order dated April 23, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 52 of 190 Pg ID 9578

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 51

October 14, 2013

During this reporting period, the DPD submitted three CLFRT reports that met the time limitations for completion. The CLFRT’s assessments complied with DPD protocols, and the principal investigator was interviewed; however, we disagree with the conclusions of the CLFRT as outlined in paragraph U38 (and described below) involving a fatal off-duty critical firearm discharge event that was assessed on a deficient force investigation.
The CLFRT rendered its finding without the benefit of a complete and thorough analysis of all the evidence and without addressing material conflicts. The issues include:
(1) A material conflict exists with the CLFRT’s report and Force Investigation’s report as to the decedent’s position (squatted) behind the officer and where she was shot;
(2) The failure to address the missing Homicide Unit statements of three material witnesses;
(3) The failure to address the collection of physical evidence, such as the bullet at the Medical Examiner’s Office and the officer’s clothing that was subjected to the gunshot for trajectory analysis;
(4) The failure to address secondary policy violations as to the officer not being tested for alcohol impairment as required by DPD policy and not carrying the required amount of ammunition in a DPD weapon; and
(5) The failure to address testing the weapon itself with focus on an old worn holster. There were no reviews completed by the Chief of Police that were untimely.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. However, during the next reporting period, if we find DPD to be out of compliance with the requirements of this section, we will consider the Department to be not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 53 of 190 Pg ID 9579

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 52

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U41
The commanding officer of Force Investigation or other appropriate DPD executive designated by the Chief of Police shall annually review critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths in aggregate to detect patterns and/or problems and report his or her findings and recommendations, including additional investigative protocols and standards for all critical firearm discharge and in-custody death investigations, to the Chief of Police. A copy of the report shall be submitted to the Monitor within five months after the end of the year reported on.27
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

Critical Issues:
• The failure to conduct quality investigations within prescribed timelines remains a critical issue. We again emphasize the need to provide formal documentation of reasons for delays in the completion of investigations. Many cases indicate that they are returned for corrections, but do not explain what is needed to be corrected, nor what new time limits have been established for re-submission. Complete information must be provided under the Timeline category of the SIR. Timelines need to be checked by the Command Review to ensure completeness. The final submission date in the timeline chronology should be the MAS entry date.
• DPD needs to continue to provide more attention to the quality of interviews; some lack details regarding the incident and exactly how the officers on the scene responded to the incident; it appears that investigators, armed with new information from interviews seldom re-interview officers to resolve differences. Video and audio recordings must be reviewed as part of the investigative process; the Department needs to place greater emphasis on the appropriate use of the body microphones to capture interactions between officers and the public/subjects. Supervisors need to ensure that activity logs are properly completed with respect to the video and audio capabilities; unknown is not an acceptable category of the capabilities. When equipment is inoperative, the proper documentation should be prepared and commented on in the investigation. We continue to recommend that a formalized practice of forwarding complex/faulty investigations to the Training Division and/or the Policy Section for their review as a measure of ensuring that both units are aware of the situations officers are confronting in the streets and institute any corrective measure they may seem appropriate.

27 Amended by Court Order dated January 28, 2009.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 54 of 190 Pg ID 9580

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 53

October 14, 2013

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to assess compliance, paying particular attention to the thoroughness and completeness of investigations, their review by supervisors, and compliance with the timelines.

¶ Requirements 27 Revise investigative policies 28 Investigation by uninvolved supervisor 29 Procedures for investigative interviews 30 Leading questions prohibited, etc. 31 Garrity Protocol required 32 Revise investigatory report policies 33 Chain of command reviews 34 Auditable form required 35 Notification of supervisors, etc. 36 Completion of command investigations 37 Joint Incident Shooting Team 38 Protocol for critical discharge investigations 39 Command Level Force Review Team 40 Review critical firearm discharges 41 Command-level force review requirements

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

V. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES
The arrest and detention policies and practice requirements are a critical component of this Agreement. The policies prohibit an officer from making an arrest without probable cause, and the existing policy requires supervisory review within 12 hours of the arrest. It further requires that for an arrest that is unsupported by probable cause, or a warrant that is not sought, an auditable form must document the circumstances within 12 hours of the event.
The DPD revised its investigatory stop-and-frisk policies to appropriately define investigatory stops and reasonable suspicion and supported this effort by frequent roll call training and two Administrative Messages issued in January and April 2011. As a result of additional emphasis by the Department on investigatory stops/frisks, DPD has previously attained compliance in this area, but compliance has been inconsistent. DPD also revised its witness identification policies to comply with the revised arrest and investigatory policies. Policy establishes that a material witness can only be taken into custody by obtaining a Court order prior to such taking.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 55 of 190 Pg ID 9581

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 54

October 14, 2013

The revised policies and procedures in this area require significant documentation and reviews by supervisors. Command notification is required in all instances where there exists a reported violation of DPD arrest, holds/warrants, investigatory stop-and-frisk, witness identification and questioning policies, and all reports in which an arraignment warrant is not sought.
While previous compliance had been achieved in these areas, we note that DPD has had issues with the inability of personnel to indicate holds over 48 hours on the Warrant Tracking Form. This has been problematic in that when command review occurs, the commanders had relied solely on whether the OIC had indicated on the Warrant Tracking Form the hold status of the detainee. Due to previous compliance, the current issues stemmed from combining the general investigative units that were previously housed in the districts and precincts into two central facilities. The issue of failing to document holds over 48 hours has been addressed in the Command Accountability Meetings and commanders are now required to verify the existence of any holds in violation of policy.
DPD has improved its documenting traffic/investigatory stops, detainee registration, and following internal witness identification policies during the previous seven reporting periods. DPD officers’ ability to articulate reasonable suspicion with frisks has declined during this and the previous reporting period. A review of in-car video of traffic stops by DPD supervisors has indicated a number of these stops where frisks occur but are not documented by the officer(s) on their activity log.
However, of particular note is the present process for recording stops and related frisks in officers’ daily logs. This is a longstanding deficiency that must be addressed. It is important to uniformly capture stop and related search (frisk) data so as to allow for a credible analysis of these stops and related searches (frisks) in order to determine whether there are any indications of personal, district or department wide issues relating to the basis for stops, frisks, or disparate treatment.
The Department’s ability to document and timely prepare warrant submittals to the prosecutor had been problematic, in that the failure to do so caused other violations of policy. (See U50, U51, and U53.) We continue to find in a few instances, the failure to prepare the required auditable form or timely review by a commanding officer has kept DPD from compliance with certain paragraphs. Supervisory review continues to be lacking in some areas, and that documentation of violations should be a Departmental priority.
All paragraphs under the Arrest and Detention Policies and Practices require supervisory review and command review when violations of policy are discovered. On August 7, 2012, Administrative Message (Teletype 12-066) mandated 12-hour work shifts for police officers in the field and the holding facilities. However, sergeants and higher level ranks remain on eighthour shifts. Since adequate supervisory and command review has been major issues for compliance purposes, it appears that consistency of supervision for field personnel could jeopardize DPD’s ability to monitor subordinates’ activity.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 56 of 190 Pg ID 9582

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 55

October 14, 2013

A. Arrest Policies CJ Requirement U42 The DPD shall revise its arrest policies to define arrest and probable cause as those terms are defined in this Agreement and prohibit the arrest of an individual with less than probable cause. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance is linked to and dependent upon the implementation of U43. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U43
The DPD shall review all arrests for probable cause at the time the arrestee is presented at the precinct or specialized unit. This review shall be memorialized in writing within 12 hours of the arrest. For any arrest unsupported by probable cause or in which an arraignment warrant was not sought, the DPD shall document the circumstances of the arrest and/or the reasons the arraignment warrant was not sought on an auditable form within 12 hours of the event.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 104 arrest case files. The review included Crisnet reports, Detainee Input Sheets, DPD Warrant Verification Logs, officers’ Daily Activity Logs, Arraignment Verification Logs, and detainee file folders. In all cases, sufficient probable cause for the arrest was present.
In all cases but one, supervisory approval occurred within 12 hours of the arrest. In the one exception, the time of the probable cause approval was not listed on the Crisnet report and the CBS failed to indicate the time, as required, on the Detainee Information Sheet.
When an officer is not seeking an arraignment warrant, the Department is required to complete Auditable Form U004, Warrant Tracking Hold Form (effective September 2009). Of the 104 arrest cases we reviewed, the Department did not seek a warrant in 17. In all cases, the required auditable form was completed; however, in one instance the form was not completed timely.
DPD’s compliance rate remains at 99%, the same as the previous reporting period, for the three separate and distinct requirements of this paragraph. DPD has been in compliance with Phase 2 of this paragraph in all our previous reports.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 57 of 190 Pg ID 9583

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 56

October 14, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Investigatory Stop Policies
CJ Requirement U44
The DPD shall revise its investigatory stop and frisk policies to define investigatory stop and reasonable suspicion as those terms are defined in this Agreement. The policy shall specify that a frisk is authorized only when the officer has reasonable suspicion to fear for his or her safety and that the scope of the frisk must be narrowly tailored to those specific reasons.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U45
The DPD shall require written documentation of all investigatory stops and frisks by the end of the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD shall review all investigatory stops and frisks and document on an auditable form those unsupported by reasonable suspicion within 24 hours of receiving the officer’s report.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In our tenth quarterly report, we determined that DPD was in compliance with the provisions of this paragraph; this was the first reporting period that DPD achieved compliance in this area. DPD had previously come into compliance with traffic and investigatory stops. In the last reporting period, DPD’s compliance rate for frisks was 93%. Supervisors must scrutinize each officer’s Daily Activity Log and complete the required auditable form when reasonable suspicion for the stop does not exist. Due to settling previous litigation, DPD issued Training Directive 1203 on January 12, 2012 reinforcing Detroit City Code 38-1-3 as it pertains to the loitering ordinance. The new guidelines clearly define the rights of the individual and provide clarity to personnel when enforcing loitering violations.
DPD issued Teletype 13-073 (read at all Roll Calls from February 16, through February 22, 2013) regarding traffic stops and the codes used by the officers to notify Communications Operations Zone Dispatchers when they clear the stop. One of the codes indicates “advised/released without requiring the officer to state to the dispatcher the reason for the initial stop.”

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 58 of 190 Pg ID 9584

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 57

October 14, 2013

To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 414 officers’ Daily Activity Logs completed on two randomly selected dates.28 Each district/precinct provided the logs requested, which included traffic stops and other situations where officers made investigatory stops of individuals who were not in vehicles or in vehicles stopped in places where a police inquiry was warranted.
Our review yielded 111 investigatory stops, of which 106 indicated a lawful purpose. We observed and noted in previous reports that supervisors are now more thorough in their reviews of officers’ Daily Activity Logs and would complete auditable forms for violations. Most of the investigatory stops involved subjects being in a park after posted hours, entering premises/property without owner’s permission, and loitering. In all instances, supervisors reviewed all investigatory stops within the required timeframe. As in our previous report there was one incident where the reporting officers indicated they conducted an investigatory stop for “youthful appearance” without any other description of suspicious activity. While this may have been a legal stop, officers must make an effort to describe other factors involved. DPD’s compliance rate for investigatory stops only (excluding frisks and traffic stops) during this reporting period is 97%, the same as the previous quarter. We reviewed four Investigatory Stop and Frisk Forms where a commanding officer counseled a team of three officers for failing to articulate reasonable suspicion for four separate investigatory stops that occurred on one tour of duty; however, in three of the stops the officers indicated the reason for the stop on their Daily Activity Log.
The logs included 512 traffic stops, and our review indicated that 16 did not contain sufficient information to justify the stop, which is a basic requirement. For example, the officers failed to describe the initial necessity or purpose of the traffic stop. There were six instances where the officers wrote citations for failing to have a license or insurance without describing the initial violation or investigatory purpose. Supervisors reviewed all the officers’ Daily Activity Logs containing traffic stops in a timely fashion, marking their signatures, and dates and times of review. DPD’s compliance rate for traffic stops is 97%.
In the three previous reporting periods, there was a significant decline in the number of frisks contained in our sample population. For this report, we requested a one-day sample for the months of April and June 2013; and requested that DPD forward all Daily Activity Logs containing a frisk for the month of May 2013. Consequently, we reviewed 468 frisks appearing on officers’ Daily Activity Logs for the reporting period, and we found that 418 met the requirement. There were 54 that did not meet the requirement; however, four of them had timely supervisory review and contained the appropriate Investigatory Stop and/or Frisk Exception Form. We observed that the Compliance Liaison Officer (CLO) in one of the precincts was completing the required auditable forms for these violations upon her review, but they fell outside the reporting timeframe. She was completing the task that the officer’s immediate supervisors should have been doing. Officers are required to complete the “Recap of Activity” portion of the log to indicate their total daily activities and also mark the “Frisk” box in the

28 For this review, we randomly selected Daily Activity Logs completed on April 10, and June 2, 2013; for the May 2013 sample, all DPD Activity Logs containing documentation of any frisks were requested.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 59 of 190 Pg ID 9585

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 58

October 14, 2013

narrative portion of the report. This is a tool for the supervisor to locate and review the frisks that occur by his/her subordinates. However, supervisors have not used this tool – as we continue to find instances where the officer properly conducts a frisk, but does not mark either of the appropriate boxes or the frisk box is marked erroneously and the supervisors fail to discover the errors. We found 14 Activity Logs where a frisk was indicated on the face sheet of the Activity Log, but there were no frisks indicated on the log.
During a previous site visit, the Parties held a meeting to discuss DPD’s request that consent searches (frisks) met the legal requirements of the Consent Judgment. No changes were made as a result of that meeting, and we have found that on the few occasions when an officer conducts a consent frisk the supervisors have completed the auditable form.
A review of in-car video of frisks by the training staff and commanders is helpful in ensuring that legal authority exists for the frisks. In our eleventh quarterly report, we noted that supervisors conducted in-car video review of their subordinates’ investigatory stops and frisks. This is a sound supervisory practice and we encourage DPD to continue the video review of these stops when the legality of these stops is in question. As noted above, Administrative Message 11-0151, issued on January 28, 2011; Administrative Message 11-0477, issued on April 22, 2011; Administrative Message 11-1497, issued on December 22, 2011; and a subsequent Administrative Message, issued on November 9, 2012; emphasized the recording of investigatory stops and frisks by officers and supervisory review.
U102 mandates that DPD policy on video cameras shall require officers to record all vehicle stops. During this reporting period, CRIB selected 162 traffic stops for the districts/precincts to review for compliance purposes. For those traffic stops/investigatory stops/frisks that are found in violation, the supervisors who conduct the video reviews complete an In-Car Video Review Form. Of the 162 traffic stops recorded and reviewed, there were seven frisks, discovered upon supervisory review, that were not documented on the officers’ Daily Activity Logs. Considering that DPD officers conduct thousands of traffic stops monthly, the number of undocumented frisks on Activity Logs could be significant.
In previous reporting periods, we found a few cases where auditable forms were completed after they were requested by the Monitoring Team and reviewed by DPD personnel. DPD personnel have been trained; this is no longer an issue of training but one of accountability. Command personnel must ensure that their sergeants/lieutenants review investigatory stops and take action when they occur. DPD continues to fail in the area of supervisory and command review. Firstline supervisors are the key personnel in ensuring that all investigatory stops are in compliance with policy. DPD’s compliance rate for frisks this quarter is 90%, a decrease from the 93% we found during the previous reporting period. Conducting frisks that follow appropriate guidelines and meet established law is an important part of this paragraph and must be compliant.
The present process for recording stops and related frisks in officers’ daily logs does not allow for the capture of various data required to conduct a credible analysis of these stops and related searches (frisks). To address this, we continue to suggest that the DPD design a stop (field contact) data form that requires officers to uniformly capture information related to the stop and any subsequent search (frisk). Contemporary police practices suggest that this data should include – but not be limited to – the reasons for stops, basis for any subsequent searches (frisks), results of searches (frisks), arrest/citation or other action taken, and personal data related to the

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 60 of 190 Pg ID 9586

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 59

October 14, 2013

person stopped. This analyses of this and related data should allow the DPD to determine whether there are any personnel-, district-, or Department-wide issues relating to the basis for stops, frisks, or disparate treatment.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not In Compliance

C. Witness Identification and Questioning Policies
CJ Requirement U46
The DPD shall revise its witness identification and questioning policies to comply with the revised arrest and investigatory stop policies. The DPD shall prohibit the seizure of an individual without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual and require that the scope and duration of any seizure be narrowly tailored to the reasons supporting the police action. The DPD shall prohibit the conveyance of any individual to another location without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U48; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U47
The DPD shall develop the revised witness identification and questioning policies within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The revised policies shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the revised witness identification and questioning policies within three months of the review and approval of the DOJ.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U48; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 61 of 190 Pg ID 9587

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 60

October 14, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U48
The DPD shall document the content and circumstances of all interviews, interrogations and conveyances during the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD shall review in writing all interviews, interrogations and conveyances and document on an auditable form those in violation of DPD policy within 24 hours of the interview, interrogation or conveyance.29
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
On June 1, 2011, the Court issued an order relevant to a DOJ letter dated May 1, 2010, where an agreement was accepted for timelines required for the review of all interviews, interrogations, and conveyances. The Court order permits that supervisors can review all interviews, interrogations, and conveyances within 24 hours, compared to the 12 hours previously mandated by the paragraph.
On June 13, 2012, DPD advised us that all general investigative operational units would be merged under one command, the Criminal Investigation Unit, and be divided geographically into East and West facilities (Central District and Second Precinct). Although this change should increase efficiency, it has resulted in commanders’ reviews of holds often exceeding the 48-hour mandate (U53, U60). We have noted that during this review that both general investigations units located at Central District (East) and the Second Precinct (West) are now conducting their own internal inspections of their witness/interrogation forms for completeness and accuracy. This is a sound practice and should be expanded to other functions within the Department.
We reviewed 38 case files containing 97 interviews/interrogations (DPD Form 103, revised April 2009) at Central District (East) and found all in compliance. There were no violations of policy that would have required an auditable form. Central District’s (East) compliance rate with this paragraph is 100%.
We reviewed case files containing 90 interviews/interrogations from the Second Precinct (West), and found six that did not meet the requirement. We found six instances where violations of policy occurred. In four of these six cases, there was no supervisory review, but the Second Precinct discovered the omissions during an internal command inspection; however, the required auditable forms were generated several weeks after the violations occurred. In another case, the supervisor dated his review two months prior to the date of the interview. In the remaining case, the interviewing officer failed to indicate the ending time of the interview and the reviewing supervisor did not catch the omission. The Second Precinct’s compliance rate for interviews/interrogations remains at 94%.
29 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 62 of 190 Pg ID 9588

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 61

October 14, 2013

We reviewed 16 witness conveyances from Homicide and five from the Sex Crimes Unit during the reporting period, and found all but two in compliance. The two found not in compliance were for failure to have the witness sign the interview form. In both instances, the supervisor caught the failure and completed the required auditable form in a timely fashion. Due to the nature of homicide and sexual abuse investigations, witness conveyances are generally exclusive to more serious crimes.
DPD’s compliance rate for this paragraph is 97%.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

D. Prompt Judicial Review Policies CJ Requirement U49 The DPD shall revise its policies to require prompt judicial review, as defined in this Agreement, for every person arrested by the DPD. The DPD shall develop a timely and systematic process for all arrestees to be presented for prompt judicial review or to be released. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U50; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U50
The DPD shall require that, for each arrestee, a warrant request for arraignment on the charges underlying the arrest is submitted to the prosecutor’s office within 48 hours of the arrest.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Due to a few case reports involving traffic, probation violations, and warrant arrests that are handled by other means, or where the arrestee is taken directly to court, we reviewed 89 case reports that eventually were submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office for arraignment. The documentation supporting this review included Crisnet reports, Warrant Verification Logs, Arraignment Sheets, Detainee Input Sheets, and Warrant Tracking Hold Forms. Of the 89 cases we reviewed where an arraignment warrant was submitted or the detainee taken directly to court, all but three met the 48-hour requirement.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 63 of 190 Pg ID 9589

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 62

October 14, 2013

In one instance, the warrant submittal to the prosecutor’s office was late; however, the appropriate Warrant Tracking Form was timely submitted by the officer in charge of the case and submitted for command review. In the remaining two cases, the warrant submittal was late, but the officer in charge failed to document the late submittals on the Warrant Tracking Form. DPD’s compliance rate for this for this paragraph is 98%, a slight decrease from the previous quarter’s 99%.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U51
The DPD shall document on an auditable form all instances in which the request for an arraignment warrant is submitted more than 48 hours after the arrest. The DPD shall also document on an auditable form all instances in which it is not in compliance with the prompt judicial review policy and in which extraordinary circumstances delayed the arraignment. The documentation shall occur by the end of the shift in which there was: 1) a failure to request an arraignment within 48 hours, 2) a failure to comply with the prompt judicial review policy, or 3) an arraignment delayed by extraordinary circumstances.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with these requirements, we reviewed the same documents referenced in U50. Of the 104 arrest case reports we reviewed, there were 89 that began at the initial arrest and in which a warrant was submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office for arraignment. There was one case where the warrant submittal to the prosecutor’s office was late; however, the auditable Warrant Tracking Form was completed and submitted timely. In the other two cases, the auditable form was not generated for the failure to submit the warrant request.
There were 57 detainees who went to arraignment, and 30 of these where the arraignment occurred more than 48 hours from the time of the initial arrest. In one case, an auditable form was not generated for violation of the prompt judicial review policies (over 48 hours for the arraignment) and in the second case the form was submitted late. When the commanding officer reviews the auditable form, s/he must inspect the document to ensure that the OIC is dating or placing the time the event was recognized. If the commanding officer reviews the dates and times of the events prior to approval, determining compliance is straightforward.
DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement for the current reporting period is 98%, an increase from 97% in the previous quarter. DPD personnel who prepare the detainee warrant request information to the prosecutor should process and forward those documents promptly as any delay can create situations where detainees are not arraigned within the 48-hour time requirement.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 64 of 190 Pg ID 9590

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 63

October 14, 2013

On June 20,2013, DPD issued Teletype 13-0593 (to be read at consecutive Roll Calls) emphasizing member responsibility with Prompt Judicial Reviews (DPD Policy 202.1-7.2). As we noted previously, the elimination of evening arraignments by the 36th District Court of the State of Michigan will continue to be problematic for DPD in its ability to arraign detainees within the 48-hour time requirement.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

E. Hold Policies
CJ Requirement U52
The DPD shall revise its hold policies to define a hold as that term is defined in this Agreement and require that all holds be documented. This policy shall establish a timely and systematic process for persons in DPD custody who have holds issued by a City of Detroit court to have those holds cleared by presenting the arrestee to the court from which the warrant was issued or the setting and posting of bond where applicable. The fact that an arrestee has not been arraigned or charged in the current arrest shall not delay this process.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U53; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U53
The DPD shall document all holds, including the time each hold was identified and the time each hold was cleared. The DPD shall document on an auditable form each instance in which a hold is not cleared within 48 hours of the arrest. The documentation shall occur within 24 hours of each instance of a hold not being cleared.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In previous reporting periods, DPD was not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, due to holds/warrants not being cleared and the auditable form not being prepared. In the last reporting period, the Department’s compliance rate with this requirement was 89%.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 65 of 190 Pg ID 9591

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 64

October 14, 2013

To assess compliance with the requirements, we reviewed 104 arrest case packets from all districts, precincts, and specialized units. We reviewed DPD Detainee Input Sheets, and found a total of 53 holds/warrants listed on the forms. In our earlier reports, we noted that DPD was inconsistent in its ability to maintain compliance with this paragraph due to supervisors and OICs (officer in charge) failing to identify those holds exceeding 48 hours and the detainee still in custody. Form (DPD UF004-007, revised June 2009) was created and contains appropriate indications for officers to identify more than one violation of the Prompt Judicial Review Policies. DPD personnel must be aware that if an arraignment occurs more than 48 hours after an arrest and the detainee has an outstanding hold/warrant, there is a likelihood that the warrant may not be cleared within the requirement and both boxes should be checked. There can also be an issue if the warrant submittal for the outstanding arrest is denied by the prosecutor and there is a hold on the detainee. In these cases, DPD has an expectation that the hold(s) will be addressed at the arraignment on the current charge; and if the warrant is denied, the detainee may be presented to the judge at the next available arraignment opportunity.
After DPD combined the general investigative units in 2012, it had difficulty complying with this paragraph (for the four previous consecutive reporting periods). As a result of the Department’s inability to comply with policy, the commander of the investigative units directed that all members completing the Warrant Tracking Hold Form submit a copy of the Detainee Input Sheet to the reviewing commander to ensure that holds over 48 hours were captured on the auditable form. Of the 53 holds we reviewed, there were 51 that were compliant. (There were 16 holds that were not cleared within 48 hours.) One of these non-compliant cases did not contain the required auditable form for holds not being cleared within 48 hours of the arrest. In the other non-compliant case, the auditable form was completed five days after the arrest, and the detainee was held in custody for 152 hours.
DPD personnel advised us that the commander of the precinct – or, in the absence of the commander, the lieutenant on duty – receives the Warrant Tracking Form only when violations occur and the form is completed and forwarded by the OIC or a supervisor. Reviewing command personnel previously did not receive the entire package, and assumed all violations were properly indicated when they reviewed and approve the forms. When the supervisors receive and review the form from the OIC, they must ensure that it is complete prior to forwarding it for command review. The failure of personnel to indicate detainees being held with outstanding holds has increased since the general investigative operations units were merged. DPD has devised a method of ensuring the holds are either cleared or the required auditable form has been generated. We will closely monitor to see if these issues are resolved during the next reporting period.
On May 25, 2012 DPD issued Administrative Message (Teletype 12-0400) advising all personnel of the proper procedure to ensure that auditable forms for arraignments and holds/warrants exceeding the 48-hour requirement are processed according to DPD policy.
As we have noted previously, the lack of DPD personnel properly indicating the date and time that holds/warrants are identified/cleared and generating the required auditable forms for violations continues to be problematic for the Department. If command personnel would verify the existence of holds from the Detainee Information Sheet prior to signing off on the Warrant Tracking auditable form, the problem of non-compliance would be resolved, and it would ensure

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 66 of 190 Pg ID 9592

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 65

October 14, 2013

that subordinate supervisors are completing the forms accurately. The issue of failure to complete required auditable forms for holds not being cleared within 48 hours has been a topic of discussion at Command Accountability Meetings on several occasions. The mechanism put forward during those exchanges between commanders has rectified the existing problems for this quarter.
DPD’s compliance rate for this requirement is 95%, an increase from the 89% registered during the previous reporting period.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

F. RESTRICTION POLICIES CJ Requirement U54 The DPD shall develop a policy regarding restricting detainee’s access to telephone calls and visitors that permits individuals in DPD custody access to attorneys and reasonable access to telephone calls and visitors. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U55
The DPD shall require that such restrictions be documented and reviewed at the time the restriction is issued and reevaluated each day in which the restriction remains in effect. The DPD shall document on an auditable form any violation of the restriction policy by the end of the shift in which the violation occurred.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

G. Material Witness Policies
CJ Requirement U56
The DPD shall revise its material witness policies to define material witness as that term is defined in this Agreement and remove the term “police witness” from DPD policies and procedures.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 67 of 190 Pg ID 9593

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 66

October 14, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U57
The DPD shall obtain a court order prior to taking a material witness into DPD custody. The DPD shall document on an auditable form the detention of each material witness and attach a copy of the court order authorizing the detention.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

H. Documentation of Custodial Detention CJ Requirement U58 The DPD shall revise its arrest and detention documentation to require, for all arrests, a record or file to contain accurate and auditable documentation of:
a. the individual’s personal information; b. the crime(s) charged; c. the time and date of arrest and release; d. the time and date the arraignment was submitted; e. the name and badge number of the officer who submitted the arraignment; f. the time and date of arraignment; was lodged and cleared, if applicable; g. the time each warrant was lodged and cleared, if applicable; and h. the individual’s custodial status, e.g., new arrest, material witness or extradition. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 68 of 190 Pg ID 9594

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 67

October 14, 2013

I. Command Notification
CJ Requirement U59
The DPD shall require the commander of the precinct and, if applicable, of the specialized unit, to review in writing all reported violations of DPD arrest, investigatory stop and frisk, witness identification and questioning policies and all reports of arrests in which an arraignment warrant was not sought. The commander’s review shall be completed within 7 days of receiving the document reporting the event. The commander’s review shall include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In our first two years of reviewing officer’s Daily Activity Logs, we did not find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement, noting the lack of auditable forms, the lack of documented reasonable suspicion for frisks, and inadequate supervisory review.
In our review of 104 arrests during this reporting period, we determined that all properly documented probable cause. There was one case where the officer in charge failed to complete the required auditable form for a warrant not sought with the required timeframe; however, the commanding officer was able to conduct a command review of the circumstances of the release of the detainee. In those situations where a warrant is not sought or a warrant is denied on an arrestee, supervisors should scrutinize the arrest packets to ensure that the elements required for a valid arrest are documented.
We reviewed 468 frisks, and determined that 50 met the requirement. There were four auditable forms timely submitted and reviewed by a commanding officer. In prior reporting periods, DPD has generated auditable forms for violations of this portion of the paragraph relating to frisks. The failure of supervisors to review and recognize frisks in violation of policy and to complete the required auditable forms continues to be problematic for DPD with maintaining compliance with U45. In order to be lawful, a stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion and narrowly tailored in scope and duration to the reasons supporting the seizure. During a limited seizure, the officer may conduct a frisk if s/he has reasonable suspicion to believe that the suspect may have the means to do harm. While supervisors do review the officers’ Daily Activity Logs, they should also be challenging officers to articulate the reason for the stops/frisks.
Our review of 512 traffic stops determined that officers’ abilities to accurately describe the actions that led to the stop are compliant; however, there was no auditable form generated for the 16 traffic stops in which a form was required to be completed. Commanders are not receiving the forms due to supervisors not completing them.
There were 111 investigatory stops (excluding frisks and traffic stops), of which 106 were based on a documented investigatory purpose. One auditable form was generated by the reviewing supervisor.
There were 17 cases where documentation was completed indicating that an arraignment warrant was not sought and auditable forms were completed and reviewed by a commanding officer. We have observed DPD’s progress with commanders’ oversight as it relates to warrants not served.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 69 of 190 Pg ID 9595

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 68

October 14, 2013

We reviewed 197 witness/interrogation interviews from Central Investigative Command (East and West). There were four auditable forms (Exceptions to Interviews, Interrogation and Conveyances (DPD Form uf005) completed for this paragraph where command review occurred. There were 21 witness conveyances and 19 were compliant; the remaining two contained the required auditable form.
Under this paragraph, DPD commanders have seven days to review the requirements from time of receipt; compliance should not be an issue. All command reviews received by commanders were compliant; however, in some instances the auditable forms were not prepared and forwarded to the commander for review. There were four auditable forms prepared after the time requirement for incomplete information on the witness interview/interrogation forms from the Second Precinct. The appropriate commanding officer did review the late forms within seven days of receipt. These exceptions were previously noted in other paragraphs (U43, U 45 and U48).
DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement remains at 100%. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U60
The DPD shall require the commander of the precinct, and, if applicable, of the specialized unit, to review in writing all violations of DPD prompt judicial review, holds, restrictions and material witness policies on a daily basis. The commander’s review shall include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 104 arrest case reports, of which 89 were submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office and 57 went to arraignment. There were 30 cases where the arraignment occurred more than 48 hours after the arrest.
In all but three cases, the request for the warrant was submitted in a timely fashion. In one instance an auditable form was completed and command review occurred. An auditable form was not generated by the OIC in the remaining two cases.
In the 57 cases that went to arraignment, 30 of these were arraigned more than 48 hours after arrest, and auditable forms were completed in all but one case. In the other instance, the command review was not within the required timeframe. We noted previously that OCR sent Corrective Action Notices to commanders who failed to review the auditable forms within the allotted time constraints.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 70 of 190 Pg ID 9596

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 69

October 14, 2013

Of the 53 hold/warrants that we identified, there were 16 holds that were not cleared within the required 48 hours. In 14 instances, the Warrant Tracking Form was properly completed and forwarded to the commander for review; in one case, the “hold” box was not marked indicating a hold over 48 hours and in the other case the auditable form was completed five days after the arrest. There were two material witnesses taken into custody during this reporting period, and all required auditable forms were completed. The one restriction reviewed was within DPD policy.
Under this paragraph, there were a total of 46 auditable forms in our sample reviewed by the commander. There were two instances where the command review of the auditable forms was late. In the event of a commander’s absence from the district or precinct, the on-duty commanding officer (lieutenant or above) has the authority to review and sign off on the auditable forms as they serve as precinct commanders during that timeframe. There should not be any instance where the officer in charge of the case cannot contact a lieutenant or above to review those cases where there are violations of the prompt judicial policies.
DPD’s overall compliance rate for this paragraph is 96%, the same as we found in the last reporting period. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
• Prior to this reporting period, we noted instances in which the OIC failed to indicate on the Warrant Tracking Form when holds exceed 48 hours. During the last reporting period, DPD took steps to rectify this failure by including it as a point of discussion at the Command Accountability Meetings. We have stressed this issue with DPD in previous site visits and our quarterly reports. DPD has begun transferring their detainees to the State (MDOC) facility immediately upon arrest. The Northeastern District has already begun to transfer its detainees and has closed its holding facility. During the next few months, DPD will close the four remaining holding facilities scattered throughout the City, and all detainees will be housed in the new facility. The MDOC compound will also serve as the new quarters of all general investigations operational personnel of the DPD, and should help in resolving existing issues with prompt judicial review.
• If warrant submittals to the prosecutor were made timelier, violations of the prompt judicial policies would be reduced significantly; therefore reducing the amount of unnecessary work and documentation by DPD staff.
• We noticed a considerable drop in the number of frisks conducted by officers in the sample we requested during the previous two reporting periods. As a result of the low numbers, we requested additional Activity Logs during this quarter. We also reviewed seven of the supervisors In-Car Video Review Forms of the 162 in-car video recordings of traffic stops, and found that DPD supervisors discovered officers conducting frisks

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 71 of 190 Pg ID 9597

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 70

October 14, 2013

without documenting the frisks on their Activity Logs. Due to the failure of officers to accurately document reasonable suspicion for frisks on the Activity Log, and the failure of personnel to log frisks discovered during a review of unreported frisks during traffic stops, we recommend that DPD explore other methods of capturing this information. District/precinct commanders must ensure that auditable forms are completed and forwarded promptly for their review, and advise their lieutenants that they have the authority to review and sign auditable forms under U60 in their absence.
• It is not OCR’s responsibility to issue corrective action in the districts/precincts. The commanders should address all issues and violations of policy prior to review by OCR and the Monitoring Team.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Meet with DPD’s Civil Rights Integrity Bureau (CRIB) to discuss our investigatory stop concerns, and the timeliness of commanders’ reviews as it relates to auditable forms that require daily review. Completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of all reports and auditable forms continue to affect field units and the quality of administrative review.
• Review other investigative units to determine their compliance with interrogations, interviews, conveyances, and material witness policies. During our April 2012 site visit, DPD had drafted a plan to centralize its general investigative units and the plan was implemented; however, the failure of the OIC to properly indicate holds over 48 hours still exists. While command reviews have been exceptional, the ability of personnel completing the Warrant Tracking Form needs to improve.
• Conduct reviews of in-car video for investigatory stops/frisks with supervisors and commanders during the site visit.
• Meet with the commanders, if possible, of each district and precinct to discuss issues relating to auditable forms and their role in ensuring compliance.
Inquire with DPD if any developments have been enacted with the Prosecutor’s Office to streamline the warrant submittals process and/or the timeliness of arraignments.

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

42

Define and prohibit arrest without probable cause

In Compliance

43 Review all arrests for probable cause

In Compliance

44 Revise investigatory stop-and-frisk policy

In Compliance

45 Written account of stops and frisks

In Compliance

46 Revise witness policies

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation
In Compliance
In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 72 of 190 Pg ID 9598

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 71

October 14, 2013

¶ Requirements 47 Revise above in three months 48 Document content, etc. of interviews, etc. 49 Arrests receive prompt judicial review 50 Charges to Prosecutor within 48 hours 51 Document of late warrant requests 52 Revise hold policies 53 Documentation of all holds 54 Policy for restricting telephone access 55 Document and review such restrictions 56 Define material witness 57 Custody of material witnesses-court order 58 Arrests and detention record requirements 59 Required written review of violations 60 Required written review of violations

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS
The stated mission of the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) is to assure the public’s trust and confidence in DPD by conducting thorough and impartial investigations into allegations of criminality and serious misconduct lodged against members of the Department, as well as other City of Detroit employees. IAD is charged with the prevention, discovery, and investigation of criminal allegations and allegations of serious misconduct against Department members and City employees who are assigned within the DPD; IAD is responsible for all external complaints alleging possible criminal misconduct.
Consistent with this obligation, IAD accepts information from any source; and requires that all officers and employees document all complaints filed in writing, verbally, in person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile, or by electronic mail.
During our most recent site visit, we examined the investigative procedures employed by IAD for consistency in the application of procedural fairness, timeliness, confidentiality, and the meticulous reporting of facts and results of an investigation. The IAD Standard Operating Procedures were revised in January 2011 to include Section 5-8, Case Tracking.
The Office of the Chief Investigator (OCI) is the investigative arm of the Board of Police Commissioners (BOPC). OCI is responsible for investigating non-criminal external complaints. The Board has plenary authority over citizen complaints. OCI operates independently of the Detroit Police Department and is led by a civilian Chief Investigator who is appointed by the BOPC. OCI is staffed with a combination of civilian and sworn investigators who assist in the

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 73 of 190 Pg ID 9599

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 72

October 14, 2013

investigation of citizen complaints. OCI’s mission is to provide meaningful and objective investigations of citizen complaints of police misconduct.
OCI investigates non-criminal allegations of misconduct against Detroit Police Department personnel for the following: Arrest; Demeanor; Entry; Harassment; Force; Procedure; Property; and Search and Seizure. OCI employees are required to accept complaints from any source and by any method of communication including in writing, verbally, in person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile, or by electronic mail. Members of the public may also file complaints at the BOPC office or at BOPC meetings.
During our most recent site visit, we met with the BOPC Staff, the Chief Investigator, and supervising investigators assigned to OCI. We discussed with specificity the cases which were deemed noncompliant during the last reporting period. We also attended case review meetings with all investigative staff.

CJ Requirement U61
The DPD and City shall revise their external complaint policy to clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of OCI and the DPD regarding the receipt, investigation and review of external complaints. At a minimum, the plan shall specify each agency’s responsibility for receiving, recording, investigating and tracking complaints; each agency’s responsibility for conducting community outreach and education regarding complaints; how, when and in what fashion the agencies shall exchange information, including complaint referrals and information about sustained complaints.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U62
The DPD and the City shall develop and implement an informational campaign regarding external complaints, including:
a. informing persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any DPD employee;
b. distributing complaint forms, fact sheets and informational posters at City Hall, OCI, all DPD precincts, libraries, on the internet and, upon request, to community groups and community centers;
c. broadcasting public service announcements that describe the complaint process; and
d. posting permanently a placard describing the complaint process, with relevant phone numbers, in the lobby of each DPD precinct

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 74 of 190 Pg ID 9600

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 73

October 14, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U63
The DPD shall require all officers to carry informational brochures and contact forms in their vehicles at all times while on-duty. The DPD shall develop a contact form within 60 days of the effective date of this Agreement. The contact form shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the contact form within 60 days of the review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall require all officers to inform an individual of his or her right to make a complaint, if an individual objects to an officer’s conduct. The DPD shall prohibit officers from discouraging any person from making a complaint or refusing to take a complaint.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

A. Intake and Tracking
CJ Requirement U64
The DPD and the City shall revise their policies regarding the intake and tracking of external complaints to define complaint and misconduct as those terms are defined in this Agreement and require all officers and OCI employees to accept and document all complaints filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U65
The DPD and the City shall permit the intake officer or employee to include a factual account and/or description of a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but not an opinion regarding the complainant’s mental competency or veracity.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 75 of 190 Pg ID 9601

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 74

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U66
The DPD and the City shall assign all complaints a unique identifier, which shall be provided to the complainant, and a description of the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy or improper search).
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

B. External Complaint Investigations
CJ Requirement U67
The DPD and the City shall revise its policies regarding external complaint investigations to:
a. provide that all complaints shall be referred for investigation and resolution by OCI or, if the complaint alleges potentially criminal conduct by an officer, by IAD;
b. permit the informal resolution of complaints alleging only inadequate service or the complainant’s innocence of a charge and require the investigation and formal resolution of all other complaints;
c. refer all complaints to the appropriate agency within five business days of their receipt;
d. require that the complainant shall be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation;
e. develop written criteria for IAD and OCI investigator applicants, including the applicant’s complaint and disciplinary history and investigative experience;
f. implement mandatory pre-service and in-service training for all IAD and OCI investigators, including intake, investigations, interviews and resolutions of external complaints;
g. require IAD and OCI to complete all investigations within 90 days of receiving the complaint and
h. require that: (1) upon completion of the investigation by a command other than OCI, the complainant shall be notified of its outcome and, if the complaint is sustained, whether disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action has been recommended; and (2) upon completion of an investigation by OCI the complainant shall be notified of its outcome and, if the complaint is sustained, its referral to the Chief of Police for appropriate disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.30

30 Amended by Court Order dated September 15, 2008.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 76 of 190 Pg ID 9602

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 75

October 14, 2013

Comments:
Office of the Chief Investigator: For this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected OCI cases. Three of the cases were transferred to IAD. Two of the cases involved allegations of theft, and in the third case, it was alleged that an officer was inappropriately involved with narcotics dealers. While all of these referrals were appropriate, none of them were timely, taking between 25 and 68 days to refer.
Four cases were resolved informally, and all met the criteria for an Informal Complaint Resolution (ICR), as they involved complaints of inadequate service or innocence of the charge. In one case, the complainant alleged that officers failed to complete an assault report. The investigation revealed that the officers had, in fact, written the report. In another case, an officer inadvertently failed to return documents to the complainant at the conclusion of a traffic stop. The documents were located in the police vehicle and returned, to the satisfaction of the complainant. Another case was not directed at any specific officer, and concerned the alleged failure to abate a chronic noise issue coming from a bar. The complaint was referred to the district’s special operations unit. In the last case, the complainant believed he should not have been arrested for squatting in a vacant residence because he used to reside there. As his only complaint was that he is innocent, the closure was appropriate.
Eight cases in our sample were administratively closed, and all were appropriate for such closure. In four cases, the investigations revealed that the officers or employees complained of did not work for the Detroit Police Department. One involved a Transit police officer; one involved a Detroit Public School officer; one concerned a Wayne State officer; and the last involved a parking officer not employed by the Department. Two cases were administratively closed because the subject officers had retired from service. One of the other cases lacked specificity. The complainant, who subsequently refused to cooperate further with the investigation, alleged that unknown officers failed to investigate a fraud complaint. In the last case, the complainant was upset that officers shined a flashlight at him. No misconduct was alleged, and he declined to participate further with the investigation.
Ninety-four of the 100 cases we reviewed were completed within 90 days, an increase from the 92 timely cases during the last review period.
Ninety-six of the 100 cases we reviewed were referred to OCI within five business days as required by DPD policy; most cases were transferred within one to three days. However, four cases took between seven and 17 days to be referred. We also noted the untimely transfer of three cases from OCI to IAD, as described earlier.
In most cases, we noted efforts to keep the complainant informed of case progress. Often, this correspondence involved attempts to encourage uncooperative complainants to participate in their investigations. However, we identified two cases in which complainants did not receive update letters after 45 days as required by OCI policy. This represents an 83% decrease in such cases over the previous reporting period. In all applicable cases, the complainants were notified of the disposition of their cases, and if any allegations were sustained, they were advised that the case was referred to the Chief of Police for appropriate corrective action.
During our previous site visits, we verified ongoing in-service training for OCI personnel. Much of this training occurs in conjunction with other DPD employees. While we do not discourage

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 77 of 190 Pg ID 9603

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 76

October 14, 2013

this practice, we urge OCI to explore training specific to OCI’s responsibilities, in order to address knowledge and skill gaps that impact the quality of its investigations. The Chief Investigator continues to develop OCI specific training, and her staff meetings frequently have a training component. We also reviewed the pre-service training provided to all newly hired investigators.
The City is not in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: IAD Standard Operating Procedures do not specifically permit or encourage informal resolution due the nature of their investigative jurisdiction of alleged criminality and/or serious misconduct lodged against Department personnel. Accordingly, IAD investigates and makes findings in each case.
IAD Standard Operating Procedures and OCI policy require that all complaints be referred to the appropriate agency within five business days of their receipt. Historically, we discovered significant delays in transferring appropriate cases from OCI to IAD. During the current reporting period, we reviewed 31IAD cases, and determined that two complaints alleging criminal misconduct had not been referred to IAD from OCI within the appropriate time period.
The IAD Standard Operating Procedures contains criteria for investigator applicants and training. IAD is current in its training requirements and the members have recently received advanced Internal Investigations training. There were no new applicants to IAD during this period.
In cases of prolonged investigations, IAD must provide an updated case status to complainants, and upon closure, notify them of the closure, finding(s), and action(s) taken, where appropriate.
Our review determined that IAD is in compliance with the notifications to complainants upon both the opening and the closure of all investigations.
During our current review of 31 investigations, 10 exceeded the 90-day time limit. Of those, the reviewer determined that four were delayed due to criminal prosecutions, four were held at the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office awaiting decisions, and two were delayed in transfer from the Office of the Chief Investigator. All delayed investigations were documented and approved by the supervisor. There were no cases that were inappropriately delayed during this period.
DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 78 of 190 Pg ID 9604

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 77

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U68
The DPD and the City shall review and evaluate the external complaint review process to require:
a. the Chief Investigator or his/her designee to complete review of OCI investigations within 7 days of completion of the supervisor’s review;
b. the Board of Police Commissioners to complete review of OCI investigations within 45 days of completion of the Chief Investigator’s review;31 and
c. the Chief of Police or his or her designee to complete his or her review of external complaints within 7 days of completion of the BOPC’s review.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During this reporting period, the Chief Investigator (or in her absence, her designee) reviewed all investigations submitted to her within the prescribed seven-day period.
The Board of Police Commissioners completed all of its reviews within the prescribed forty-fiveday period.
During the last reporting period, we learned that OCI failed to send any Board-reviewed investigations to the Police Chief’s office for the entire quarter. Consequently, the Chief or his designee was unable to complete any reviews. The Chief Investigator advised us of this issue as soon as she was made aware of it, and she informed us that she addressed the issue with the person responsible for coordinating these transfers. During this review period, we confirmed that the cases were exchanged between OCI and the Chief’s Office in a timely manner.
The City remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U69
In addition to the investigatory report and evaluation requirements, each allegation in an administrative external complaint investigation shall be resolved by making one of the following dispositions:
a. “Unfounded,” where the investigation revealed no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred;
b. “Sustained,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur and the actions of the officer violated DPD policies, procedures or training;
31 Amended by Court Order dated July 18, 2003.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 79 of 190 Pg ID 9605

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 78

October 14, 2013

c. “Not Sustained,” where there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and
d. “Exonerated,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate DPD policies, procedures or training.
Comments:
During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected OCI cases. For purposes of this paragraph, we evaluated the determination of finding based on the information in each case file. We do not concur with the findings assigned to one or more allegations in eight cases. We noted four cases in which we believe investigators exonerated behavior inappropriately. One involved failing to provide name and badge number; one involved the pointing of a firearm, one involved the search of a female; and one involved the confiscation of property. In the latter case, an officer refused to release personal property to the complainant without proper identification, despite the fact that the very same officer is the one who arrested the complainant and secured his property for safekeeping. In two other cases, we believe allegations that were unfounded should have instead been classified as not sustained. In another case, an investigator inappropriately not sustained a demeanor complaint, even though the subject officer admitted that he “got agitated” after the complainant would not comply with his requests, and he stated that he most likely used profanity.
OCI must not only make one of the findings specified above, but the findings must be consistent with the defined requirements and supported by the investigations conducted. Accordingly, the City is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of the requirement.
In addition, we reviewed all 31 IAD cases – including internal and external complaints – that were completed during this reporting period. During earlier reviews, there were dispositions in each of the investigations. We did not always agree with the dispositions, especially those that were derived from faulty interviews and/or the failure to gather pertinent evidence. When we discussed this issue with IAD personnel, IAD advised that it was making efforts to correct the problems.
During this reporting period, all investigations contained the required dispositions. Included in the 31 investigations were 56 allegations of misconduct. The following is a breakdown of the dispositions of the 56 allegations: 15 unfounded; 32 sustained; five not sustained and four exonerated. Based on our review of the investigative documents, these are appropriate dispositions. IAD is in compliance with this requirement.
IAD is in compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 80 of 190 Pg ID 9606

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 79

October 14, 2013

Critical Issues:
We examined 31 closed IAD cases and 100 closed OCI cases for the period of April 1, through June 30, 2013. Our review disclosed that the following issues continue to require attention:
• IAD Case Tracking: During the first quarter of 2011, IAD adopted a computer program to aid in tracking its cases. While the system does not alert the users to deadlines, it does allow for communication between the investigator and supervisor. The supervisor recently incorporated a computerized calendar into the process, which notifies her when an assignment date has been reached. The calendar also allows investigators to schedule Garrity interviews to avoid conflicts. Cases that are submitted to the prosecuting attorneys are tracked, and updates are requested on a regular basis. IAD appears to have eliminated the backlog of overdue cases, including those cases that are awaiting disposition or prosecution at the Prosecutor’s Office. The IAD manager meets regularly with members of the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office to discuss the viability of the cases still awaiting decisions.
• Quality v. Quantity of OCI Investigations: As noted in our past several reports, OCI worked extremely hard to address their large backlog of cases. The quality of their investigations suffered, both because of long periods of inactivity and because of the pressure to complete these investigations and get them off of the books. OCI has eliminated the backlog and as of this writing, OCI has no overdue cases. OCI’s Chief Investigator and its supervising investigators have turned their attention to addressing the quality of investigations. During every site visit, we discuss numerous cases in detail from our most recently completed assessment. We note many deficiencies that can be addressed with a thorough review of the cases and independent verification of the content of interviews.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Review a sample of the cases closed by OCI and IAD for the months of July, August, and September 2013.

¶ Requirements 61 Revise external complaint policies 62 Information campaign re complaints 63 Officers carry information/contact forms 64 Policy to define complaint intake/track 65 Permit factual account, no opinion 66 Unique identifier for complaints 67 Revision of complaint investigations

Phase 1 - Policy Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 81 of 190 Pg ID 9607

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 80

October 14, 2013

¶ Requirements 68 Time limits for review of investigations/complaints 69 Required finding categories specified

Phase 1 - Policy Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance

VII. GENERAL POLICIES
This section of the Consent Judgment addresses a variety of issues in general terms. It seeks to ensure that when the DPD develops policies, all the terms used are clearly defined, and that prior to making policy revisions, the DPD posts the proposals on the DPD website to inform the community of the proposed revisions. It requires DPD to advise all of its officers that taking police actions in violation of DPD policies shall subject them to a variety of possible actions, to include disciplinary, criminal prosecution, or civil liability. This section also requires officers to report acts of misconduct by other officers, whether on or off duty. Additionally, this section required DPD to revise its policy regarding police actions by off-duty officers; and to revise the policies on how DPD handles prisoners, to include summoning first aid as necessary, summoning assistance if required, and prohibiting the accompanying of prisoners to the holding cell area. This section also required DPD to develop a foot pursuit policy and to plan for adequate distribution of manpower. DPD has developed the appropriate policies and has achieved implementation.

CJ Requirement U70 In developing and revising the policies discussed in this Agreement, the DPD shall ensure that all terms are clearly defined. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U71
The DPD shall continue to make available proposed policy revisions to the community, for their review, comment and education. Such policy revisions shall also be published on the DPD’s website to allow comments to be provided directly to the DPD.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 82 of 190 Pg ID 9608

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 81

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U72
The DPD shall advise all officers, including supervisors, that taking police action in violation of DPD policy shall subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U73
The DPD and the City shall develop a plan for ensuring regular field deployment of an adequate number of supervisors of patrol units and specialized units that deploy in the field to implement the provisions of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In the past, we have reviewed the Daily Details for the platoons that operated on three randomly selected days during the quarter preceding our site visit to determine if units were in compliance with a 1:10 supervisory ratio. Since our April 2011 report, we have found DPD in compliance with the 1:10 supervisory ratio. During the first quarter of calendar year 2013, we found that 97%, or more of the randomly selected platoons and specialized units were in compliance with the required 1:10 ratio of supervisors to officers in patrol and specialized units on the dates surveyed.
During this reporting period, we again surveyed Daily Details for three days selected at random (Wednesday, April 24; Thursday, May 9; and Friday, June 14, 2013). We found that 94 (91%) of the 103 platoons, and 1,418 (91%) of the 1,562 officers working on those dates, met the required 1:10 ratio. This does not meet the required >94% to remain in compliance. Span of control is an important element in maintaining proper supervision.
Since DPD has been in compliance since April 2011, we will continue it in that status until the next review. If at that time, we find the Department below >94%, we will take it out of compliant status.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 83 of 190 Pg ID 9609

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 82

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U74 The DPD shall enforce its policies requiring all DPD officers to report any misconduct committed by another DPD officer, whether committed on-duty or off-duty. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U75
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to:
a. provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty DPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem;
b. prohibit off-duty officers from carrying or using firearms or taking police action in situations where an officer’s performance may be impaired or the officer’s ability to take objective action may be compromised; and
c. provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
Comments:
We found the DPD in sustained compliance in our previous report; however, during this reporting period, we identified three instances in which off-duty officers engaged in police actions; accordingly, we assessed compliance for this report. The first of these events occurred in April and two were in May. In the April incident, the officer noticed an individual inside his personally owned vehicle. When the officer opened his front door, the subject saw him and fled. The officer pursued, and a short time later, he was able to tackle the subject; following a brief struggle, he was able get him back to his residence. This appears to be a property crime with no exigent circumstances. The officer violated several polices and has been reinstructed by his command for the violations.
In May, an officer on his way to work in his privately owned vehicle was struck by another vehicle. Believing it was an accident, he started to pull over to the right side curb, but was struck a second time by the vehicle. Finally coming to a stop, the officer attempted to exit his vehicle and was struck a third time by the vehicle. Based on these actions and in fear for his safety, and hearing the other driver racing his car’s engine as he exited his vehicle, the officer identified himself as the police and acquired a target. He requested assistance by radio and on-duty units responded and arrested the subject. This was a crime against a person, and required the officer take the actions that he did.
The remaining case involves an officer who has recently retired from the Department working an unauthorized job as security for a pharmacy. He was called by a store employee, and advised a suspected shoplifter was probably going to enter the store. The officer responded, the shoplifter shoplifted, and when approached by the officer fled on foot, pursued by the officer and store

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 84 of 190 Pg ID 9610

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 83

October 14, 2013

employees. Once apprehended, DPD was notified. The officer should have notified DPD of the suspicions beforehand rather than engage the subject himself.
Two of the three cases are policy violations; only one was found to be an exigent circumstance requiring the immediate police action (33%). We caution DPD that failure to achieve >94% next reporting period could result in the loss of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U76
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding prisoners to:
a. require officers to summon emergency medical services to transport prisoners when the restraints employed indicate the need for medical monitoring;
b. require officers to utilize appropriate precautions when interacting with a prisoner who demonstrates he or she is recalcitrant or resistant, including summoning additional officers, summoning a supervisor and using appropriate restraints; and
c. prohibit arresting and transporting officers from accompanying prisoners into the holding cell area.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U77
The DPD shall develop a foot pursuit policy to:
a. require officers to consider particular factors in determining whether a foot pursuit is appropriate, including the offense committed by the subject, whether the subject is armed, the location (e.g., lighting and officer familiarity), whether more than one officer is available to engage in the pursuit, the proximity of reinforcements, and the ability to apprehend the subject at a later date;
b. emphasize alternatives to foot pursuits, including area containment, surveillance, and obtaining reinforcements;
c. emphasize the danger of pursuing and engaging a subject with a firearm in hand; and
d. require officers to document all foot pursuits that involve a use of force on a separate, auditable form, such as the use of force report.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 85 of 190 Pg ID 9611

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 84

October 14, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

Critical Issues:
DPD must make a concerted effort to ensure member compliance with the DPD policy dealing with foot pursuits. The Department should give special attention to considering alternatives to foot pursuits, relying more strongly on area containment and availability of support units.

Next Steps: During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to monitor relevant policy changes, including efforts to address the public’s interest in policy.
• Continue to heed the training requirements inherent in policy development in this area. • Monitor the presence of arresting or transport officers in the holding cell areas.

¶

Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

Phase 2 – Implementation

70

Clear definitions in policies

In Compliance In Compliance

71

Proposed policy changes open to comm.

In Compliance In Compliance

72

Advise officers policy violations disciplined In Compliance In Compliance

73

Adequate officer/supervisor ratio

In Compliance In Compliance

74

Enforce misconduct reporting requirements In Compliance In Compliance

75

Revise policies regarding off-duty officers In Compliance In Compliance

76

Revise prisoner-related policies

In Compliance In Compliance

77

Develop foot pursuit policy

In Compliance In Compliance

VIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
This portion of the Use of Force Consent Judgment addresses several key management areas including the development of a risk management system, audit requirements, including in-car cameras, personnel evaluations, and the reduction of a backload of disciplinary cases. Thirteen of the 28 requirements in this section address the development and use of a comprehensive risk management system.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 86 of 190 Pg ID 9612

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 85

October 14, 2013

A. Risk Management Database
CJ Requirement U78
The DPD shall devise a comprehensive risk management plan, including:
a. a risk management database (discussed in paragraphs 79-90);
b. a performance evaluation system (discussed in paragraph 91);
c. an auditing protocol (discussed in paragraphs 92-99);
d. regular and periodic review of all DPD policies; and
e. regular meetings of DPD management to share information and evaluate patterns of conduct by DPD that potentially increase the DPD’s liability.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
This requirement established the general requirements of the risk management system that are spelled out in greater detail in the requirements that immediately follow. It has now been five quarters since DPD achieved Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. The overall system now functions well and is used to assess and manage risk in the Department. The individual focus of the system with its attention to officer behavior is buttressed by the use of data at the organizational level, as illustrated by the regular Command Accountability Meetings and the Quarterly Risk Assessment Review Reports.
Even with these indicators of stability, there are significant transitions occurring with the risk management process. The administration of the unit is in the process of change. With the addition of an auditor to the unit, risk assessment is conducting unannounced site inspections and reviewing original documents to assure the quality of the data. These include reviews of stop and frisk logs, completed use of force forms and investigations and other investigative reports in areas relevant to the Consent Judgments.
The Risk Management Unit is also continuing the process of identifying outliers using risk indicators normed by officers’ numbers of arrest. Currently outliers are being examined for the quarter under review and will be available to the Monitoring Team for our next visit.
The unit also continues to move forward with a process of completing internal reviews of officers exceeding thresholds. As noted below, this allows the unit to make an initial determination of whether intervention or monitoring is needed, thus reducing false positives and relieving first-line supervisors of their burden. The process is still developing, however, and supervisory agreement with MAS unit recommendations is limited. We will continue to consider these developments in future reporting periods.
With the recent changes in administration, it is important that the Department effectively utilize the processes of continuous improvement and risk reduction that has been developed in recent years. This includes the processes of assessing and improving officer performance and using risk related data in the daily management of the Department as seen in its command accountability processes.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 87 of 190 Pg ID 9613

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 86

October 14, 2013

As noted previously, some final steps remain to be completed including the full integration of the current procedures into the computerized system and Departmental policy. Sustainability of this important process will be enhanced by those steps and by continued attention, particularly to the use of the system by supervisors.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U79
The DPD shall enhance and expand its risk management system to include a new computerized relational database for maintaining, integrating and retrieving data necessary for supervision and management of the DPD. Priority shall be given to the DPD obtaining an established program and database. The DPD shall ensure that the risk management database it designs or acquires is adequate to evaluate the performance of DPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts; to manage risk and liability; and to promote civil rights and best police practices. The DPD shall regularly use this data for such review and monitoring.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. To consider compliance we review monthly MAS status reports. For the reporting period, we also reviewed the monthly command reviews that document the use of MAS, and the results of PEERS reviews that are now completed through the Risk management Unit. We also reviewed the reports of the intervention processes used by supervisors.
Based on our examination of the use of the system, including the input of data, the use of that data; the identification, review and intervention with officers exceeding thresholds established in the system; and our review of the continued development and use of this system, we again recognize the achievement of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
It is worth noting that the Department continues to use two systems for identifying officers for review. These include a review of outliers based on normed data and the use of a formula involving three performance indicators within a six months period for some indicators. The Risk Management Unit is also continuing to conduct the initial reviews internally for officers meeting or exceeding thresholds.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 88 of 190 Pg ID 9614

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 87

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U80
The new risk management database shall collect and record the following information:
a. all use of force reports and use of force investigations;
b. all canine deployments;
c. all canine apprehensions;
d. all canine bites;
e. all canisters of chemical spray issued to officers;
f. all injured prisoner reports and injured prisoner investigations;
g. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct” or “interfering with a city employee;”
h. all firearm discharge reports and firearm discharge investigations;
i. all incidents in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target;
j. all complaints and complaint investigations, entered at the time the complaint is filed and updated to record the finding;
k. all preliminary investigations and investigations of alleged criminal conduct;
l. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the City, or its officers, or agents, resulting from DPD operations or the actions of DPD personnel, entered at the time proceedings are initiated and updated to record disposition;
m. all vehicle and foot pursuits and traffic collisions;
n. all reports regarding arrests without probable cause or where the individual was discharged from custody without formal charges being sought;
o. all reports regarding investigatory stops and/or frisks unsupported by reasonable suspicion;
p. all reports regarding interviews, interrogations or conveyances in violation of DPD policy;
q. the time between arrest and arraignment for all arrests;
r. all reports regarding a violation of DPD prompt judicial review policy;
s. all reports regarding a violation of DPD hold policy;
t. all restrictions on phone calls or visitors imposed by officers;
u. all instances in which the DPD is informed by a prosecuting authority that a declination to prosecute any crime was based, in whole or in part, upon concerns about the credibility of a DPD officer or that a motion to suppress evidence was granted on the grounds of a constitutional violation by a DPD officer;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 89 of 190 Pg ID 9615

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 88

October 14, 2013

v. all disciplinary action taken against officers;
w. all non-disciplinary corrective action required of officers, excluding administrative counseling records;
x. all awards and commendations received by officers;
y. the assignment, rank, and training history of officers; and
z. firearms qualification information of officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Once again, we find that the expected information is present for all the mandated data categories. The totals for data entered during the reporting period for all relevant subtasks are presented below. Our review of MAS reports also supports the fact that these data are consulted and used in the risk management process. We continue to recognize the importance of sound data entry and retention practices and we anticipate further review of specific data elements each reporting period. The data below show that there is a general consistency in the numbers across most categories for the time periods shown. There are no significant deviations from past patterns that raise concerns over data quality. The dashboard data presented in the appendix also show no major changes in patterns over the previous 12 months.
As noted above, to supplement the collection of the data seen below, the Risk Group also added a civilian auditor to the team. This supports the audit of original reports to assure data quality. The Risk Group also takes significant steps to assess the quality of data in MAS. In previous months, the Risk Group and the Audit Team have focused efforts on the review of Crisnet reports to ensure that they are not underreporting uses of force – specifically, acquiring a target. These data are reported through the command accountability process.
The Risk Group is also working on other data-related improvements, including the use of COGNOS and SPSS in the data mining process. The exploration of those tools is continuing.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 90 of 190 Pg ID 9616

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 89

October 14, 2013

U80 Data Requirements – Quarterly Department Totals

Subtask Text

1/1-3/31, 2012

4/1-6/30, 2012

7/1-9/30, 10/1-12/31,

2012

2012

1/1-3/31, 2013

4/1-6/30, 2013

a use of force reports

237

334

267

222

209

249

a use of force investigation

95

118

107

86

63

97

b canine deployments

6

7

3

5

5

1

c canine apprehension

0

1

2

3

4

1

d canine bites

0

0

1

0

0

0

f injured prisoner reports

9

17

16

16

15

19

g injured prisoner investigations

9

17

15

14

9

19

g force and arrests for resisting arrest

101

120

126

102

94

120

g force and arrests for assault on an officer

43

65

52

69

50

44

g force and arrests for disorderly conduct

14

31

21

19

12

13

g force and arrests for interfering with city employee

5

16

12

11

3

13

h firearm discharge reports

10

8

15

12

9

11

h firearm discharge investigations

7

8

15

12

9

11

i officer draws a firearm & acquires target

30

43

21

15

10

23

j Complaints

272

232

286

247

178

250

k investigations of criminal misconduct by officers

10

0

0

0

12

17

l. criminal proceedings against members

1

3

3

2

4

2

l. all civil lawsuits

25

18

48

29

4

27

m vehicle pursuits

45

40

21

30

20

17

m foot pursuits

9

35

16

8

16

21

m traffic collisions

43

36

28

31

33

25

n reports of arrests w/o probable cause

0

0

0

4

3

3

n individuals discharged from custody w/o charges

509

610

529

453

444

473

o investigatory stops and frisks w/o reasonable suspicion

Fris ks =21 Sto p s =12

Fris ks =13 Sto p s =6

Fris ks =2 Sto p s =6

Fris ks =4 Sto p s =3

Fris ks =4 Sto p s =7

Fris ks =20 Sto p s =23

Inte rvie ws=0,	
  

reports of interviews, interrogation, or conveyances in viol Inte rvie ws=11,	
   Inte rroga tion=0 Inte rvie ws=1,	
   Inte rvie ws=1,	
   Inte rvie ws=10,	
   Inte rvie ws=2,	
  

p of policy

Inte rrog a tion=6,	
  

, 	
  

Inte rrog a tion=0,	
   Inte rrog a tion=0,	
   Inte rrog a tion=27,	
   Inte rrog a tion=77,	
  

C onve ya nc e s=0 C onve ya nc e s= C onve ya nc e s=0 C onve ya nc e s=0 C onve ya nc e s=6 C onve ya nc e s=2

0

r reports of violations of prompt judicial review

848

829

765

769

825

899

s reports of violation of DPD hold policy

111

189

350

431

528

553

t reports of restrictions on phone calls or visits

15

18

15

35

9

0

u report of declination to prosecute due to police conduct or

0

0

0

0

0

0

suppressed evidence

v disciplinary action taken against officers

70

15

41

3

0

0

w non-disciplinary corrective action

463

131

228

135

161

178

*Note: Under category o (Stops and Frisks), only those for which no reasonable suspicion is reported are collected in MAS.

The quarterly review of these data provides a means by which the Department can assess DPD activity and also examine the quality of information entered into MAS. This analysis continues to indicate that the appropriate data are collected and entered into the risk management system.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 91 of 190 Pg ID 9617

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 90

October 14, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U81
The new risk management database shall include, for each incident, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (including name, pension number, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (including race, ethnicity or national origin, sex, and age).
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U82
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management database and addressing data storage. The Data Input Plan shall:
a. detail the specific fields of information to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise);
b. specify the unit responsible for inputting data, the deadlines for inputting the data in a timely, accurate, and complete manner;
c. specify the historical time periods for which information is to be input and the deadlines for inputting the data in an accurate and timely fashion; and
d. requires that the data be maintained in a secure and confidential manner.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The current Data Input Plan was submitted for review and was approved by the Department of Justice. Our observations and interviews with DPD continue to support the conclusion that the provisions of the Data Input Plan are reflected in the practices of the Department.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 92 of 190 Pg ID 9618

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 91

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U83
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Report Protocol for the risk management database that details the types of routine reports the DPD shall generate and pattern identifications the DPD shall conduct. The Report Protocol shall:
a. require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria:
i. number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
ii. average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and
iii. identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
b. establish thresholds for the numbers and types of incidents requiring a review by an officer’s supervisor of whether the officer or group of officers is engaging in at-risk behavior (in addition to the regular reviews required by paragraph 84); and
c. require the database to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The Department’s revised Report Protocol was also approved by the Department of Justice in a letter dated June 9, 2011. Our observations and interviews with DPD continue to support the conclusion that the provisions of the Report Protocol are reflected in the practices of the Department. To consider this, we also examine command monthly reviews in MAS, and confirm both the availability and use of the MAS data at the command level. As in previous quarters, during our most recent site visit, members of the Monitoring Team attended the Command Compliance Review Meeting and observed the use of information from MAS.
The Department also issues a Monthly MAS Status Report to document and report on changes in the system and other relevant issues. No major changes were reported in the most recent document covering the reporting period.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 93 of 190 Pg ID 9619

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 92

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U84
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Review Protocol for using the risk management database that addresses data analysis, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and auditing. The Review Protocol shall require:
a. that when an officer or group of officers pass a threshold established in the Report Protocol the officer’s(s’) supervisor shall review all information in the risk management database regarding the officer(s), together with other relevant information;
b. the reviewing supervisor to document whether he or she took non-disciplinary corrective action or recommended disciplinary action, the basis for this decision, and what corrective action was taken, if any;
c. supervisors to review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, database reports, together with other relevant information, to evaluate individual officer and unit activity for at-risk behavior;
d. precinct and unit commanders to review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, database reports, together with other relevant information, to evaluate individual supervisor’s assessment and analysis of information in the risk management database and the corrective action taken by supervisors;
e. appropriate DPD supervisors to review and evaluate, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, police performance citywide, using all relevant information from the risk management database and other relevant information and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all DPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents;
f. commanders and supervisors conducting such periodic reviews to take non-disciplinary corrective action when appropriate for individual officers, supervisors or units and document any such action in writing;
g. that the information in the database be accessible to commanders, supervisors and the BPC;
h. that the information in the database is considered when evaluating a DPD employee for transfer or promotion;
i. commanders and supervisors to promptly review records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units;
j. commanders and supervisors to be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management database to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk;
k. that a designated DPD unit be responsible for managing and administering the database, including conducting quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above; and
l. that aggregated information from the risk management database be shared on a regular and periodic basis with training and policy planning staff.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 94 of 190 Pg ID 9620

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 93

October 14, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The Review Protocol was last revised, submitted for review, and approved by DOJ on June 9, 2011. Interviews with staff assigned to MAS continue to support the conclusion that the review process is being implemented consistent with policy. To further assess that, we examine all Personnel Evaluation and Enhancement Review Sessions (PEERS) completed and signed off in the reporting period for the quarter. The data comparing this reporting period to the previous reporting period are presented below.
This chart reflects the revised PEERS process in which, when thresholds are met, PEERS are completed by the Risk Management Unit. This process was adopted two reporting periods ago and is reflected in the number so PEERS conducted and the elimination of PEERS returned to supervisors. When action is seen as needed, supervisors prepare and implement monitoring and intervention processes. This approach has eliminated the problem of false positives that required extensive review and reporting by supervisors.

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  PEERS	
  and	
  	
  Their	
  Outcomes

Oct-­‐Dec	
  2011 Jan-­‐March	
  2012 April-­‐June	
  2012 July	
  1-­‐Sept	
  30	
  2012	
  

Total	
  PEERS

77

63

68

58

No	
  Action	
  Needed

67	
  (87%)

53	
  (84%)

55	
  (81%)

41	
  (84%)

Monitoring

7	
  (9%)

8	
  (13%)

8	
  (12%)

6	
  	
  (12%)

Other/Pending

4	
  (5%)

2	
  (3%)

5	
  	
  (7%)

2	
  (4%)

PEERS	
  Pending	
  Review	
  by	
  

OCR

0

0

0

0

PEERS	
  returned	
  for	
   9	
  supervisors	
   12	
  supervisors	
   3	
  supervisors	
  5	
   3	
  supervisors	
  5	
  

correction	
  or	
  completion 33	
  reviews 13	
  reviews

reviews

reviews

Oct	
  1-­‐Dec	
  31	
  2012 27 0 13 7
7
na

Jan-­‐March	
  2013 25 0 10 4

April-­‐June	
  2013 23 0 11 4

24

0

na

na

For the cases shown above, the risk management unit now performs an initial review of officers who exceed thresholds to determine if they are suitable for review. The unit also selects officers for review based on the MAS indicators as normed by arrest numbers. Eleven of those reviews or 48% resulted in monitoring, and four remained pending at the time of our most recent site visit. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 23 PEERS reports. In two cases, monitoring was not recommended in the initial review. In the 21 cases where monitoring was recommended by the Risk Management Unit review, eight, or 38%, did not result in monitoring after review by supervisors. This is unexpected, given the revised review process.
We will continue to monitor the level of consistency across the stages of the review process. We also examined 162 monthly command reviews. These reviews document supervisors’ reviews of the MAS records of the officers they supervise and, together, suggest appropriate use of the system at this level.
All of the above data indicate that the system is heavily used and carefully administered in a manner consistent with risk reduction goals. The use of risk management data through the command accountability meeting process illustrates the value of this system to the daily management of DPD.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 95 of 190 Pg ID 9621

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 94

October 14, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U85
The DPD shall seek to ensure that the risk management database is created as expeditiously as possible. As part of this effort, the DPD, in consultation with the DOJ, shall organize the risk management database into modules in developing the Data Input Plan, the Report Protocol, the Review Protocol and the Request for Proposals and in negotiating with contractors, such that difficulties with one aspect of the risk management database do not delay implementation of other modules.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U86
Where information about a single incident is entered into the risk management database from more than one document (e.g., from a complaint form and a use of force report), the risk management database shall use a common control number or other equally effective means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U87
The City shall maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management database during the officer’s employment with the DPD and for at least five years after separation. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in the risk management database.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 96 of 190 Pg ID 9622

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 95

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U88
The new risk management database shall be developed and implemented according to the following schedule:
a. By January 24, 2008, the City shall have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management database consisting of: 1) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the City and DPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary database software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the information system completed, including historic data. The DOJ and the Monitor shall have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using new and historical data and test data created specifically for the purposes of checking the risk management database.
b. The risk management database shall be operational and fully implemented by July 24, 2008.
c. The parties and the independent monitor shall meet on a monthly basis to discuss what actions have been taken during the previous month toward development of the new risk management database.
d. The defendant shall present to the plaintiff and the independent monitor, on a monthly basis, evidence of satisfactory progress sufficient to justify a conclusion that completion of the new risk management database by August 11, 2008 remains feasible. If at any time the plaintiff concludes that successful completion of the project within the timeframes described in this paragraph is unlikely, the plaintiff shall so notify the Court and the defendant. Within sixty days after receipt of such notice, the defendant shall issue an RFP to develop or complete development of the new risk management database as was required by 88c. of this Consent Judgment before it was amended. In that event, the requirements of paragraphs 88.d., 88.e., 88.f., and 88.g. of this Consent Judgment before it was amended shall be enforced, with dates adjusted as follows: the Review Protocol (paragraph 88.d.) shall be issued within five months after issuance of the RFP; the defendant shall select the contractor (paragraph 88.e) within seven months after issuance of the RFP; the beta version (paragraph 88.f) shall be ready for testing within fifteen months after issuance of the RFP; and the risk management database shall be operational (paragraph 88.g) within twenty-six months after issuance of the RFP.32
e. By May 31, 2004, the DPD shall select the contractor to create the risk management database.
f. By June 30, 2005, the City shall have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management database consisting of: i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the City and DPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary database software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the information system completed, including historic data. The DOJ and the Monitor shall have the opportunity to participate in
32 Amended by Court Orders dated November 9, 2007, and July 22, 2008

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 97 of 190 Pg ID 9623

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 96

October 14, 2013

testing the beta version using new and historical data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management database.
g. The risk management database shall be operational and fully implemented by December 31, 2005.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U89
Prior to implementation of the new risk management database, the DPD shall develop an interim system to identify patterns of conduct by DPD officers or groups of officers. The interim system shall require periodic reviews of relevant information, but no less than monthly, and evaluations of whether an officer or group of officers is engaging in at-risk behavior. This interim system shall collect and analyze the following information: citizen complaint reports and investigations; use of force investigations; shootings; vehicle chases; injured prisoner investigations; traffic collisions; canisters of chemical spray issued to officers; firearms qualifications; training; prompt judicial review; disciplinary action; arrest without probable cause; all reports regarding investigatory stops and/or frisks unsupported by reasonable suspicion; and all reports regarding interviews, interrogations or conveyances in violation of DPD policy in a format that facilitates entry into the final risk management database, to the fullest extent possible.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U90
Following the initial implementation of the risk management database, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the DPD may propose to subtract or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and subtract or modify standardized reports and queries. The DPD shall submit all such proposals for review and approval by the DOJ before implementation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the Phase 2 compliance status of this requirement. We will continue to monitor the risk management system to ensure that any significant changes are handled in a manner consistent with this requirement. Most recently, DPD has incorporated descriptions of its data norming process in the relevant Standard Operating Procedures operating procedures. The changes in review process as noted above have not yet been reflected in policy and reviewed

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 98 of 190 Pg ID 9624

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 97

October 14, 2013

by DOJ, although they have been widely described in monthly status reports and discussed with DOJ and the Monitoring Team. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Performance Evaluation System
CJ Requirement U91
DPD shall ensure that performance evaluations for all DPD employees below the rank of Deputy Chief occur at least annually and include, but are not limited to, consideration of the following:33
a. civil rights integrity;
b. adherence to law, including performing duties in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution and the Civil Rights laws of the United States; and
c. supervisor’s performance in identifying and addressing at-risk behavior in subordinates, including their supervision and review of use of force, arrests, care of prisoners, prisoner processing, and performance bearing upon honesty and integrity.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for the past nine reporting periods. To verify continued compliance for the current reporting period, we again examined a random sample of 120 evaluations drawn from all a list of all personnel. All eligible reviews were completed were current and properly completed with original narratives, references to “no change in status,” or references to material in MAS. Five reviews were eliminated due to leave or disabled status.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

33 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 99 of 190 Pg ID 9625

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 98

October 14, 2013

C. Oversight
CJ Requirement U92
The DPD shall develop a protocol for conducting annual audits to be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol shall establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all DPD units and commands. The annual audit period for conducting the audits required by paragraphs 93 to 97 for the first year shall end on August 31, 2004. The subsequent annual periods shall end on July 17, 2005, and every year thereafter.34
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
This requirement, and the five which follow it, established the structure and processes for auditing key functions in the Department. The required audits are completed annually and most were reported in the previous quarterly report, leaving limited activity to report for this period.
Phase 2 compliance with this requirement is linked to compliance with the requirements of U9397. As noted in our last report, the audit protocol was revised, past audits were completed on schedule, and all new audits are now scheduled. A new protocol is expected for the next quarterly period.
DPD continues in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U93
The DPD shall issue a report to the Chief of Police on the result of each audit and examine whether there is consistency throughout the DPD. The DPD shall also provide the reports to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD is also in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. As noted in our previous report, completed audits contained Corrective Action Notices and corresponding plans submitted and signed by the appropriate command staff, with appropriate notification forwarded to the Chief on the expected schedule. The process will continue with audits in the next quarter.

34 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 100 of 190 Pg ID 9626

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 99

October 14, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U94
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits, covering all DPD units and commands that investigate uses of force, prisoner injuries, and allegations of misconduct. The audits shall include reviewing a statistically valid sample of command, IAD, and Homicide Section investigations; evaluating whether the actions of the officer and the subject were captured correctly in the investigative report; and evaluating the preservation and analysis of the evidence and the appropriateness of the investigator’s conclusions.35
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Audits on use of force, prisoner injuries, and allegation of misconduct were completed during this quarter for the period ending January 31 and were followed by corrective action reports when necessary. As part of the audit protocol, new audits are scheduled.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U95
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits covering all precincts and specialized units that review a statistically valid sample of findings of probable cause, stop and frisk reports and witness identification and questioning documentation. The audits shall include evaluating the scope, duration, content, and voluntariness, if appropriate, of the police interaction. The audits shall include a comparison of the number of arrests to requests for warrants and a comparison of the number of arrests for which warrants were sought to judicial findings of probable cause.36
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

35 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004. 36 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 101 of 190 Pg ID 9627

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 100

October 14, 2013

There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. Stop and frisk audits were completed on schedule, and corrective action reports were completed. New audits are scheduled for completion on an annual basis in July. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U96
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits covering all precincts and specialized units that examine custodial detention practices. The audits shall include reviewing the length of detention between arrest and arraignment and the time to adjudicate holds.37
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. Custodial detention audits of all relevant facilities were completed on schedule and new audits are scheduled and will be reported on in the next reporting period. As in the past, there have been areas recognized as needing improvement and subject to corrective action notices regarding detention practices. Improvement from the past is also noted in the audits. This requirement The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U97
The Chief Investigator of OCI shall designate an individual or entity to conduct regularly scheduled annual audits that examine external complaints and complaint investigations. The audit shall include reviewing a statistically valid sample of complaints that were resolved informally, reviewing a sample of OCI investigations of complaints, and contacting the complainants to evaluate whether the actions and views of the complainant were captured correctly in the complaint report and/or investigation. The Chief Investigator shall review all audit reports regarding officers under OCI command and, if appropriate, shall take nondisciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.38
37 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004. 38 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 102 of 190 Pg ID 9628

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 101

October 14, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. This audit was completed for the reporting period ending January 31, 2013 and covering information through August 31, 2102. Consistent with the other oversight related requirements, the Department has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. Corrective action reports and plans were completed based on the audits. The Department remains in compliance with this requirement. New audits are scheduled the beginning of next year.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U98
The DPD shall conduct and document periodic random reviews of scout car camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes. In addition, the DPD shall require periodic random surveys of scout car video recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
While our past audits were in compliance, the random reviews conducted by DPD supervisors produced few substantive results for the DPD. To address the apparent weakness and improve the process, in February 2013, the Department instituted a new random selection process whereby the Office of Civil Rights identified which traffic stops be reviewed and tasked the field operations units to review them. The new process was announced by message order that was effective beginning on February 2, 2013, and stated, “the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) shall notify individual commands specific traffic stop events that require a supervisory review of the in-car video/audio system.”
DPD made available the random review sheets from its new selection process for the months of March, April, and May 2013. The Department focused on 175 police/citizen contacts selected by CRIB from the CAD system. Of these 162 had operational MVS systems in place. All (100%) were reviewed by DPD supervisors. Districts and precincts found that 138 (85%) produced video and 94 (58%) audio. These compliance rates are much more realistic than those that were found in previous “random” reviews in which the reviewing supervisor simply selected the event to be reviewed. Further, we found a number of instances where supervisors commented on safety and tactical methods employed by the officers. We believe that the random review process has been substantially improved.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 103 of 190 Pg ID 9629

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 102

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U99
The DPD shall ensure regular meetings with local prosecutors to identify issues in officer, shift or unit performance.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. To verify continued compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we reviewed the minutes of the May 8, 2113 quarterly meeting involving DPD and members of the Prosecutor’s Office. Consistent with previous meetings, a wide range of topics were discussed and reported in the meeting minutes including those relating to officer attendance in court, evidence issues including recording of confessions, Crime Lab concerns, and various other crime issues. The next meeting is scheduled for August 14, 2013.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

D. Use of Video Cameras
CJ Requirement U100
The DPD shall repair or replace all non-functioning video cameras.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
MVS equipment, particularly older units, is subject to breaking down and requiring repair. As a result, the total number of operational units at any one time varies. In July 2012, DPD estimated that it had about 303 MVS units installed in its fleet. A total of 94 cars have been equipped with the new D911 video system. The complement of MVS equipment actually installed has remained the same, about 300 vehicles, since July 2011. At any one time, however, the equipment that is operational is less than 300. During our most recent site visit, we found that a total of 195 different DPD cars (114 equipped with the older Insight video units and 81 with the new Data 911 units) were operational and uploaded video during June 2013. During the third quarter of 2012, the IT Bureau (ITB) addressed a system-wide technical failure that occurred and was disrupting the system for uploading data to its central server. To correct the problem, the Department acquired and in October 2012, installed a new central server that was dedicated to handling all the data from the newly acquired Data 911 (D911) MVS units. The new central server initially resolved the uploading problem. DPD also acquired and installed two store and forward servers to hold video data and forward it to the central server.
During the second quarter of 2013 (April through June, 2013), DPD experienced a hardware failure on its central server that prevented that server from accepting and recording data for about

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 104 of 190 Pg ID 9630

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 103

October 14, 2013

one week until a new part could be obtained and installed. During the period when the central server was not available, the two store and forward servers received video data from the fleet of cars and stored it until the repair of the central server was completed. Once central server was back on-line, the store and forward units passed the data to it and the system was fully functional again. We reviewed the service log for the period of April 1, through June 30, 2013, and found that the ITB handled 217 MVS related service actions during the quarter. Ten were classified as “active,” two as “closed unresolved,” and 205 (96%) as “completed.”
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U101
The DPD policy on video cameras shall be revised and augmented to require:
a. activation of scout car video cameras at all times the officer is on patrol;
b. supervisors to review videotapes of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits and external complaints; and
c. that the DPD retain and preserve videotapes for at least 90 days, or as long as necessary for incidents to be fully investigated.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During past site visits, we found:
1. The DPD MVS cameras are set to operate 100% of the time on patrol. Full video is 2430 frames per second; MVS units are set to capture one frame of video per second at all non-emergency times. The equipment is set so that whenever the emergency lights are activated, the units switch to full-video mode and capture 28 frames per second. The Department now erases the one frame per second video recorded on the D911 MVS equipment after it has been stored for 24 hours.
2. DPD preserves and retains videos when it is able to upload them successfully in the central server, as required by U101c.
U101b requires that video be activated for each of the incidents specified and that supervisors conduct a review of the video where one is available.
• Uses of Force: We requested 80 use of force cases closed during the months of March, April, and May 2013 for review. Thirty-four of these cases had no equipment or faulty equipment. Five others involved recordings made from fixed locations such as jail cells. Of the remaining 41 cases, 19 (46%) had video/audio recordings from scout cars. Use of force video and audio reviews by supervisors are addressed in requirement U32.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 105 of 190 Pg ID 9631

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 104

October 14, 2013

• Injuries: In past reporting periods, DPD has been unable to produce a report that identified a comprehensive list of incidents involving injuries to officers or subjects in which MVS should have been recorded by officers and reviewed by supervisors. Beginning in January 2013, the Department has tracked injuries to both officers and subjects. During the first quarter of 2013 (January 1, through March 31, 2013), the DPD identified 99 instances in which DPD officers suffered injuries during the second quarter of 2013. Most injuries occurred in circumstances in which MVS was not applicable. Only two instances produced video; both were audio but the injury occurred outside the field of vision. Both were reviewed by supervisors.
• Pursuits: DPD officers engaged in 20 pursuits during the first quarter of 2013. Twelve cars that engaged in these pursuits were equipped with operational MVS. Eleven (92%) of the 12 cars with operational MVS recorded video during the pursuit, and four (33%) recorded audio. DPD failed to respond to our requests for data showing whether its supervisors reviewed the MVSs. The following chart depicts these data.

Pursuits Q1 Jan - Mar 2013

Number 20

MVS Equip
12

Video 11

Supv

Review or

%

Audio % Comment %

92%

4

33% No Data No

Data

• External Complaints: We were provided OCI data regarding 46 cases closed during the second quarter of 2013. In all 46 cases (100%), OCI investigators indicated they had checked to see if there was video or audio available. In 28 cases, no video or audio was available. In seven cases, video was available but audio was not. In one case, only audio was available. In 10 cases, both video and audio were available.
We reviewed 31 IAD investigations that were closed in the second quarter 2013. Five had video that was used in the investigations. Two of these were audio that was recorded even though the video camera did not capture the event (it was pointed in the wrong direction).
The Department is not in Phase 2 compliance with any section of U101.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 106 of 190 Pg ID 9632

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 105

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U102
The DPD policy on video cameras shall require officers to record all motor vehicle stops, consents to search a vehicle, deployments of a drug-detection canine, or vehicle searches.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has never achieved Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Our January and April 2013 reviews were disrupted by technical failures in the DPD MVS system. In October 2012, storage of video camera data was severely disrupted during the third quarter of 2012 due to a technical failure that prevented video from being uploaded successfully. In January 2013, we found that the MVS system had been stabilized in October 2012, through the acquisition of a new central server that was devoted to the new Data 911 (D911) MVS. Since most of the DPD’s deployed MVS equipped cars were loaded to capacity with data that could not be uploaded until the new server was installed, the system was not functioning smoothly until mid-November 2012. We reviewed traffic stop data for December 2012, and found video and audio present in 83% and 47% of the random sample records surveyed.
During our April 2013 site visit, we were able for the first time since July 2012, to review a full set of random samples of traffic stops to determine if video and audio were collected. We selected a random sample of 50 traffic stops for each month in the first quarter of 2013. While the January results (video 76% and audio 56%) were very much at the same level as we have found before, February and March showed marked improvement; 92% and 94% of the records surveyed during these months had video, and 76% and 80% had audio.
During our last site visit, we again sampled 50 traffic stops for each month. For both May and June, we found that four stops involved equipment that was broken and not operational. We deducted those from our sample. Our sample was left with 142 traffic stops for the quarter. Of these, 133 (94%) had recorded video and 115 (81%) had audio. The chart below depicts the first two quarters of 2013.

TRAFFIC STOPS

Month

# Records Video % Audio %

Quarter 1 - 2013

January

50

38 76%

28

56%

February

50

46 92%

38

76%

March

50

47 94%

40

80%

Q1 Totals

150

131 87% 106 71%

Quarter 2 - 2013

April

50

46 88%

41

79%

May

46

43 93%

35

76%

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 107 of 190 Pg ID 9633

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 106

October 14, 2013

TRAFFIC STOPS

Month June Q2 Totals

# Records Video % Audio %

46

44 96%

39

85%

142

133 94% 115 81%

As the chart below shows, DPD has made progress towards compliance.

100%	
  

90%	
  

80%	
  

Video	
  %	
  

70%	
  

Audio	
  %	
  

60%	
  

50%	
   JAN	
   FEB	
   MAR	
   APR	
   MAY	
   JUN	
  

In addition, DPD advised that nine vehicles were searched with canines during the period April 1, 2013, through June 30, 2013. In seven of the nine, the car was equipped with an operational MVS in which both the video and microphones were working. Five (71%) of the seven remaining deployments recorded video and four (67%) recorded both video and audio.

Month

Car

Search

Search

Equipped

Video

Mic

Captured

Captured

w/Video Working Working on Video

%

on Audio %

April

3

3

2

3

2

May

2

0

0

0

0

June

4

4

4

2

2

Q2 Totals

9

7

6

5

71%

4

67%

The Department is not in compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 108 of 190 Pg ID 9634

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 107

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U103
The City shall ensure that adequate resources are provided to eliminate the backlog of disciplinary cases and that all disciplinary matters are resolved as soon as reasonably possible.
Comments:
This requirement, and the two that follow, address the Department’s disciplinary process. When the City of Detroit signed the Use of Force Consent Judgment, the Department’s disciplinary process was almost completely dysfunctional. A backlog of cases numbered in the thousands and the system was neither effective at addressing improper actions or at maintaining due process for officers. Conditions are dramatically different now. The backlog was completely eliminated and the department now manages its processing of cases to assure it does not return, and the Department does so in a manner consistent with the rights of officers and the needs of the department. An established matrix of expected sanctions based on charges is followed and cases are completed according to an established and predictable timeline.
With regard to this specific requirement, DPD is in Phase 1 compliance. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 102 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. There is no backlog of cases and case-flow is being managed sufficiently. During the current reporting period, a total of 264 new disciplinary cases were opened. This is a substantial increase over the previous quarter, which saw smaller numbers due to training obligations and some staff changes. We will monitor progress on closing cases during the next reporting period to see if these increases have any continuing impact on caseloads.
The transition in leadership overseeing the disciplinary admin unit has proceeded smoothly. The unit acts aggressively to schedule and complete trial boards and to prompt completion of Commanders Actions. Other recently developed practices intended to expedite cases and prevent backlogs remain in place. These include voluntary mediation as an alternative to trial boards. Restorative practices for resolving low-level discipline issues are also coordinated through the unit. These provide positive approaches to addressing administrative requirements while also holding officers accountable for their behavior. Member of the Disciplinary Unit manage this process closely to assure that a backlog of cases is not created.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U104
The DPD shall schedule disciplinary hearings, trials, and appeals at appropriately frequent intervals, to prevent a disciplinary backlog from developing. As part of determining how often to schedule such hearings, the DPD shall establish guidelines dictating the maximum period of time that should elapse between each stage of the disciplinary process.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 109 of 190 Pg ID 9635

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 108

October 14, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. As noted above, for this reporting period, we reviewed all 102 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. All disciplinary proceedings met the established timelines and were consistent with this requirement. As of the end of June, there are six cases remaining open that form 2011, and no earlier cases. Ninety-five cases remained open from 2012 and 38 from the current year. The status of all open cases is tracked by the disciplinary unit and reported quarterly. All open 2011 and 2012 cases reflect appropriate scheduling and steps toward closure. The earlier cases remain open due to extraordinary circumstance such as military leaves or extending sick time making officers unavailable.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U105
The DPD shall create a disciplinary matrix that:
a. establishes a presumptive range of discipline for each type of rule violation;
b. increases the presumptive discipline based on both an officer’s prior violations of the same rule as well as violations of other rules;
c. requires that any departure from the presumptive range of discipline must be justified in writing;
d. provides that the DPD shall not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix calls for the imposition of discipline; and
e. Provides that the DPD shall consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action also is appropriate in a case where discipline has been imposed.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 102 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. The disciplinary matrix is provided for use at disciplinary trial boards and other disciplinary processes. All decisions during this reporting period fell within the matrix and were consistent with this requirement. DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 110 of 190 Pg ID 9636

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 109

October 14, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 78 Comprehensive Risk Management Plan 79 Improve risk management system 80 Database requirements (a-z) 81 Database to include officer information 82 Data Input Plan (a-d) 83 Report Protocol for database (a-c) 84 Review Protocol for database (a-l) 85 Use modules to ensure work progress 86 Common control number required 87 Data retention 88 Database schedule (expired) 89 Interim database (rescinded) 90 Change process needs DOJ approval 91 Annual officer review criteria specified 92 Protocol for conducting audits 93 Audit results to Chief and commanders 94 Annual audits-use of force 95 Annual audits-probable cause/stop-and-frisk 96 Annual audits-detention practices 97 Annual audits-external complaints 98 Random reviews of in-car camera videos 99 Regular meeting with local prosecutors 100 Replace/repair video cameras 101 Revision of video camera policy 102 Record all vehicle stops, searches, etc. 103 Elimination of disciplinary case backlog 104 Scheduling of disciplinary cases 105 Disciplinary matrix of responses/sanctions

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 111 of 190 Pg ID 9637

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 110

October 14, 2013

IX. TRAINING
During our most recent site visit, we visited the Detroit Police Training Center and interviewed the Training Commander and key members of the training staff. The DPD revises and updates its training courses annually and introduces the new material in July of each year. Accordingly, during our July 2013 site visit, we planned to review a variety of memoranda, lesson plans, scenarios, and policy material for use during the 2014 Training Year (July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014). We were not furnished with these materials in time for their review for this report. We will examine them during our next site visit.
This review comes at the end of the 2013 Training Year (July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013) and it is the point at which we evaluate the department’s overall compliance with the training requirements. We reviewed the lesson plans, training materials, and scenarios that guided training for the year that ended on June 30, 2013, during our July 2012 site visit, and we found them to be adequate.

A. Oversight and Development
CJ Requirement U106
The DPD shall coordinate and review all use of force and arrest and detention training to ensure quality, consistency and compliance with applicable law and DPD policy. The DPD shall conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually, and produce a report of such reviews to the Monitor and the DOJ.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The required review was conducted in the second quarter of 2013, and documented in a DPD report entitled, “Training Oversight and Development Report – Semi-Annual Review, June 2013.” We reviewed this report – the ninth such report to be issued – during our July 2013 site visit, and found that it contained the necessary evaluation of use of force, arrest, and detention training; and covered all elements of this requirement. The report is prepared twice each year, and the next such report will be produced in December 2013.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 112 of 190 Pg ID 9638

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 111

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U107
The DPD, consistent with Michigan law and the Michigan Law Enforcement Officers Training Council standards, shall:
a. ensure the quality of all use of force and arrest and detention training;
b. develop use of force and arrest and detention training curricula;
c. select and train DPD officer trainers;
d. develop, implement, approve and oversee all training and curricula;
e. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
f. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that training governing use of force and arrest and detention are responsive to the knowledge, skills and abilities of the officers being trained.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we met with the Training Director and staff and reviewed training records. DPD training complies with the Michigan Law Enforcement Council’s standards and Michigan law. With regard to subparagraphs a-f, during the past year, we found as follows:
a. During our July 2012 site visit, we reviewed the lesson plans, scenarios and training materials that were used in the 2013 Training Year (July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2012) and found them to be adequate. We reviewed the report entitled, “Training Oversight and Development Report – Semi-Annual Review,” dated June 2013, which documents the DPD’s semi-annual review and evaluation of its training during the 2013 Training Year. The next such report will be completed in December 2013.
b. As we have observed in past reviews, DPD policy, curricula, and lesson plans prepared for the 2013 Training Year adequately addressed this requirement.
c. DPD selected four new firearms trainers who were assigned to the firearms range during the second quarter of 2012. The selections were based upon seniority as required by the union contract, but the new trainers were vetted through MAS for disciplinary records, sick leave, and use of force. During the second quarter of 2013, two of these new trainers attended the Michigan State Police Academy course for firearms instructor development. The two other new instructors were scheduled to attend the Michigan State Police firearms instructor development course in August 2013. Two of the new instructors were also scheduled to attend a Department of Homeland Security training course for general police instructor development in August 2013.
d/e. As we have observed in past reviews, DPD policy, curricula, and lesson plans address these provisions.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 113 of 190 Pg ID 9639

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 112

October 14, 2013

f. Directive 304.5-3.4, revised July 10, 2012, places responsibility on the Commander of Training to conduct training needs assessments and Directive 304.5-6.2, requires that such assessments be conducted and documented every two years. As noted previously, in July and December 2012, the DPD conducted and documented training needs assessments. During our last site visit, we reviewed the new training needs assessment conducted in June 2013.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U108
The DPD shall create and maintain individual training records for all officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training completed for all training conducted on or after the effective date of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD captures data relating to its in-service training, and records it on a spreadsheet. Since the spreadsheet is used by the Department to determine if all of its officers have attended the required in-service training sessions, we have conducted audits of its accuracy during the current and past reporting periods. Inasmuch as the DPD has been in compliance with this requirement for two years, we reduced the sample to 25 officers.
We randomly selected 25 officers who were listed on the spreadsheet as having received and completed in-service training from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. In order to complete their in-service training, these officers would have to attend and sign attendance sheets for three courses: Legal/Use of Force for sign-in sheets are combined since both are taught on the same day; PR-24; and Firearms Qualification. In addition, if the officer selected on the random sample list was a supervisor or investigator, they would have attended the Leadership In-Service as well. DPD was able to locate all (100%) of the expected signatures.
During our previous reviews, we found that the Department committed to recording training data in the MITN System, a part of the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) data system. Training has now entered all DPD training records for years 2003 through the present. During this reporting period, we selected the training records for the 25 officers in our random sample relating to Use of Force, Legal, PR-24 and Firearms Qualification, and checked the MITN system to see if they had been recorded. All (100%) were found to have been entered into MITN.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 114 of 190 Pg ID 9640

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 113

October 14, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U109
The DPD shall ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors and that instructors engage students in meaningful dialogue regarding particular scenarios, preferably taken from actual incidents involving DPD officers, with the goal of educating students regarding the legal and tactical issues raised by the scenarios.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
We reviewed DPD training directives and lesson plans for the 2013 Training Year (July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013), and found that they appropriately direct and instruct on the relevant provisions of the Consent Judgment.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U110 The DPD shall meet with the City Law Department on a quarterly basis concerning the conclusion of civil lawsuits alleging officer misconduct, information gleaned from this process shall be distributed to DPD risk management and training staff.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD met with the City Law Department pursuant to this requirement on June 18, 2013. Meetings are held quarterly. The DPD remains in compliance with U110.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 115 of 190 Pg ID 9641

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 114

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement U111
The City and the DPD shall distribute and explain this Agreement to all DPD and all relevant City employees The City and the DPD shall provide initial training on this Agreement to all City and DPD employees whose job responsibilities are affected by this Agreement within 120 days of each provision’s implementation. Thereafter, the DPD shall provide training on the policies contained in this Agreement during in-service training.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
This training is conducted by CRIB for both civilian and sworn personnel. The Department hired one new employee who was trained by CRIB during the second quarter of 2013. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Use of Force Training
CJ Requirement U112
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers, and supervisors with annual training on use of force. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. The DPD’s use of force continuum; proper use of force; decision making; and the DPD’s use of force reporting requirements;
b. The Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including recent legal developments;
c. Examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper use of force decision making, including the use of deadly force;
d. The circumstances in which officers may draw, display, or point a firearm, emphasizing:
i. Officers should not draw their firearm unless they reasonably believe there is a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or another person;
ii. The danger of engaging or pursuing a suspect with a firearm drawn; and
iii. That officers are generally not justified in drawing their firearm when pursuing a subject suspected of committing only a misdemeanor;
e. The proper use of all intermediate force weapons;
f. Threat assessment, alternative and de-escalation techniques that allow officers to effect arrests without using force and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 116 of 190 Pg ID 9642

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 115

October 14, 2013

units or even letting a subject temporarily evade arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation, even when the use of force would be legally justified;
g. Interacting with people with mental illnesses, including instruction by mental health practitioners and an emphasis on de-escalation strategies;
h. Factors to consider in initiating or continuing a pursuit;
i. The proper duration of a burst of chemical spray, the distance from which it should be applied, and emphasize that officers shall aim chemical spray only at the target’s face and upper torso, and
j. Consideration of the safety of civilians in the vicinity before engaging in police action.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During past reviews, we assessed training policy directives, curricula, lesson plans, special orders, training needs assessment and teletypes, among other materials that were prepared to address the requirements of U112 during the 2013 Training Year (July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013). Our review showed that the course content requirements of U112 and its subparagraphs a, b, c, d, f, g, h, i and j were met for all in-service trainees in the Legal and Use of Force blocks of instruction. The requirements for subparagraph e were met in the PR-24 block of instruction.
We found that 2,186 (99%) of the 2,215 DPD officers available to train attended and completed the in-service blocks for Use of Force and Legal training in which the requirements for U112 are primarily fulfilled. In addition, 2,158 officers (97%) attended the PR-24 block of instruction.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Firearms Training
CJ Requirement U113
The DPD shall develop a protocol regarding firearms training that:
a. Ensures that all officers and supervisors complete the bi-annual firearms training and qualification;
b. Incorporates professional night training, stress training (i.e., training in using a firearm after undergoing physical exertion) and proper use of force decision making training in the bi-annual in-service training program, with the goal of adequately preparing officers for real life situations;
c. Ensures that firearm instructors critically observe students and provide corrective instruction regarding deficient firearm techniques and failure to utilize safe gun handling procedures at all times; and undergoing physical exertion) and proper use of force

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 117 of 190 Pg ID 9643

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 116

October 14, 2013

decision making training in the bi-annual in-service training program, with the goal of adequately preparing officers for real life situations;
d. Incorporates evaluation criteria to determine satisfactory completion of recruit and inservice firearms training, including:
e. Maintains finger off trigger unless justified and ready to fire;
f. Maintains proper hold of firearm and proper stance; and
g. Uses proper use of force decision making.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The requirements specified in U113 are addressed in the Department’s firearms training, which officers are required to attend and qualify in every six months. During the previous six-month firearms qualification period (July 1, through December 31, 2012), 98% of the officers available to train attended firearms and qualified.
During this review, we found that 2,172 (98%) of the 2,215 officers available to train had attended firearms training and qualified.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

D. Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training
CJ Requirement U114
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on arrests and other police-citizen interaction. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. The DPD Arrest, Investigatory Stop and Frisk and Witness Identification and Questioning Policies;
b. The Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including:
c. Advising officers that the “possibility” that an individual committed a crime does not rise to the level of probable cause;
d. Advising officers that the duration and scope of the police-citizen interaction determines whether an arrest occurred, not the officer’s subjective, intent or belief that he or she affected an arrest; and
e. Advising officers that every detention is a seizure, every seizure requires reasonable suspicion or probable cause and there is no legally authorized seizure apart from a “Terry stop” and an arrest; and

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 118 of 190 Pg ID 9644

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 117

October 14, 2013

f. Examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper police-community interactions, including scenarios which distinguish an investigatory stop from an arrest by the scope and duration of the police interaction; between probable cause, reasonable suspicion and mere speculation; and voluntary consent from mere acquiescence to police authority.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force, Search, and Detention training were taught in the eight-hour Use of Force inservice training and, until the current year, in the four-hour Arrest Procedures in-service training. The Arrest Procedures session has been discontinued as a separate course, and is now being addressed in the Use of Force and Legal blocks of instruction. Annual training is provided by DPD in its in-service training program for officers and supervisors. During the 2012 Training Year (July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012), the Department trained 98% of its available members in its Use of Force in-service training and 99% in the Legal in-service training.
During this reporting period, we found that for the 2013 Training Year 2,186 (99%) of the 2,215 DPD officers available to train attended and completed the in-service blocks for Use of Force and Legal training in which the requirements for U114 are fulfilled. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

E. Custodial Detention Training
CJ Requirement U115
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on custodial detention. Such training shall include DPD policies regarding arrest, arraignment, holds, restrictions, material witness and detention records.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD developed appropriate policies and lesson plans to comply with this provision, as well as a protocol to train all recruits, sworn members, confinement officers, investigators, and supervisors. All officers who attend the Use of Force and Legal in-service training receive the detention training specified by this requirement. Officers who serve in the detention cell areas are required to receive additional annual detention officer training, which is more specifically related to detention responsibilities. (See C73.)
During the training year that ended on June 30, 2012, 98% of DPD members attended the Use of Force and 99% its Legal in-service training sessions and received this training. As noted in

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 119 of 190 Pg ID 9645

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 118

October 14, 2013

U114, 99% of DPD officers have attended the Use of Force training and the Legal training during the training year that ended on June 30, 2013. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U116
The DPD shall advise officers that the DPD arraignment policy shall not be delayed because of the assignment of the investigation to a specialized unit, the arrest charge(s), the availability of an investigator, the gathering of additional evidence or obtaining a confession.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has incorporated these training requirements into its Use of Force and Legal lesson plans. During the 2011-2012 training year, the Department trained 98% of its officers in its Use of Force in-service training session and 99% in the Legal in-service.
At the conclusion of the 2013 training year, DPD remains in compliance, having trained 99% of its officers available to train in these in-services. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U117
The DPD shall advise officers that whether an individual is a material witness and whether that material witness should be committed to custody is a judicial determination.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Material witness training has been incorporated into the Use of Force and Legal lesson plans. As noted above (see U115), the DPD trained 98% and 99%, respectively, of its officers in the Use of Force and Legal in-service training during the 2012 training year (July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012).
At the conclusion of the 2013 training year, DPD remains in compliance, having trained 99% of its officers available to train in these in-services.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 120 of 190 Pg ID 9646

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 119

October 14, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

F. Supervisory Training
CJ Requirement U118
The DPD shall provide supervisors with training in the appropriate evaluation of written reports, including what constitutes a fact based description, the identification of conclusory language not supported by specific facts and catch phrases, or language that so regularly appears in reports that its inclusion requires further explanation by the reporting officer.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD fulfills Consent Judgment requirements U118-122 through its annual Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training that is required for both supervisors and investigators. During the training year that ended on June 30, 2012, the Department trained 98% of its supervisors in its Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service.
During the 2013 training year (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013), 443 (98%) of the Department’s 454 supervisors who were available to train attended the Leadership and Accountability in-service training.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U119
DPD supervisors shall receive leadership and command accountability training and learn techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training shall be provided to all DPD supervisors within 30 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities and shall be made part of annual in-service training.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During the training year that ended on June 30, 2012, the DPD trained 98% of its supervisors and investigators at its annual Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training. The DPD did not promote any personnel to the supervisor rank during the 2013 training year (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013).

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 121 of 190 Pg ID 9647

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 120

October 14, 2013

443 (98%) of the Department’s 454 supervisors who were available to train attended the Leadership and Accountability in-service training. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U120 The DPD shall provide training on risk assessment and risk management to all DPD supervisors, including the operation of the risk management database. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U121
The DPD shall provide training on appropriate burdens of proof, interview techniques and the factors to consider when evaluating officer, complainant or witness credibility to all officers who conduct investigations to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform and legally appropriate.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U122
The DPD shall provide all supervisors charged with accepting external complaints with appropriate training on handling external complaints that emphasizes interpersonal skills. The DPD shall provide training on the DPD external complaint process, including the role of OCI and IAD in the process, to all new recruits and as part of annual in-service training.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 122 of 190 Pg ID 9648

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 121

October 14, 2013

H. Field Training
CJ Requirement U123
The DPD shall develop, subject to DOJ approval, a protocol to enhance the FTO program within 120 days of the effective date of this Agreement. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting and removing the FTOs and for training and evaluating FTOs and trainees.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

¶ Requirements 106 Coordination and review of training 107 DPD will meet state training standards 108 Maintain individual training records 109 Train from approved objectives and plans 110 Quarterly meetings with Law Department 111 Distribute and training on the agreement 112 Annual use of force training required 113 Develop firearms training protocol 114 Annual arrest, citizen interaction training 115 Annual training on custodial detention 116 Prohibition of arraignment delays 117 Material witness custody 118 Supervisory training-report evaluation 119 Supervisory training-leadership 120 Supervisory training-risk management 121 Investigator training-procedures 122 Supervisory training-external complaints 123 Enhance the FTO program

Phase 1 - Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 123 of 190 Pg ID 9649

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 122

October 14, 2013

SECTION THREE:
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT
This Consent Judgment sets forth procedural and operational requirements relating to the confinement facilities maintained and operated by the Detroit Police Department. The Judgment requires the revision and implementation of policies and practices that are safe, respectful, and constitutional in the areas of fire safety, emergency preparedness, medical and mental health, prisoner safety, environmental health and safety, persons with disabilities, food service, and personal hygiene. In addition, the Judgment sets forth requirements relating to the use of force in detention facilities, as well as procedures for the investigation of the use of force and complaints relating to other events occurring in these facilities. The Judgment also establishes requirements for management and supervision, the auditing of internal practices, and the training of personnel who are assigned detention responsibilities.
During our first site visit in November 2009, we reviewed required directives, supporting logs, forms, and documentation relating to the operation of the detention facilities. Accompanied by key members of the DPD Office of Civil Rights personnel, we conducted our first tour of the Detroit Police Department’s five facilities with holding cells and the Detroit Receiving Hospital.39 We have repeated our tours and inspections of some or all of these facilities during each of our subsequent site visits, and have interacted with command and key detention staff at each facility.
In addition, we have met with key CRIB command staff, Audit Team personnel, and the designated health care professional to conduct a thorough review of all requirements, DPD directives, forms, logs, and documentation relating to and required by this Judgment. Our review disclosed the need for the DPD to revise various health-related directives and to have them reviewed and approved by a health care professional. This was accomplished. In addition, we met with DPD Training staff regarding training issues, which were promptly addressed.
During our visits to and inspections of the various facilities with holding cells, we are always accompanied by CRIB staff, and assisted by the cell block supervisors and compliance officers. These inspections included our entering and examining every holding cell, interviewing detention staff, and reviewing forms and logs. When we find errors, omissions or violations during the inspections we advise facility and CRIB staff immediately of our observations.
We have worked with DPD holding facilities staff to streamline reporting mechanisms and to offer alternatives to ensure that requirements are met and are consistent with policy.
Since the implementation of the virtual precinct concept earlier in 2012, citizens can report many more crimes by telephone rather than requiring that officers either respond to the scene or citizens travel to a district or precinct. The virtual precinct reduced the number of police reports

39 Facilities with holding cells are located in the Northeastern, Eastern, and Southwestern Districts; Sixth and Twelfth Precincts.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 124 of 190 Pg ID 9650

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 123

October 14, 2013

that the desk supervisor previously had to review thus freeing the position up for other responsibilities. We will continue to monitor this change during our next report period.
Prior to forwarding documents requested for our quarterly reviews, CRIB personnel routinely review the documents before they are forwarded to us. During this review, CRIB typically identifies errors and/or omissions and forward corrective action notices to the various commands. Written responses are required. If appropriate supervisory review occurred and errors/omissions were initially identified and corrected at the District/Precinct level, that action would have a positive bearing on compliance.
DPD and MDOC (Michigan Department of Corrections) were in negotiations during this quarter to have the State house all DPD detainees. Both parties signed the Interagency Agreement during the first week of April 2013, and the transfer of the Northeastern District's detainees was completed on August 5, 2013; the four remaining holding facilities will all be closed by the end of October 2013. On April 18, 2013, two members of the Independent Monitoring Team toured the MDOC facilities during the remodeling phase, and found the structure to be well suited for DPD’s needs. The facility is relatively new, and the physical plant is in much better condition than any of the five holding areas currently utilized by the Department. During our July 2013 site visit, we again toured the facility, along with representatives from the Justice Department and DPD.
The Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment is comprised of several different categories relating to the confinement facilities maintained and operated by DPD.

III. FIRE SAFETY POLICIES
CJ Requirement C14
The DPD shall ensure that all holding cells, and buildings that contain them, achieve and maintain compliance with the Life Safety Code within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. The City shall ensure that the Detroit Fire Marshal conducts regular and periodic inspections to evaluate whether the conditions in DPD holding cells, and buildings that contain them, are in compliance with the Life Safety Code.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The Fire Marshal Division of the Detroit Fire Department conducted its annual review and approved the Fire Safety Program (FSP) and the Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP) for all DPD buildings containing holding cells on July 18, 2013. The next semi-annual inspection and audit are due for completion by July 31, 2013; we will review these in our next report.
Accordingly, DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 125 of 190 Pg ID 9651

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 124

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement C15
The DPD shall develop and implement a comprehensive fire detection, suppression and evacuation program for the holding cells, and buildings that contain them, in accordance with the requirements of the Life Safety Code and in consultation with the Detroit Fire Department.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the second reporting period.
During this reporting period, we reviewed DPD 716, Fire Extinguisher Monthly Inspection/Inventory, and DPD 703, Fire Drill Documentation Forms, for all of the districts/precincts with holding cells; and determined that all facilities are in compliance with these requirements. We also examined a sample of the fire extinguishers at each holding facility, and found all of them to be fully charged.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C16
The fire safety program shall be developed in consultation with, and receive written approval by, the Detroit Fire Department. As part of developing the fire safety program, the Detroit Fire Department shall evaluate the need for and, if necessary, the DPD shall install: fire-rated separations, smoke detection systems, smoke control systems, sprinkler systems and/or emergency exits for the holding cells and buildings that contain them. The fire safety program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of the Agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Following the development of the Fire Safety Plan, the DPD made required structural changes to districts/precincts’ holding facilities, including the updating and/or installation of sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, and fire-rated doors. The Fire Marshal conducted the annual inspection and approved the Fire Safety program on July 18, 2013. During our inspection of the district/precinct holding cells in July 2013, we found the presence of all three.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 126 of 190 Pg ID 9652

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 125

October 14, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C17
The DPD shall implement the fire safety program within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the plan.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has developed and implemented the required Fire Safety Plan.
During our most recent site visits to each district/precinct that maintains holding cells, we found documentation of the Fire Marshal’s inspections. The most recent inspections were conducted during June and July and documented on July 18, 2013. The next Fire Marshal’s inspection is due in June 2014. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C18
The DPD shall take immediate interim fire safety measures in all buildings that contain holding cells. At a minimum, these interim measures shall:
a. Ensure that the activation of any individual smoke alarm sounds an alarm throughout the building;
b. ensure that prisoners in holding cells have an adequate means of reporting emergency conditions to DPD staff immediately;
c. ensure that automated back-up power systems exist for all buildings containing holding cells that are capable of providing immediate power for emergency lighting, exit signs, fire alarm and smoke detection systems in the event of an electrical power failure through batteries or an emergency generator; and
d. reduce the likely spread of smoke and fire throughout the buildings by means of stairwells, garages, hazardous rooms and exposed pipes, such as ensuring that fire doors in stairwells are closed.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 127 of 190 Pg ID 9653

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 126

October 14, 2013

The DPD has been in full Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the first reporting period.
As previously noted, we visited each district/precinct that maintains holding cells, and determined that the DPD has made the required structural, electronic, and mechanical upgrades within the facilities. We also noted that Fire Systems of Michigan and the Fire Marshal conducted and documented inspections of suppression systems on July 18, 2013. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C19
The DPD shall ensure that fire safety equipment is routinely tested, inspected and maintained, including the sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, manual fire extinguishers, emergency lighting and exit signs, and self-contained breathing apparatuses.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the second reporting period.
The Fire Safety Plan places responsibility for ensuring the required testing, inspections, and maintenance of the various systems, fire extinguishers, emergency lighting and signs, and equipment with the DPD Office of Facilities Management. During this reporting period, we found all sprinkler systems in working condition. Additionally, we reviewed DPD 715 Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells forms. There was no indication that sprinkler systems were out of order during the CRIB monthly inspections.
Fire Systems of Michigan and the Fire Marshal conduct the required inspections, which were last conducted in June and July 2013.
Because sprinkler heads are often broken by detainees in the holding cells – requiring the shutdown of the water delivery system – the DPD added language to the CEPP/FSP, under the auspices of the Fire Marshal, requiring that the detention staff perform visual fire inspections as an alternative when the fire detection system is disabled or not functioning.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 128 of 190 Pg ID 9654

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 127

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement C20
The DPD shall enforce immediately its no-smoking policy in the holding cells or provide ashtrays and ensure that all holding cell areas are constructed and supplied with fire-rated materials.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the first reporting period. During our most recent inspection, we did not observe any persons smoking in unauthorized areas. Also, during our review of all of the monthly inspections on DPD 715, Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells, we found no documentation that any smoking had been observed in the facilities.
DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C21 The DPD shall insure immediately that all flammable and combustible liquids in holding cell areas and the attached and nearby DPD buildings are stored properly. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Our inspection of the holding facilities found that each district/precinct was equipped with at least one yellow storage cabinet, located in the garage area, for flammable and combustible liquids. We checked the cabinets, and found flammable materials and gas storage containers. DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C22 The DPD shall remove immediately all highly-combustible kane fiber ceiling tiles from buildings that contain holding cells. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 129 of 190 Pg ID 9655

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 128

October 14, 2013

The DPD has been in continued compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph since 2005 when it closed some of the facilities where kane fiber ceiling tiles were in place, and it removed the tiles from the remaining facilities.
DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

14 Holding Cell Life Safety Code compliance In Compliance

15 Fire detection, suppression, and evacuation In Compliance

16 Fire Department consultation/evaluation

In Compliance

17 Implementation of fire safety program

In Compliance

18 Immediate interim fire safety measures

In Compliance

19 Routine testing of fire safety equipment

In Compliance

20 Enforce no smoking in holding cells

In Compliance

21 Proper storage of flammable liquids

In Compliance

22 Remove combustible cane fiber tiles

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

IV. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES CJ Requirement C23 The DPD shall ensure a reasonable level of safety and security of all staff and prisoners in the event of a fire or other emergency. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. As noted previously, Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of C24-25; DPD is in compliance with C24 and C25. Accordingly, we find this paragraph in compliance. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 130 of 190 Pg ID 9656

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 129

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement C24
The DPD shall develop a comprehensive emergency preparedness program that is approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department. This program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the programs within three months of DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the plan. At a minimum, the emergency preparedness program shall:
a. include an emergency response plan for each building that contains holding cells identifying staff responsibilities in the event of fire-related emergencies and other emergencies, including notification responsibilities, evacuation procedures and key control procedures (discussed below); and
b. require performance and documentation of fire drills for all buildings containing holding cells on all shifts every six months (documentation shall include the start and stop times of each drill, the staff members who participated in the drill, a summary of the drill, and an evaluation of the success of the drill).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CEPP identifies staff responsibilities in the event of a fire emergency to include notifications, evacuation, and key control procedures. (See C15.)
The DPD achieved full compliance in the second and subsequent reporting periods as it increased the frequency of fire drills to the 100% level required by policy. During this reporting period, we determined that the fire drills were again conducted according to policy at the 100% level.
Following our recommendations that the detention evacuation equipment be stored in the immediate vicinity of the holding cells so that it is readily accessible to officers, we found, during this reporting period, that the shackles were fully accounted for and placed individually in crates, or hanging from hooks. We determined that the detention officers had sufficient handcuffs and/or shackles for use in the event of an evacuation, and that all of the detention officers that we interviewed were aware of DPD policy to retain the assigned holding cell keys on their persons.
The DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 131 of 190 Pg ID 9657

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 130

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement C25
The DPD shall develop and implement key control policies and procedures that will ensure that all staff is able to manually unlock all holding cell doors in the event of a fire or other
emergency.	
  
At a minimum, the key control policies and procedures shall:
a. provide for emergency identification of keys by touch;
b. and require routine inventory, testing and maintenance of keys and locks.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our first site visit, we recommended that each officer working in a cell block be issued a complete set of keys. Following this recommendation, we were informed that two extra sets of keys were distributed to each district/precinct with holding cells, bringing the total at each to five – three in the cell block, one with the sergeant assigned to the public lobby, and one in the emergency key box in the lieutenants’ and sergeants’ office.
During our three previous inspections, we found that each district/precinct had, at the minimum, five sets of keys – three in the cell block, one with the sergeant assigned to the public lobby, and one in the emergency key box in the lieutenants’ and sergeants’ office. Teletype 11-0989, Holding Cell Facility Keys – Required Documentation, regarding inventory and assignment of keys by the cell block supervisor, had been distributed. This policy directed the cell block supervisor to conduct an inventory of the keys at the commencement and the conclusion of his/her tour of duty and document same in the MAS Desk Blotter. Subsequently, CRIB distributed Department Teletype 11-01395, which thoroughly explained the procedure for documenting the inventory and security of keys. When interviewed, the detention supervisors and officers appeared to have an understanding of their responsibility for key control.
During our most recent site visit, we determined that the supervisors and officers that we interviewed appeared to understand the process for inventory and control of the keys. The MAS Desk Blotter indicated that key inventories were entered in a timely manner.
DPD is now in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

23 Ensure reasonable safety in emergency

In Compliance

24

Develop

comprehensive

preparedness program

emergency In Compliance

25 Implementation of key control policies

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 132 of 190 Pg ID 9658

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 131

October 14, 2013

V. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES
CJ Requirement C26
The DPD shall ensure the appropriate identification of, and response to, prisoner’s medical and/or mental health conditions.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
DPD has previously had difficulties with this paragraph due to the requirements of C27-33. Those issues were addressed and subsequently this paragraph is now compliant.
During previous reporting periods, we reviewed all DPD’s Audit Team’s report of its findings of the Holding Cells and are in agreement with their findings as they have been similar to ours. The most recent audit we have reviewed of the holding cells was released on July 31, 2012 and the deficiencies noted, for the most part have been addressed. DPD released its Quarterly Status Report on March 31, 2013; we note that the Department’s internal inspections of C26 and C32g continue to show that it is in compliance with both paragraphs. We are in agreement with DPD’s assessment, as we have similar findings for the current reporting period. We have observed steady improvement during the past three reporting periods to address the deficiencies described in our reports.
In our previous review of the quarterly detainee file folders they demonstrated progress in most areas; however, previous documentation of detainee medical information and release of medication continued to be problematic. Those issues were resolved in our inspections and reviews for the current quarter. DPD revised the Detainee Intake Form (DIS) with implementation on September 20, 2012. The document was approved by the Department’s consulting physician on August 31, 2012. The new form is completed (via hand) by the processing officer during intake screening, streamlined, and has resolved the most pressing issues with documentation from the previous form. New guidelines for the completion of the revised DIS were issued to assist processing officers conducting screening of detainees. As a result of the implementation of the revised Detainee Intake Form, it was disabled from Livescan.
Medical referrals and the thoroughness of medication logs have also sustained improvement during this and the seven previous reporting periods, and the documentation of the exchange of health information between shifts remains compliant. In previous reviews, holding cell personnel did not adequately list the medical needs of the detainees on the Platoon Daily Detail Summary (PDDSL); and the shift preparing or receiving the log failed to place the date or the time on the form. DPD has rectified this problem, and those forms are now complete. The Western District (Sixth Precinct) had issues with the reporting of officers working double shifts. It was impossible to determine, with any accuracy, that detainees with medical or special needs requirements, was transmitted between shifts. Four holding facilities were in compliance. The Western District must meet compliance standards for the next quarter, or DPD will be removed from compliance. The overall compliance rate for all facilities is 92%, due to the Western District’s failure to document required information.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed and inspected a random sample of 196 detainee file folders and observed personnel. We found that most DPD personnel are properly

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 133 of 190 Pg ID 9659

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 132

October 14, 2013

implementing these procedures in accordance with the DPD directives. However, with the small sample size in some instances, one employee can thwart compliance. We continue to note a few clerical errors and incomplete or missing documentation of medical information and medication logs.
In order to assess compliance with this paragraph, we reviewed those issues that had a direct impact on identification and response to a detainee’s medical or mental health conditions. We found 19 instances where the detainee processing time did not meet the requirement (four with no explanation for the delay and two in which the processing officer failed to mark the box indicating the late processing). Eleven detainees were taken directly from the scene to DRH, and six detainees were processed after the two-hour time requirement; in two of these cases, a valid operational issued caused the delay. One detainee was arrested and processed for the Michigan State Police.
There was one instance where DPD did not indicate a release of the remaining medications to the detainee at time of discharge or transfer to another facility; 13 medications were not administered timely (304 total medications administered); five detainees were incorrectly classified; 21 pages of discharge instructions were missing (there were two cases where discharge instructions were missing entirely); and in two cases, the conveying officer did not indicate the time of the conveyance to DRH from the holding facility. On two occasions, the supervisor failed to indicate the time of approval for medical care on the Medical Care Referral Form.
The critical issues for DPD to address at this time for maintaining compliance with the Medical and Mental Health Care Policies (C26-33) are: sanitary conditions of the holding facilities, and ensuring that remaining medications at the time of detainee release are either given to them or transferred with them to another facility. At this point, DPD needs to fill out the required forms completely to be in compliance with this paragraph. Compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon compliance with C27-C33.
DPD is in compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C27
The DPD shall develop a comprehensive medical and mental health screening program (CMMHSP) that shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals. This program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the program within three months of DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least every year and prior to any revisions to the programs. At a minimum, the comprehensive medical and mental health screening program shall include prisoner screening procedures and medical protocols.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 134 of 190 Pg ID 9660

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 133

October 14, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD Health Authority completed the annual review and approved the CMMHSP policies and directives. The DPD provided us with documentation indicating that the CMMHSP was approved on April 8, 2013, and the mental health portion was approved on March 13, 2013. DPD revised the Detainee Information Form with implementation on September 20, 2012 with written approval on August 31, 2012 by the Department’s consulting physician.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C28
The prisoner screening procedure, at a minimum, shall:
a. enable the DPD to identify individuals with medical or mental health conditions, including infectious diseases, chronic conditions, including disabilities, ambulatory impairments, mental health conditions, and drug/alcohol withdrawal;
b. identify persons who are at risk of committing suicide, persons who have been on heightened observation for suicide risk at any time during a past incarceration and persons who have any medical contraindications for the use of chemical sprays,
c. require that the DPD follow a standard intake procedure for each individual entering DPD custody;
d. require that intake screening be conducted within two hours of intake and through a verbal exchange between the DPD and prisoners; and
e. incorporate all health information pertaining to a prisoner acquired by the arresting or transporting officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our review of documentation and July 2012 site visit, we found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement for the first time. For this reporting period, we observed few deficiencies. There remain minor clerical errors and occasionally incomplete or incorrect completion of required forms. With few exceptions personnel documented those instances where information was critical to the detainee’s health care.
Occasionally an arrestee is taken directly to DRH from the scene, and the two-hour screening mandate from time of arrest to processing does not meet the requirement. DPD processes detainees for Highland Park Police, Wayne State University Police, Detroit Public Schools Police, and the Michigan State Police. As we have noted in previous reports, many times DPD is

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 135 of 190 Pg ID 9661

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 134

October 14, 2013

late processing these detainees, due to the other agencies not presenting them to the holding facilities until the two hours from the time of arrest has passed. Any instance in which a detainee is screened more than two hours from the time of the arrest the processing officer is required to indicate the lateness on the face sheet of the DIF and should also indicate the reason for the lateness on the third page of the DIF under the “Comments Section.” In each case, except two, staff had transported to DRH detainees needing medical attention within a reasonable time of the request or transported them directly from the scene for those detainees needing immediate attention. In the two exceptions, it took more than eight hours for DPD to provide transportation to DRH for the detainees after they had been processed.
There were 196 detainee file folders we reviewed that included 19 instances where the intake screening took more than two hours; however, in 11 of these cases, the arrestee was transported to DRH or another hospital directly from the scene. In one case, the processing officer indicated a backup of detainees to be processed as the cause for the delay in one case, the arrest was made by Michigan State Police; and four cases, the processing was late and the reason for the delay was not documented. Occasionally there are operational issues at the facilities where screening may be delayed, due to safety of the detainee and employees or several detainees are brought into the facility at the same time.
Many of these issues would be resolved if personnel would complete all the information the forms require and the OIC approving the form investigate those in violation of the two-hour requirement at the conclusion of the detainee processing and address those issues immediately. Compliance for processing detainees (C28d) within the two-hour requirement is 98%.
The Medical/Mental High Risk Logs (DPD 661) for this reporting period revealed that high-risk detainees were observed by staff and were compliant. We reviewed DPD 661 Forms for detainees who were maintained on suicide watch or should have been placed on constant supervision. In the sample reviewed for this quarter all detainees were properly identified who were at risk for committing suicide or placed on heightened observation. We did find instances this quarter where detention personnel either failed to constantly observe detainees placed on “constant watch” or they failed to document their observations on the appropriate form (see C38). We will monitor this issue during the next reporting period and make adjustments in our compliance assessment if necessary.
While reviewing documentation for C64b (supervisors to review video of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force and external complaints) we reviewed four cases of suicide attempts by detainees and one self-inflicted injury by a detainee. In all instances but one, video was reviewed and personnel followed proper procedures. The exception was a detainee who fell inside a cell where video was not available.
All facilities met or exceeded the requirement.
In some cases, medical professionals at DRH may recommend placing a detainee on constant watch or remove them from the watch (Risk Management Assessment Form from the Detroit Medical Center). In these cases, DPD personnel need to indicate these changes in the comment section of the High Risk Log, the Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Log or on the Detainee Information Form when they have returned to the holding facility. If there is any question

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 136 of 190 Pg ID 9662

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 135

October 14, 2013

whether a detainee should be monitored every 15 minutes or placed under constant observation; the detainee should be constantly monitored.
When a detainee’s medical or mental health status changes, detention staff should update the documents accordingly and indicate the date and time of the new information. With the revised DIF, detainee’s medical information has been disabled from the Livescan system. Overall, we found that DPD had a 94% compliance rate with this paragraph due to the compliance of C28e (C28a, b, and c had previously been in compliance). There were 62 instances where the Detainee Input Sheet indicated that the arresting or transporting officer listed a mental or medical issue with the detainee. In all 62 cases, the processing officers in the facilities transferred this information to the Detainee Information Form.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C29
The medical protocols, at a minimum, shall:
a. identify the specific actions the DPD shall take in response to the medical information acquired during prisoner screening or detention, including the need for emergency care, hospitalization, prescription medication and/or intensive monitoring; and
b. require prior supervisory review and written approval, absent exigent circumstances, of all decisions made in response to acquired medical information.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD was not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph in previous reporting periods.
During this reporting period, we reviewed a sample of 196 detainee file folders, and inspected each of the districts/precincts that maintain holding cells and the Detroit Receiving Hospital. We continue to find that staff did not follow policy in a few key areas, including:
• Sixty-eight referrals of detainees in need of medical or mental health care to DRH or another local hospital and all were within policy, with the following exceptions: in two cases, the supervisor who approved the Medical Referral Form failed to indicate the time of the approval; and in two other instances, it took over eight hours for the detainees to be transported to DRH after the request was made.
• Four cases in which the intake screening was not conducted within the two-hour timeframe and where no operational delay was indicated.
• Detainees not receiving medications prescribed by the Detroit Receiving Hospital in a timely manner. Forty-seven detainees had medications disbursed (304 individual

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 137 of 190 Pg ID 9663

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 136

October 14, 2013

dosages); and in 13 instances, the dosages were not administered within a reasonable time according to the prescription schedule. In 96% of the time medications disbursed to detainees, they were done timely. There were 62 instances where detainee medical information was listed by the arresting officer on the Detainee Input Sheet; and in all cases, the processing officer transferred that information to the Detainee Information Form.
• Sixty-eight detainees who were sent to the Detroit Receiving Hospital for treatment or medication; in all but two, discharge instructions were included in the detainee file folders. We found seven instances among the remaining 66 detainees where one or more pages of the discharge instructions were missing. For all detainees who went to DRH for treatment or medication verification, we reviewed 322 individual pages of discharge instructions.
• The required Hospital Prisoner Form was included in all but one of the detainees who were sent to DRH.
• Of 196 classifications of detainees into the holding facilities after screening, 191 were correctly classified.
• There were nine Detainee Custodial Transfer Logs (detainees transferred to other DPD holding facilities) completed in the sample and all contained the receiving Cell Block Supervisors signature.
• There were 28 crime partners correctly identified by the processing officer at the time of initial processing.
Overall, we found that 97% were in compliance with this paragraph – a slight decline from the previous reporting period. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C30
The DPD shall develop and implement policy regarding infectious disease control (IDC) in consultation with medical health professionals. The policy shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical health professionals at least every year after implementation and prior to any revisions to the policy. At a minimum, the policy shall:
a. establish appropriate housing for prisoners believed to have infectious diseases; and
b. mandate measures the DPD shall take to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, including proper handling and disposal of bio-hazardous material.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 138 of 190 Pg ID 9664

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 137

October 14, 2013

During our previous site visits, our inspections of the Detroit Receiving Hospital and the five DPD facilities that maintain holding cells disclosed satisfactory levels of sanitation in similar degrees at all of the sites with a trend toward improvement. During our most recent site visit, we found all facilities to be in compliance. DPD revised Policy 403.2, Infectious Disease Control, on May 29, 2013.
During our most recent inspection, we inspected the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) kits from each of the five holding facilities. Each kit has a list of the contents of the packets to facilitate a rapid response if needed. Our inspection of the first aid kits found that the contents were satisfactory, as we have observed improvement by the detention staff in this area. We continue to recommend that detention staff open the first aid kits on a regular basis to verify that the contents have not expired.
An effective infectious disease control plan must account for the sanitation and maintenance of all plumbing and equipment; physical plant cleanliness; and documentation that a plan to maintain the physical plant is being implemented in the holding cell areas and holding cells. An inspection of the sanitation of the five holding cells found only one facility not in compliance for the quarter (see C39). The DPD Infectious Disease Policy 403.0, Section 403.2-6.3, Statements 1-6, Department Equipment, vehicle or facility, affirms the importance of building maintenance and cleaning and decontamination of the facility. Administrative Message (Teletype 12-1124), released on December 14, 2012, stressed the importance of holding cell cleaning and sanitation.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C31
The DPD shall develop and implement a protocol for updating and exchanging prisoner health information. At a minimum, this protocol shall;
a. require that prisoner’s health information is recorded at intake and thereafter immediately readily available to all relevant medical and transporting personnel in a manner consistent with the relevant federal and state confidentiality statutes;
b. require that prisoner health information is continually updated to incorporate any additional relevant information acquired during his or her detention;
c. require that relevant prisoner health information is documented and communicated between consecutive shifts, such as whether a prisoner is taking medication or has a medical condition; and
d. require that prisoner health information travel with prisoners who transferred to another facility.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 139 of 190 Pg ID 9665

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 138

October 14, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During previous reporting periods, our reviews of DPD form 661, Detainee Medical/Mental Health Monitoring and form 659a, Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Form; indicated that required detainee health information – such as whether a detainee is taking medication or has a medical condition – was not always being documented and communicated between consecutive shifts. This issue has now been addressed as our reviews indicate compliance, although the Western District (Sixth Precinct) is still experiencing problems with some personnel failing to follow procedure.
As noted above our reviews of these documents is important to ensure that the detainees’ health needs are met, and for the purposes of staff safety. This information must be documented, updated, and communicated between the initial shift receiving the detainee and the subsequent shifts until the detainee is released. It is critical for the oncoming shift to indicate the date and time they receive the Platoon Daily Detainee Summary and to acknowledge its accuracy to assure the continuity of health monitoring for detainees requiring it.
We reviewed DPD log 659a, Platoon Daily Detainee Summary, in the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, and found fewer errors than in our previous reports; however, the logs from the Western District indicate major deficiencies. It should be noted that form DPD 659a was amended during the ninth reporting period to indicate for each detainee whether medications are prescribed. Detainee medications are captured on the Medication Disbursement Log (DPD 664). DPD is now appropriately capturing information and listing the medical/mental needs of the detainee on the form. All districts/precincts with holding cells, with the exception of the Western District, are compliant with this paragraph. The overall compliance rate (C31c) for all holding cell facilities is 92%. If one or more holding facilities are not in compliance with this subset during the next reporting period, DPD will be removed from compliance.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C32
The DPD shall develop a prescription medication policy in consultation with qualified medical and mental health professionals that ensures prisoners are provided prescription medication as directed. The policy shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals and shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the policy within three months of the DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the policy shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least annually and prior to any revisions to the program. At a minimum, the policy shall:

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 140 of 190 Pg ID 9666

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 139

October 14, 2013

a. indicate when the DPD shall convey prisoners taking prescription medication to the DRH or other treating hospital for evaluation;
b. require the DPD distribute to prisoners only medications that have been prescribed at the DRH or other treating hospitals;
c. require that the DPD distribute medications as prescribed and not rely on inmates to identify their need for medication;
d. require that all prisoner medications be stored in a secure location near the holding cells and travel with prisoners that are transferred;
e. require the DPD to record relevant information regarding the administration of prescription medication on an auditable form;
f. require that injected medications are administered as prescribed and in a safe and hygienic manner; and
g. require that unused mediations prescribed at the DRH or other treating hospitals are provided to prisoners upon their release.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During this reporting period, at the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, we found all Medication Logs in proper order and accurately recorded. In prior reviews detainee dosages, dosing times, signatures, the names of the persons administering the medications, and prescription release information did not always appear on the logs. Those issues have now been addressed.
During the current reporting period, in our review of 196 detainee file folders, we found few instances where the DPD failed to record essential detainee and staff information. We noted, for example, that the medication logs on detainees who had been released showed that all but one detainee was not given their unused medications. There were 47 detainees who received medications while confined in a DPD holding facility. There were a total of 304 individual dosages administered by DPD personnel. There were 13 instances where the medications were not disbursed timely. DPD personnel timely disbursed prescribed medications to detainees 96% of the time. We examined the Platoon Daily Detainee Summary logs, which are used to ensure that detainee health information is exchanged and communicated between shifts. During a previous reporting period, DPD included a section on the PDDSL to indicate if detainees on a monitoring status were taking medications. This serves as an immediate alert for the CBS at the beginning of the shift that informs him/her if any detainees are on medication.
During our most recent site visit, we checked all active detainee file folders in all facilities for those detainees who were on medication or on a monitoring status. Each of the medication disbursement logs were reviewed and matched with the medication contained in the medication storage cabinet. We found that the prescribed medication for each detainee was properly stored. We did not find any medication left in the cabinet from detainees who had already been released. Our inspection of medication cabinets and medications for detainees at the districts/precincts

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 141 of 190 Pg ID 9667

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 140

October 14, 2013

maintaining holding cells revealed that all was satisfactory in the location of the cabinets and storage of medications.
DPD has addressed the previous failures with the requirements of C32g, and had achieved compliance with this paragraph for the past three reporting periods. The Department must continue to focus on the concerns related to the documentation of medication disbursements and release of medications when a detainee is released or transferred; C32a through 32f are in compliance. The compliance rate for C32g is 98%, compared to the 92% we found in the last reporting period. All subsets of this paragraph exceed the >94% requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C33
The DPD shall provide appropriate clothing, such as paper gowns or suicide smocks, to all prisoners placed under suicide precautions.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During previous reporting periods, we found that detention personnel were generally familiar with where the appropriate clothing items, paper gowns and/or suicide smocks, were stored. Our inspections revealed ample inventory of appropriate clothing.
During our most recent inspections in all five districts and precincts with holding cells, we found sufficient inventory of paper gowns and/or suicide smocks. The staff we interviewed was knowledgeable regarding the use of the clothing and where the appropriate clothing was stored.
We find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C34
The DPD shall remove or make inaccessible all suicide hazards in holding cells including exposed pipes, radiators and overhead bars.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During all of our previous site visits, we conducted comprehensive inspections of each of the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, as well as the Detroit Receiving Hospital cells, and did not observe any hazards that could affect detainees or staff.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 142 of 190 Pg ID 9668

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 141

October 14, 2013

The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 26 Prisoners’ medical/mental health conditions 27 Medical/mental health screening program 28 Medical/mental health screening procedures 29 Medical protocols 30 Infectious disease policy required 31 Prisoner health information protocol required 32 Prescription medication policy required 33 Clothing-suicide prevention 34 Removal of suicide hazards

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VI. PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES CJ Requirement C35 The DPD shall ensure a reasonable level of safety of staff and prisoners through the use of appropriate security administration procedures. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of staff and inmate safety measures required by C36-38; accordingly, the DPD is in compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C36
The DPD shall develop and implement a prisoner security screening program for all buildings containing holding cells. At a minimum, the program shall:
a. establish protocols based upon objective, behavior-based criteria for identifying suspected crime partners, vulnerable, assaultive or special management prisoners who should be housed in observation cells or single-occupancy cells; and

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 143 of 190 Pg ID 9669

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 142

October 14, 2013

b. require that security screening information is documented and communicated between consecutive shifts.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
DPD Form 659A (Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Log [PDDSL]), revised August 2011, is used to record information on detainees with medical conditions or special needs. During this reporting period, we reviewed Eastern District logs that contained 596 entries. Eastern’s compliance rate for this reporting period is 100%, a 3% increase from the last reporting period.
We reviewed Northeastern District’s logs containing 624 entries. The Northeastern District’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 100%, a 3% increase from the last reporting period.
We reviewed Western District’s (formerly Sixth Precinct) logs containing 336 entries. The Sixth Precinct did not follow the department guidelines for completing the form for an “Eight (8) Hour Shift”. The method used by Sixth Precinct in April utilized eight-, 10-, and 12-hour reporting, with officers frequently working double shifts. It was impossible to determine with any accuracy that information on detainees with medical or special needs was transmitted between shifts in a timely manner. Frequently, the officer who signed the form as the officer “ending tour of duty” also signed the form as the officer “commencing tour of duty.” If this continues to be the practice, the officer should make a notation that they are working a double shift.
During our last site visit, we met with staff at the Sixth Precinct and discussed our findings. We conveyed that, because of the reporting errors in the April PDDSL logs, it was difficult to assess a level of compliance for the month of April, which would leave the precinct out of compliance with C36. (The problem was corrected on the May and June documents.) It is expected that the Precinct will be in compliance for the next reporting period.
The Western District’s compliance rate with this paragraph was 65%. We reviewed Northwestern District’s (formerly Twelfth Precinct) logs containing 525 entries. The Northwestern District’s compliance rate with this paragraph for this reporting period is 94%, primarily due to numerous reporting errors in the month of April. This score represents a 4% decrease over the last reporting period.
We reviewed Southwestern District’s (formerly Second Precinct) logs containing 586 entries. The Southwestern District’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 99% for this reporting period, an 11% increase from the last reporting period.
The average for all districts/precincts during this reporting period is 92% compliance for the 2,819 log entries, a decrease of 4%, due to the Western District score.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. However, the Western District must meet the required >94% compliance rate during the next reporting period to remain in compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 144 of 190 Pg ID 9670

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 143

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement C37
The DPD shall develop and implement procedures for the performance, documentation and review of routine cell checks in all holding cells to ensure safe housing. At a minimum, the procedures should:
a. require that cell checks on the general population are performed at least twice per hour and that cell checks of prisoners in observation cells and DRH holding cells are performed every 15 minutes, unless constant supervision is required; and
b. require detention officers to document relevant information regarding the performance of cell checks in an auditable log.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The duties of cell block supervisors (CBS) and detention officers relating to well-being checks are established by DPD policy. Supervisors are required to walk through the holding cell areas four times per shift to check on the well-being of the detainees. Detention officers are required to make similar visual checks every 30 minutes (or every 15 minutes for high-risk detainees). Their observations are documented on the Detention Cell Check Log (DPD 659).
The Detroit Police Department no longer keeps officers at the Detroit Receiving Hospital. Therefore, they were not included in this report.
General population well-being checks are entered on the DPD 659 Form every 30 minutes at the districts/precincts. Detainees held in observation cells are monitored every 15 minutes on DPD Form 661, Detainee Medical/Mental Health Monitoring (DMMHM) logs. During the current reporting period, our review of 6,210 entries in the Detention Cell Check Logs (DPD 659) for the general detainee population from the districts with holding cell facilities reflected a 99.4% compliance rate. Once again, some errors were the result of unreadable time stamps. These errors were found in the Western and Northwestern Districts.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C38
The DPD shall record in a written policy and implement a procedure that requires detention officers to provide continual direct or on site remote observation of all observation cells while they are occupied.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 145 of 190 Pg ID 9671

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 144

October 14, 2013

For the periods of April 19-24, May 12-16, and June 1-7, 2013, we reviewed logs for 16 detainees who required a 15-minute or constant observation watch, reported on Form DPD 661 (DMMHM Log). Fewer errors were noted this reporting period with the documentation of checks every 15 minutes as required by the Consent Judgment. Only two 15-minute checks were observed to be missing from the sixteen logs.
In the Northeastern District, two detainees were placed on suicide watch due to a “previous suicide attempt,” or “suicide risk,” but the record does not indicate when the previous attempt occurred and there was no record of a DRH evaluation on either detainee.
In the Western District, one detainee was placed on constant observation during his stay on May 13-15, 2013. He was placed on suicide watch at the Detroit Receiving Hospital (DRH). A onehour-and-fifteen minute gap in monitoring occurred on May 14 from 23:30 hours to 00:45 hours on May 15. There were also no entries from 14:30 to 16:00 hours on May 15.
Another detainee was placed on monitoring on May 12 at 00:00 hours because of a previous suicide attempt less than one year ago. However, monitoring did not start until 06:30. No explanation was given for the 6.5-hour delay. Monitoring ended on May 12 at 14:15 with a notation that monitoring was to be continued on the next platoon. However, no additional documents were submitted to bring closure to this file.
All districts met or exceeded the required >94% compliance standard for 15- or 30-minute cell checks.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 35 Security procedures to ensure safety 36 Prisoner security screening program 37 Procedures for cell checks required 38 On-site remote observation of cells

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES CJ Requirement C39 The DPD shall ensure that all holding cells are cleaned immediately and thereafter are maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 146 of 190 Pg ID 9672

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 145

October 14, 2013

During this reporting period, we evaluated all districts/precincts for general cleanliness and sanitation. The cleanliness level in the holding areas was satisfactory. Because of the pending closure of DPD holding cells, we did not evaluate lighting and corroded benches during this tour.
Documentation of holding cell cleaning continued to be satisfactory during this reporting period. Only Eastern District, at 93%, fell below the required >94% compliance rate.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C40
The DPD shall design and implement a cleaning policy for all holding cells. The policy shall require routine cleaning and supervisory inspection of the holding cells and nearby areas.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
DPD Directive 305.4 (effective January 9, 2013) is the relevant document for this section; this document is reviewed on an annual basis. Additional documents have been issued to command staff for guidance purposes to ensure consistency in cleaning methods and procedures. The Holding Cell Compliance Committee (HCCC) has issued detailed cell block cleaning instructions that cover procedures, schedules, and documentation.
This requirement addresses the design and implementation of a cleaning policy for all holding cells. It also requires the routine cleaning and supervisory oversight of cleaning of the cells and nearby areas. The policy is in place and is adequate.
Automated chemical dispensers (ACD) have been installed in all facilities and were in use by staff. All staff that were interviewed were familiar with the use of the ACDs and reported favorably regarding the cleaning abilities of the products being used.
During our previous site visit in April, we met with the director of the Detroit General Services Division regarding the difficulties the Department has in obtaining timely responses to requests for supplies and maintenance. Following our meeting, we were told that the City had approved two additional maintenance positions, which should improve the City’s response to maintenance needs in the Police Department. This has not been the case. The City has only two plumbers to service more than 160 municipal buildings, parks and recreation areas, and other facilities. DPD staff report continuing difficulties in getting timely responses to building maintenance needs, particularly plumbing needs.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 147 of 190 Pg ID 9673

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 146

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement C41
The DPD shall design and implement a maintenance policy for all holding cells that requires timely performance of routine maintenance and the documentation of all maintenance requests and responses in an auditable log.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The Platoon 1 Cell Block Supervisor is responsible for conducting a weekly maintenance inspection and for documenting discrepancies in the Facilities Maintenance Log (DPD 702). The Platoon 1 Cell Block Supervisor is required to submit repair orders via e-mail to the Facilities Maintenance Department. Additionally, DPD appointed a lieutenant to oversee the maintenance issues in the holding cell facilities.
Based on the Holding Cell Facility Logs (DPD 702), OCR prepares a monthly spreadsheet listing all current outstanding repairs and their status. Items on this spreadsheet are reviewed monthly by the HCCC. During this reporting period, HCCC meeting agendas were reviewed and confirmed that current facility repairs were being discussed.
This section of the Consent Judgment requires “timely performance of routine maintenance.” Compliance with this requirement remains challenging due to the age of the facilities and furnishings and the lack of availability of replacement parts. As reported in C40, the holding facilities continue to have difficulty getting timely responses to maintenance requests for plumbing issues. A review of the June 2013 Facility Maintenance Log revealed at least six plumbing maintenance requests that were 60 days or more in arrears.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C42
The DPD shall provide adequate heating and ventilation for all buildings containing holding cells.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
No HVAC issues were identified during our most recent site visit. As we toured the holding cells each day, we checked the temperatures in the cell areas, and found the temperatures in each of the holding facilities to be within the limits established by the Department (between 66°F and 85°F). Measured temperatures in the cell blocks were in the 70°F – 80°F range.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 148 of 190 Pg ID 9674

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 147

October 14, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C43
The DPD shall repair all broken or malfunctioning lighting, toilets, sinks and windows in holding cells and observation cells.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our most recent inspection, we continued to find instances of malfunctioning lights, toilets, and sinks. As reported in CJ Requirement C41, the General Services Division of the City of Detroit is grossly understaffed and response times for maintenance requests can exceed 60 days. The facilities and the equipment are old and outdated. It can be difficult to locate replacement parts for some of the toilet and sink units. When these malfunctions occur in the holding cells, the cells are taken out of service and signage is posted on the front of the cell to prevent usage until repairs are completed. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C44
The DPD shall ensure that lighting in all cell block areas is maintained at an appropriate level for all tasks related to the housing of DPD detainees, including but not necessarily limited to, security, safety, cleaning and disinfection of housing areas.40
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
As in past visits, during our most recent site visit, lighting levels were determined to be marginally sufficient in the cell areas. No changes have occurred in this area since the last visit. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph at this time.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

40 Amended by Court Order dated April 23, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 149 of 190 Pg ID 9675

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 148

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement C45
The DPD shall provide all prisoners with reasonable access to toilets and potable water 24 hours-a-day.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
No issues were identified during our most recent site visit. All prisoners had access to toilets and potable water at all times. Cells with plumbing deficiencies were not being used and signage was posted accordingly. Based on the published directive and our observations of conditions of the physical plant in the district/precinct holding cells, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C46 The DPD shall ensure that all Hepa-Aire purifiers comply with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Agency standards. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. All Hepa-Aire purifiers have been permanently removed from the district/precinct holding cell areas. DPD is in full compliance with the requirements of this Consent Judgment paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 39 Clean and maintain holding cells 40 Holding cell cleaning policy required 41 Holding cell maintenance policy required 42 Provide adequate heating and ventilation 43 Repair broken/malfunctioning cell elements 44 Insure sufficient cell lighting 45 Provide reasonable access to toilets and water 46 Hepa-Aire purifiers comply with standards

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 150 of 190 Pg ID 9676

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 149

October 14, 2013

VIII. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
CJ Requirement C47
The DPD shall ensure that persons with disabilities are provided with reasonable accommodations.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
No issues were identified during our most recent site visit. The Northeast District (NED) is the designated ADA-compliant holding facility; all detainees with disabilities requiring special accommodations are housed in this facility. A wheelchair is available at NED for detainee use as needed. During our most recent site visit, we found that detention staff in the districts/precincts continue to demonstrate competency in the use of Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD). In addition, the TDD equipment was working properly in all sites. DPD detention staff are now required, per policy, to conduct tests on a monthly basis to ensure the equipment is working properly. In each holding facility, detention staff were able to demonstrate the use of the equipment.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C48
The DPD shall develop and implement a policy concerning the detention of individuals with disabilities in consultation with qualified medical and mental health professionals. The policy shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least every year and prior to any revisions to the program.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The provisions of this requirement are covered in DPD 305.1, Detainee Intake, and DPD 305.5, Detainee Health Care. These policies were reviewed and approved by qualified medical and mental health professionals on April 8, 2013 and March 13, 2013 respectively.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 151 of 190 Pg ID 9677

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 150

October 14, 2013

¶ Requirements 47 Reasonable accommodation for disabled 48 Detention of persons with disabilities

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

IX. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES CJ Requirement C49 The DPD shall ensure food is stored and served in a sanitary manner and in compliance with state and local health codes. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of C50; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. See C50. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C50
The DPD shall develop and implement a food service policy that shall be approved in writing by a qualified sanitarian. At a minimum, the food service policy shall:
a. require that the meal plan is initially approved in writing by a qualified dietician and, hereafter, is reviewed and approved in writing by a qualified dietician at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the program;
b. require that all food is stored and handled in a sanitary manner;
c. ensure that all prisoners are provided with an alternative meal if they are unable to eat the standard meal for religious or dietary reasons; and
d. ensure that food service is provided to all prisoners who are held over six hours.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. DPD’s Detainee Food Service and Hygiene Items Policy 305.8, was revised by the Detroit Police Department, dated January 9, 2013.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed Desk Blotter logs for the periods of April 1924, May 12-16, and June 1-7, 2013. Food service documentation continued to improve during this reporting period. We considered instances of missed documentation to be in compliance if supervisory oversight and corrective actions were reported. A review of the districts’ Desk Blotter logs for meal service documentation revealed compliance rates ranging from 100% in the Northeastern and Western Districts, 97% in the Eastern and Southwestern Districts, and 95% in

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 152 of 190 Pg ID 9678

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 151

October 14, 2013

the Northwestern District. The Department’s overall compliance rate was 98% for this reporting period. All District/Precincts are in compliance with this paragraph.
The Detention Refrigeration Log, DPD form 655, is used to capture daily refrigerator temperatures and weekly cleaning and sanitization information on a monthly basis. This revised form was implemented on June 7, 2012, Department-wide. During this reporting period, we found documentation that the refrigerators had been cleaned weekly and refrigerator temperatures were satisfactory. Expiration dates on the food were up to standard. All districts were 100% compliant with the refrigeration logs.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 49 Ensure sanitary food storage and service 50 Food service policies and practices

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

X. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES
CJ Requirement C51
The DPD shall ensure that personal hygiene items should include; soap, toothbrushes, toothpaste, toilet paper, a comb, deodorant, and feminine hygiene products. The DPD shall implement this provision within one month of effective date of this Agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
In the current reporting period, we inspected each area where the hygiene kits are stored to determine if the kits were readily available, and found that in all five facilities there were an adequate number of hygiene kits to distribute to detainees when needed. Feminine hygiene products were also available in all sites. Our interviews with the PDOs demonstrate an understanding of the importance of providing personal hygiene items to the detainees on a daily basis. Detainees indicated they had no problems obtaining personal hygiene items when needed.
The DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement is 100%. Accordingly, we find the Department in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 153 of 190 Pg ID 9679

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 152

October 14, 2013

¶ Requirements 51 Make available personal hygiene items

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance

CJ Requirement C52
The DPD shall require that any use of force on prisoners in holding cells complies with the DPD’s use of force policies and procedures.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the previous reporting period, we examined eight SIRs regarding incidents occurring at detention facilities. All of the cases were in compliance with DPD’s use of force policies and procedures. Two of the cases were attempted suicides. All eight of the cases included video review; in one instance, following the initial review, the investigating supervisor was unable to conduct a follow-up review due to technical difficulties. This issue was reported the Technical Support Unit.
During this reporting period, we examined four SIRs regarding incidents occurring at detention facilities. Two were detainee injuries (DIs) with no force involved. All of the cases were in compliance with DPD’s use of force policies and procedures. Two of the cases were attempted suicides. All four of the cases included video review. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C53
The DPD shall revise and augment its policies regarding prisoners to require that:
a. officers utilize appropriate precautions when interacting with a prisoner who has previously demonstrated he or she is recalcitrant or resistant, including: summoning additional officers; summoning a supervisor; and using appropriate restraints;
b. absent exigent circumstances, officers notify a supervisor before using force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell; and
c. the supervisor assesses the need to use force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell, direct any such use of force and ensure the incident is videotaped.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 154 of 190 Pg ID 9680

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 153

October 14, 2013

All districts/precincts that maintain holding cells are equipped with some level of videotaping/digital recording equipment that is linked to a camera system that monitors hallways and common areas as well as most, but not all, cells. In addition to the mounted video equipment, the detention districts/precincts have been issued handheld cameras that can be used for planned extractions. Our visits to the various holding facilities found that supervisors were aware of the handheld cameras and had received some training in their use. All supervisors contacted during our most recent site visit were aware of the cameras’ location, and were aware of the need to check the recorders to ensure that the batteries were functional. In the previous reporting period, we found that there were eight SIR investigations of incidents occurring in detention facilities cases; only three of these cases were cell extractions.
During this reporting period, we reviewed four cases, two in April and two in May.41 Only one was a cell extraction during which force had to be used. In two of the cases, there was no previous indication that they would cause problems; in two, there were some indications that there might be issues. In all four cases, a supervisor was notified and sufficient personnel were available to deal with the issues (100%). In all four cases, the supervisors directed the actions of the personnel dealing with the detainees. In one case, the handheld camera was used; in all four cases there was appropriate review.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C54 The DPD shall not handcuff prisoners to benches for longer periods of time than are necessary. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

41 In April one case was at the Second Precinct, an attempted suicide with no force used; the second was at the Twelfth Precinct, and was an attempted suicide which did require force to remove the detainee from the cell, which he had flooded. In May, the first was a DI at the Second Precinct, where a detainee fell in the cell, striking his head on the bench. The second was also at the Second Precinct, where an arrestee brought into the garage refused to leave the vehicle and had to be forcibly removed.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 155 of 190 Pg ID 9681

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 154

October 14, 2013

¶ Requirements 52 Use of force policies 53 Revise policy re use of force with prisoners 54 Handcuffing of prisoners to benches

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

XII. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW
CJ Requirement C55
The DPD shall require that all uses of force, injuries to prisoners and in-custody deaths occurring in the DPD holding cells are investigated in compliance with the DPD’s general incident investigation policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the last reporting period, we reviewed eight cases. Two were attempted suicides, both of which required the use of force to resolve and one was a detainee injury with no force utilized. Seven of the cases made the 10-day requirement (87%), and six (75%) of the eight met the 30day requirement. All eight cases included acceptable reviews. As with the SIR investigations involving uses of force outside of the detention facilities, we continue to recommend that staff conduct more critical reviews of the investigations. There was only one case in which the handheld camera was utilized; this was not a cell extraction. There were no in-custody deaths in the cell block areas.
During this reporting period we reviewed four cases, three of which were classified as detainee injuries. One of the three injuries involved a detainee who fell in his cell and struck his head on the bench; one involved an attempted suicide in which the individual complied with all instructions from the intervening officers; and the last involved an attempted suicide by an individual who failed to comply with the instructions given. In this last case, force was required to remove him from the cell he was flooding.
The fourth detainee injury involved a female prisoner who refused to leave the unit in the garage and had to be forcibly removed and escorted into the precinct.
The cases all had acceptable reviews (100%). All four cases (100%) met the 10- and 30-day requirements. There was one case in which the handheld camera was used. There were no incustody deaths in the cell block area.
DPD is Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 156 of 190 Pg ID 9682

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 155

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement C56
The DPD shall require that all uses of force occurring in the DPD holding cells are reported and investigated in compliance with the DPD’s use of force investigation policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the last reporting period, we found that all of the eight cases had opportunities for video recordings and reviews. Eight (100%) contained acceptable reviews; DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
During this reporting period, we found that all four reviewed cases had opportunities for video recordings and reviews. Four (100%) contained acceptable reviews; DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C57
The DPD shall require that all injuries to prisoners occurring in DPD holding cells are reported and investigated in compliance with the DPD’s prisoner injury investigation policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the last reporting period, we reviewed two attempted suicides and one detainee injury. The two attempted suicides required minimal force to remove the detainees from the cell. The attempted suicides and the detainee injury were investigated in conformity with the requirements in C57. The detainees involved in the two attempted suicides were promptly transported to DRH for treatment.
During this reporting period, we reviewed two attempted suicides and one detainee injury. One of the attempted suicides required minimal force to remove the detainee from the cell. The attempted suicides and the detainee injury were investigated in conformity with the requirements in C57. One detainee involved in an attempted suicide was not transported to DRH for treatment; instead the decision was made to transport him to the Wayne County Jail, as scheduled (50%). DPD is cautioned that failure to achieve >94% in the next quarterly report could result in losing its Phase 2 compliance status. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 157 of 190 Pg ID 9683

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 156

October 14, 2013

Critical Issues:
• The issues that impact the quality of use of force investigations as described in the Use of Force section of the Consent Judgment are applicable to the use of force investigations of incidents occurring in the cell block area. The remedies we have recommended in those areas remain constant for the Conditions of Confinement requirements. Timely and thorough investigations, coupled with critical command level reviews, are the keys to achieving compliance. We have noted improvements in video review and the use of the handheld portable cameras.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to review all force, injury, and complaint incidents originating from detention facilities.
• Monitor the supervisory review of video captured in the detention areas, and, where appropriate, monitor the use of handheld cameras in each detention facility.
• Conduct field visits to various detention facilities to verify the Department’s adherence to policy requirements.

¶ Requirements 55 Use of force investigations 56 Use of force investigations 57 Injury to prisoner investigations

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

XIII. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS
CJ Requirement C58
The DPD shall ensure that it accepts and processes all external complaints regarding incidents occurring in holding cells consistent with the DPD’s external complaint policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during all of the previous reporting periods.
During this reporting period, the Department closed six complaints originating from detention facilities – three in April, two in May, and one in June. All complaints were accepted and processed in accordance with DPD policy. One involved demeanor and procedure allegations, one involved missing money, and four involved force. OCI retained investigation of all of the cases except the one alleging theft of money.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 158 of 190 Pg ID 9684

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 157

October 14, 2013

DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C59
The DPD shall ensure that all external complaints it receives regarding incidents occurring in holding cells are investigated and reviewed consistent with the DPD’s policies concerning external complaint investigations and review.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during the first reporting period, but not in compliance during successive reporting periods.
OCI closed six complaints originating from detention facilities during the reporting period. One involved an allegation of theft of money and was appropriately transferred to IAD, albeit untimely. Four complainants lodged allegations of excessive force occurring during the arrests that resulted in their incarceration. In the final case, the complainant complained of improper demeanor in the cell block. The alleged interaction took place in an area outside the purview of video cameras, although the investigator explored that investigative lead. All of these cases were timely and we believe the findings were appropriate.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, and until such time as the transition of DPD’s detention responsibilities to the Michigan Department of Corrections is complete, we will:
• Continue to review all force, injury, and complaint incidents originating from detention facilities.
• Check, in applicable cases, for the appropriate use of handheld cameras, now that they are deployed in all detention facilities.
• Conduct field visits to various detention facilities to verify members’ knowledge of and the Department’s adherence to policy requirements.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 159 of 190 Pg ID 9685

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 158

October 14, 2013

¶ Requirements 58 Receipt of external complaints 59 Investigation of external complaints

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

XIV. GENERAL POLICIES CJ Requirement C60 In developing, revising, and augmenting the policies discussed in this Agreement, the DPD shall ensure that all terms are clearly defined. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. We found the DPD in Phase 2 compliance in all of the previous reporting periods. That status continues in this reporting period. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C61 The DPD shall continue to make available proposed policy revisions to the community, for review, comment and education. Such policy revisions shall also be published on the DPD’s website to allow comments to be provided directly to the DPD. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. See U71. The DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 60 Clearly define all terms in policies 61 Policy changes available to community

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 160 of 190 Pg ID 9686

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 159

October 14, 2013

XV. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
CJ Requirement C62
The DPD shall routinely evaluate the operation of the holding cells to minimize harm to staff and prisoners.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During this reporting period, CRIB staff inspected all of the facilities with holding cells and the DRH each month and documented their findings on Form 715 Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells. Upon review of the completed forms, we found that all forms contained critical findings – e.g., broken toilets and sprinkler heads, and inoperable video cameras. Requests for repairs had been made and were documented on the maintenance log. All 715 forms were complete with all of the required signatures.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C63
The DPD shall operate the holding cells in compliance with DPD’s comprehensive risk management plan including implementation of:
a) the risk management database;
b) the performance evaluation system;
c) the auditing protocol;
d) regular and periodic review of all DPD policies; and
e) regular meetings of the DPD management to share information and evaluate patterns of conduct by DPD that potentially increase the DPD’s liability.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Phase 2 compliance with this requirement is unchanged since the last report. The components of this requirement incorporate compliance requirements detailed in the Use of Force Consent Judgment and are applicable across the Department’s patrol and holding cell personnel. These include U91 with regard to personnel evaluations, U92-U99 which address audit requirements, policy review and monthly risk related reviews and U78-90 which establish requirements for the risk management database. Our findings of compliance with those requirements are reflected in the finding with regard to C63.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 161 of 190 Pg ID 9687

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 160

October 14, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C64
The DPD policy on video cameras shall be revised and augmented to require:
a. the installation and continuous operations of video cameras in all prisoner processing areas of the DPD holding cells within one year of the effective date of this Agreement;42
b. supervisors to review videotapes of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force and external complaints;
c. that the DPD retain and preserve videotapes for at least 90 days, or as long as necessary for incidents to be fully investigated; and
d. that the DPD conduct and document periodic random reviews of prisoners processing area camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes and conduct periodic random surveys of prisoners processing area video recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our previous inspections of holding cells, we observed the operation of video cameras in all processing areas and throughout the holding facilities. We noted that CRIB and/or detention staff conducts monthly random reviews of videos in processing areas as well as specific reviews when a use of force incident occurs.
During our January 2011 site visit, the Parties determined that video cameras were not required outside of the processing areas. During our previous site visits, the video cameras in all of the districts/precincts that maintain holding cells were operational in the processing areas.
We have observed that not all staff in the holding facilities are familiar with the mechanisms of retrieving archived video, and recommend that OCR be notified immediately when a supervisor cannot retrieve those videos.
During this reporting period we reviewed 37 Detainee Processing Area Video Forms (DPD-713, revised May 2012) from each of the five holding facilities and found that the Eastern District still experiences problems accessing archived video. On April 16, 2013, the ability of the Eastern District to review archived video of the processing area between the hours of 08:00 and 10:00 was sporadic. According to DPD’s Detainee Processing Area Video Review Form, the system went down three times in a two-hour time span. The Eastern District was unable to review the archived video on the same date between the hours of 12:00 and 02:00. On May 9, 2013, the
42 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 162 of 190 Pg ID 9688

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 161

October 14, 2013

Eastern District was unable to review archived video between the hours of 12:00AM and 0200 hours. DPD’s compliance rate for COC 64c is 96%.
DPD has purchased handheld video cameras to achieve compliance with C53, subparagraph c, which states: “The DPD shall revise and augment its policies regarding prisoners to require that: the supervisor assesses the need to use force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell, direct any such use of force and ensure the incident is videotaped.” Personnel in the five facilities were able to activate the handheld cameras. This equipment should be routinely checked to ensure its operability.
During this reporting period, we reviewed seven cases, within or at the holding facilities that involved a use of force or a prisoner injury; four of these cases involved detainees who were attempting suicide or the suicide attempt was utilized to garner attention. In one case a detainee refused to exit a scout car at the holding facility and a supervisor retrieved the handheld camera and videoed the vehicle extraction. One of the instances occurred at the Detroit Receiving Hospital and no video was available. In all other cases involving a use of force or detainee injury where video was available, the supervisor reviewed the video and included it in the findings of the report. The ability to pull up archived video at one of the holding facilities is sporadic and should be addressed by DPD immediately. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. In January 2013, the Department advised that they had addressed the hardware issues and was working on correcting the minor bugs remaining in the system. Issues still remain in the Eastern District, and DPD should find and implement a solution. Many of the issues of storing archived video should be resolved when the Michigan Department of Correction begins housing DPD detainees later this year. DPD’s compliance rate for all subsets of C64 is 96%.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C65
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled semiannual audits, covering all DPD units and commands that investigate uses of force, injuries to prisoners and allegations of misconduct in holding cells, including;
a. reviewing a statistically valid sample of command, IAD, and Homicide Section investigations;
b. evaluating whether the actions of the officer and the subject were captured correctly in the investigative report;
c. evaluating the preservation and analysis of the evidence;
d. examining whether there is consistency in use of force and injured prisoner investigations throughout the DPD;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 163 of 190 Pg ID 9689

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 162

October 14, 2013

e. evaluating the appropriateness of the investigator’s conclusions; and f. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.43
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its Combined Use of Force and Allegations of Misconduct in Holding Cells Investigations Audit for the audit period ending January 31, 2013. We reviewed the audit for that reporting period; and found that the Audit Team conducted a comprehensive audit regarding uses of force, injuries to prisoners, and allegations of misconduct in holding cells. The respective command staff were notified of the deficiencies and responded to the Command Action Notices with non-disciplinary corrective action and/or training as appropriate. The next semi-annual audit will have been completed by July 31, 2013; we will review it for our next report.
Accordingly, we continue to find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C66
The DPD shall create a Holding Cell Compliance Committee that is responsible for assuring compliance with requirements of this Agreement. The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate compliance with fire detection, suppression and evacuation program, including:
a. testing a sample of smoke detectors and sprinklers;
b. testing the back-up power systems;
c. reviewing a sample of fire equipment testing and maintenance records; and
d. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.

43Amended to reflect the below stipulated language contained in the Court order of April 15, 2009:
The audits required by paragraphs 65 to 71 in this Agreement shall be submitted on a semiannual basis with the first and second semiannual periods ending on January 31 and August 31, 2004. Subsequent semiannual periods shall end on January 31, 2005, and every six months thereafter. Each of these audits may be conducted on an annual rather than a semiannual basis when the Monitor concludes that the most recently submitted audit for the same topic is compliant, and the remaining requirements of this paragraph have been met for the prior audit of that topic. The DPD shall issue all audit reports to the Chief of Police and also provide copies to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take nondisciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 164 of 190 Pg ID 9690

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 163

October 14, 2013

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that meets monthly and collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team conducted the semi-annual Fire Safety Practices and Policies Audit that was completed for January 31, 2013. The audit was comprehensive and indicated that deficiencies were discovered relating to fire safety. The Audit Team found broken sprinkler heads at three of the precincts with holding cells, an open Fire Door at one district, and cigarette butts on the ground at all districts/precincts. The respective command staff were notified of the deficiencies and responded to the Command Action Notices with non-disciplinary corrective action and/or training as appropriate. We will review the next audit, scheduled for completion on July 31, 2013, in our next report.
During this reporting period, we inspected the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, and examined the policies and practices related to Departmental fire safety. Our current findings are documented in C14-22.
Accordingly, we continue to find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C67
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled audits in all buildings containing holdings cells to evaluate emergency preparedness, including;
a. reviewing a sample of key and fire equipment maintenance and inventory records; interviewing selected detention officers about their participation in fire drills and on their responsibilities under emergency preparedness program and testing their ability to identify keys necessary to unlock all holding cell doors; and
b. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit team completed the Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program audit for the period ending January 31, 2013. We confirmed that the DPD met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The Audit Team conducted tabletop exercises to determine the knowledge and skills of the personnel working in the

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 165 of 190 Pg ID 9691

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 164

October 14, 2013

Detention areas. The percentage of total correct answers was 97%, Department-wide. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for July 31, 2013, and we will review it for our next report.
The DPD developed and published a Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP) addressing safety and security, as required. The CEPP includes an emergency response plan for each district/precinct (see C24) and a key control system requirement (see C25).
During our most recent inspection of all districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, we examined the policies and practices related to the Emergency Preparedness Program. Our findings are discussed above in C23-25.
The DPD has conducted and documented fire drills, as required. The Fire Marshal conducted the required annual inspection of the Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program and the Fire Safety Program and approved both on July 18, 2013. Accordingly, we continue to find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with these requirements of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C68
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate the medical/mental health programs and policies, including:
a. reviewing a sampling of hospitals referral forms in comparison to prisoner intake forms to evaluate the accuracy of the intake screening and whether appropriate action was taken;
b. observing intake screening interviews to assess thoroughness;
c. reviewing a sampling of the prescription medication log to ensure that medications were administered as prescribed and that their distribution was accurately recorded; and
d. issuing a written report regarding the finding of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The most recent approval letter for the Comprehensive Medical/Mental Health Screening Program (CMMHSP) was signed by a medical and mental health Professional from the City’s Health Department on February 29, 2012.
The most recent semi-annual audit was completed for January 31, 2013. The audit is comprehensive and addresses the deficiencies by issuing Command Action Notices to the appropriate command staff. Included in the audit are the responses from the commanders,

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 166 of 190 Pg ID 9692

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 165

October 14, 2013

indicating training or issuance of non-disciplinary or disciplinary notices. The Audit Team found deficiencies again in C26, C28, C28d, C29, C29a, C31, C31c, C32, C32e, and C32g, Department-wide. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for July 31, 2013.
During this reporting period, we visited the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, and examined the policies and operational practices related to the Medical and Mental Health Program. Our findings are discussed above in C26-34.
The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for completion by July 31, 2013, and we will review it for our next report.
We conclude that the DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C69
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate detainee safety programs and policies, including;
a. reviewing a sampling of security screening records, including written supervisory approvals, to ensure that prisoners are being properly screened and housed;
b. reviewing a sampling of the cell checks logs to ensure that checks are being accurately and regularly performed and that cell checks logs are receiving supervisory review and written approval; and
c. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its audit results for the Detainee Safety Program on January 31, 2013. We reviewed the current audit independently, and found that many of the deficiencies founded are similar to our findings during our inspections. The Audit Team determined that there were deficiencies at the Twelfth, Sixth, and Second Precincts – specifically in C35 and C36. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for July 31, 2013, and we will review it for our next report.
Additionally, we independently reviewed the operational implementation of policies and practices related to the Detainee Safety Program during our visits to all five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells and the DRH. Our findings are discussed in C35-38.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 167 of 190 Pg ID 9693

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 166

October 14, 2013

We conclude that the DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of the requirements of this paragraph. Accordingly, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C70
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate the environmental health and safety programs, including:
a. inspecting holding cells and surrounding areas to ensure that they are clean and clear of debris and that the lighting, sinks, and toilets are operable;
b. reviewing a sampling of cleanings and maintenance logs to ensure they are properly maintained and reflected the scheduled performance of the requisite cleaning and maintenance tasks;
c. reviewing the systems in place for assuring that all prisoners have reasonable access to potable water and toilets 24 hours a day;
d. observing whether holding cells are free of any potential suicide hazards; and
e. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team completed its first combined semi-annual audit of the Environmental Health and Safety Program, Detainee Food Services and Personal Hygiene Policies and issued their findings on January 31, 2012. The audits were combined for efficiency reasons. They cover C70-71 and focus on Paragraphs C34, C39-45, and C49-51. Additionally, CRIB staff conducts monthly audits of the elements of this paragraph and documents the results on DPD Form 715 Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells. We reviewed the current Audit Team Report from January 31, 2013 and found it to be comprehensive. The Audit Team listed one area of concern, C41, Documentation of Maintenance Requests and Repairs. There were continuing deficiencies found at the Second, Sixth, and Twelfth Precincts. We continue to conduct inspections separately on operational implementation of policies and practices of the five districts/precincts with holding cells and the DRH. Our findings for the paragraph are discussed above in C39-46. The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for July 31, 2013, and we will review it for our next report.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 168 of 190 Pg ID 9694

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 167

October 14, 2013

DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C71
The Holding cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled semiannual audits of all building containing holding cells to evaluate the food service program, including:
a. reviewing a statistically valid sample of food service documentation to evaluate whether prisoners who are held over six hours receive regular and adequate meals;
b. assuring that food is handled in a sanitary manner; and
c. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its command-specific audit on the DPD food service program and hygiene practices on January 31, 2012. This was the first combined audit that also included Personal Hygiene Policies and Environmental Health and Safety Policies. We found the audit to be comprehensive and meeting the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this and the previous paragraph, C70. We reviewed the results of the audit that was conducted for January 31, 2013, and as stated in the previous paragraph, found it to also be comprehensive.
We continue to visit the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells. We examined the implementation of the policies and practices related to the food service program and hygiene practices. Our findings are discussed in C49-50.
The next semi-annual audit is scheduled for July 31, 2013, and we will review it for our next report.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 169 of 190 Pg ID 9695

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 168

October 14, 2013

CJ Requirement C72
The audits required by paragraphs 65 to 71 in this disciplinary action.44 Agreement shall be submitted on a semiannual basis with the first and second semiannual periods ending on January 31 and August 31, 2004. Subsequent semiannual periods shall end on January 31, 2005, and every six months thereafter. Each of these audits may be conducted on an annual rather than a semiannual basis when the Monitor concludes that the most recently submitted audit for the same topic is compliant and the remaining requirements of this paragraph have been met for the prior audit of that topic. The DPD shall issue all audit reports to the Chief of Police and also provide copies to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take non-disciplinary corrective action or disc
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CRIB is mandated under this Consent Judgment paragraph to provide written reports for the Chief of Police and specified commanders. In previous reporting periods, we found that the various reports and field responses were unacceptable, in that these reports were specific to the district/precinct and did not receive sufficient attention. The CRIB conducted a review of the audit process, and subsequently changed the audit process to focus on individual commands. These command-specific audits were anticipated to result in clearer command accountability and increased awareness to issues that are identified through the audit process.
For the last reporting period, we received and reviewed the command-specific audits for the period ending January 31, 2013. The audits included are Medical and Mental Health Program and Policies; Combined Environmental Health and Safety; Detainee Food Service and Personal Hygiene Practices; Fire Safety Practices and Policies; Allegations of Misconduct in Holding Cells and Uses of Force in Holding Cells Combined; and Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program. We also reviewed the Corrective Action Notices from the commands that were submitted prior to February 15, 2013. The next set of audits is due to be completed by July31, 2013, and we will report on these audits in our next quarterly report. Although we find the audits to be comprehensive and accurate, we cannot recommend that they be conducted on an annual basis due to the excessive number of repeat deficiencies that continue to be discovered.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

44 Amended by Court Order, dated April 15, 2009.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 170 of 190 Pg ID 9696

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 169

October 14, 2013

¶ Requirements 62 Evaluation of holding cell operation 63 Operate cells in compliance with risk plan 64 Augment policy regarding video cameras 65 Quarterly audits required 66 Fire safety audits required 67 Emergency preparedness audits required 68 Medical/mental health program audit 69 Detainee safety audits required 70 Environmental health/safety audits 71 Food service program audits required 72 Audit results to Chief and Commanders

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

CJ Requirement C73
The DPD shall provide comprehensive pre-service and in-service training to all detention officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During past site visits, we have conducted surveys to evaluate the comprehensiveness of training provided to detention officers, and determine the Department’s compliance with its policies requiring that officers who are assigned detention duties have been afforded detention training. DPD steadily improved in this area. In our January 2011 review, we found for the first time that DPD was in compliance with this requirement. The Department continued throughout 2011 and 2012 in compliance; over 95% of the officers who were assigned to detention duties in 2011 had been trained in detention as required.
During our April 2013 site visit, we again randomly sampled the Daily Details for precincts and districts where detention responsibilities are fulfilled found that 97% of officers and supervisors who fulfilled detention duties during the three days had received detention training during the previous year.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 171 of 190 Pg ID 9697

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 170

October 14, 2013

During our most recent site visit, we interviewed the Training staff and sampled the Daily Details for precincts and districts where detention duties are fulfilled. Our review of a three-day random sample (Wednesday, April 24; Thursday, May 9; and Friday, June 14, 2013) found that 152 (93%) of the 164 officers and supervisors who handled detention duties had received the required training during the past year. Since >94% is required for compliance, DPD slipped below the level required during this reporting period. Inasmuch as DPD has been in compliance since January 2011, we will continue the Department in compliance until our next quarterly review. If it does not reach >94%, we will find it to be non-compliant at that time.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C74
The DPD shall create and maintain individual training records for all detention officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training, completed for all training completed on or after the effective date of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
In July 2011, we found that, for the first time, DPD had completed the entry of all training records since 2003 into the Michigan MITN automated records system. During this site visit, we again verified the accuracy of the DPD Training records (see U108) and their entry into the MITN system. DPD was able to produce an accurate and current list of officers and supervisors who received in-service training. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C75
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors of detention officer and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in emergency preparedness. Such training shall include drills and substantive training in the following topics:
a. Emergency response plans and notification responsibilities;
b. Fire drills and use of fire extinguishers and other fire suppression equipment;
c. Key control drills and key control policies and procedures; and
d. Responding to emergency situations, including scenarios detention officers likely will experience.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 172 of 190 Pg ID 9698

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 171

October 14, 2013

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement C76
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in the medical/mental health screening programs and policies. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. prisoner intake procedures and medical and mental health protocols, including protocols for transferring or housing prisoners with infectious diseases, disabilities and/or requiring increased monitoring;
b. recording, updating and transferring prisoner health information and medications
c. the prescription medication policy, including instructions on the storage, recording and administration of medications; and
d. examples of scenarios faced by detention officers illustrating proper intake screening and action in response to information regarding medical and mental health conditions.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
This requirement addresses training to be afforded to all detention officers, supervisors, and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee. In our January 2013 review, we found that all (100%) members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee received this training. As noted in C73, we found in our random survey that 93% of the officers and supervisors serving in detention duties received the required annual detention training. Since >94% is required for compliance, DPD slipped below the level required during this quarter. Inasmuch as DPD has been in compliance since January 2011 we will continue it in compliance until our next quarterly review. If it does not reach >94%, we will find it to be non-compliant at that time.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C77
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in detainee safety programs and policies. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. the security screening program, including protocols for identifying and promptly and properly housing suspected crime partners, vulnerable, assaultive or special management prisoners;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 173 of 190 Pg ID 9699

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 172

October 14, 2013

b. protocols for performing, documenting and obtaining supervisory review of holding cell checks;
c. protocols concerning prisoners in observation cells, including protocols for direct and continual supervision, for spotting potential suicide hazards and providing appropriate clothing; and
d. examples of scenarios faced by detention officers illustrating appropriate security screening, segregation and monitoring techniques.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
This requirement addresses training to be afforded to all detention officers, supervisors, and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee. Since we determined that all (100%) members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee and our random review of training files during this reporting period showed that 93% of the officers serving in detention duties received this training. As noted in C73, we found in our random survey that 93% of the officers and supervisors serving in detention duties received the required annual detention training. Since 94% is required for compliance, DPD slipped below the level required during this quarter. Inasmuch as DPD has been in compliance since January 2011 we will continue it in compliance until our next quarterly review. If it does not reach >94% we will find it to be non-compliant at that time.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C78 The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in environmental health and safety and hygiene. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. cell block cleaning and maintenance protocols; and b. sanitary food preparation and delivery protocols. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

¶ Requirements 73 Pre-service and in-service training 74 Maintain records training

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 174 of 190 Pg ID 9700

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 173

October 14, 2013

¶ Requirements 75 Emergency preparedness training 76 Medical/mental health training 77 Detainee safety programs training 78 Environmental, safety, and hygiene training

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 175 of 190 Pg ID 9701

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 174

October 14, 2013

APPENDIX A: Use of Force – Directives/Policies

USE OF FORCE POLICY

14

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

15

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; and Training Directive 04-3,

Use of Force Continuum, effective May 9, 2005.

16

See paragraph #15 above.

17

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

18

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, approved by DOJ April 14, 2005, effective March 19, 2012; and

DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30,

2012.

19

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

20

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective September 27, 2012, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective August 4, 2011 which replaced DPD Directive 304.1, effective November 2010;

and Directive 304.5, Training, effective July 10, 2012, which replaced Directive 304.5, Training,

effective May 13, 2011.

21

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective September 27, 2012, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective August 4, 2011, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1, effective November 2010,

and in Directive 304.5, Training, effective July 10, 2012, which replaced Directive 304.5, Training,

effective May 13, 2011.

22

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective September 27, 2012, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective May 2, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and August 4, 2011).

23

See paragraph #22 above. Also, Directive 304.5, Training, effective July 10, 2012, which replaced

Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011.

24

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 304.4, PR 24

Collapsible Baton, effective July 1,2008 (revised November 1, 2010 and May 15, 2013); DPD

Directive 201.11, Use of Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012;

and Training Directive 04-3, Use of Force Continuum, effective May 9, 2005.

25

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 304.3, Chemical Spray

Device, effective July 2, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010); and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

26

See paragraph #25 above.

INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW

27

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct

Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; DPD Directive 102.6 Citizens Complaints, effective July 1,

2008 (revised November 2010) (revised April 13, 2011) (revised December 29 2012); Training

Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009); Office of the

Chief Investigator, Standard Operating Procedure, July 1, 2010; and Internal Affairs Standard

Operating Procedure, January 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 176 of 190 Pg ID 9702

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 175

October 14, 2013

28

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 102.4,

Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; and

29

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 102.4,

Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; DPD Directive 203.3, Notifications,

effective February 22, 2012; Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006

(revised October 24, 2009); Internal Affairs Standard Operating Procedure, (January 2011); and

Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedure (July 1, 2010).

30

See paragraph #29 above.

31

Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, dated February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009).

32

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 102.4,

Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; Training Directive 04-4, Garrity

Protocol, effective February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009); Internal Affairs Standard Operating

Procedure (January 2011); and Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedure (July 1,

2010).

33

See paragraph #32 above.

34

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective May 2, 2005 and revised August 4, 2011 (revised September 27, 2012); and

Training Directive 11-01, Reporting/Documenting The “Acquiring of a Target” effective August 4,

2011, Training Directive 11-01a, Reporting/Documenting The “Acquiring of a Target” Audio/Video

Review of the Incident, effective April 11, 2012

35

See paragraph #34 above and DPD Directive 203.3, Notifications, effective February 22, 2012.

36

See paragraph #34 above.

37

See paragraph #34 above. Also DPD Joint Incident Shooting Team Standard Operating Procedures

and DPD Training Directive 04-07, Use of Force/Detainee Injuries or Allegations of Injuries

Reporting and Investigating, effective November 21, 2005.

38

See paragraph #37 above.

39

DPD Special Order 09-13, Command Level Force Review Team (CLFRT) dated March 2, 2009,

replaced with DPD Special Order 11-02, effective January 1, 2011; and DPD Directive 101.9, Special

Purposes Committees, effective February 22, 2012 (revised September 27, 2012).

40

See paragraph #39 above.

41

See paragraph #39 above.

ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES

42

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 2010 (revised December

6, 2012 and March 7, 2013).

43

See paragraph #42 above.

44

See paragraph #42 above (202.1); 202.2, Search and Seizure, effective May 2, 2005; revised

November 2010; 203.9, Custodial Questioning, effective November 20, 2010 (revised February 6,

2013); and 404.1, Definitions, effective November 20, 2010.

45

See paragraph #42 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 177 of 190 Pg ID 9703

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 176

October 14, 2013

46

DPD Directive 203.9, Custodial Questioning, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 20, 2010

(revised November 17, 2011 and February 6, 2013).

47

See paragraph #46 above.

48

See paragraph #46 above.

49

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 20, 2010 (revised

December 6, 2012 and March 7, 2013).

50

See paragraph #49 above.

51

See paragraph #49 above.

52

DPD Directive 305.2, Detainee Registration, and effective September 12, 2005 (revised July 26,

2012).

53

See paragraph #52 above.

54

See paragraph #52 above.

55

See paragraph #52 above.

56

DPD Directives 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 20, 2010) (revised

December 6, 2012 and March 7, 2013) and 305.2, Detainee Registration, effective September 12,

2005 (revised July 26, 2012). Also Training Directive #04-01, Confinement of Material Witness,

effective March 1, 2005.

57

See paragraph #56 above.

58

See paragraph #56 above.

59

See paragraph #56 above.

60

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 20, 2010) (revised

December 6, 2012 and March 7, 2013); and DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May

9, 2005 (revised March 3, 2010 and January 9, 2013).

EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS

61

DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 2010) (revised

December 29, 2012); IAD Standard Operating Procedures, Sections 1 and 3 (January 2011); and OCI

Standard Operating Procedure, effective July 24, 2003 (revised April 29, 2004, and July 1, 2010)

(revised July 6, 2012).

62

Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedures, effective July 24, 2003 (revised April

29, 2004, and July 1, 2010).

63

DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 2010) (revised

April 13, 2011) (revised December 29, 2012).

64

See paragraph #61 above. Also see DPD Directive 102.6 (revised December 29, 2012).

65

See paragraph #63 above.

66

See paragraph #61 above.

67

See paragraph #61 above.

68

See paragraph #65 above.

69

See paragraph #61 above. Also DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations,

effective July 1, 2008; and Training Directive 04-4 Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006

(revised October 24, 2009).

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 178 of 190 Pg ID 9704

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 177

October 14, 2013

GENERAL POLICIES

70

DPD Directives 101.1, Directive System, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) (revised

May 2, 2012) and 404.1, Definitions, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010).

71

DPD Directive 101.1, Directive System, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) (revised

May 2, 2012). The DPD also utilizes a Protocol for Proposed Policy Revisions; an SOP outlining

procedures for posting proposed policies to the website; and a flow chart (Visio-DPD Policy Flow

Chart) that tracks the movements of proposed policy revisions through the Department and public

review.

72

DPD Directive 102.3, Code of Conduct, effective November 1, 2009 (revised November 1, 2010)

(revised July 24, 2012) (revised December 6, 2012).

73

On November 6, 2007, the DPD agreed to a 1:10 ratio of supervisors to officers in patrol and

specialized units.45 Also Directive 101.10, Organization and Management, effective March 30, 2011.

74

DPD Directive 102.3, Code of Conduct, effective November 1, 2009 (revised November 1, 2010)

(revised July 24, 2012) (revised December 6, 2012).

75

See paragraph #74 above. Also DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective May 2. 2005 (revised

November 1, 2010 and August 4, 2011) (revised September 27, 2012).

76

Directives 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised effective March 1 2010)

(revised July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013) and 305.7, Transportation of Detainees, effective February

29, 2012.

77

DPD Directive 202.7, Foot Pursuits, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) (revised May

26, 2011).

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

78

DPD Directive 401.13, Management Awareness System, effective November 6, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010).

79

See paragraph #78 above.

80

See paragraph #78 above.

81

See paragraph #78 above. Also see the DPD Data Input Plan, approved by the Department of Justice,

June 9, 2011.

82

See paragraph #81 above.

83

See paragraph #78 above.

84

See paragraph #78 above.

85

See paragraph #78 above.

86

See paragraph #81 above.

87

See paragraph #78 above.

88

See paragraph #78 above.

89

See paragraph #78 above.

45Section I, Paragraph of the UOF CJ defines a supervisor as a sworn DPD employee at the rank of sergeant or above and non-sworn employees with oversight responsibility for DPD employees.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 179 of 190 Pg ID 9705

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 178

October 14, 2013

90

See paragraph #81 above.

91

DPD Directive 401.2, Performance Evaluation Ratings, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1,

2010 and June 20, 2013).

92

DPD Audit Protocol, effective September 30, 2011. Annual revision required.

93

See paragraph #92 above.

94

See paragraph #92 above.

95

See paragraph #92 above.

96

See paragraph #92 above.

97

See paragraph #92 above.

98

DPD Directive 303.3, In-Car Video, effective March 8, 2012 (revised September 4, 2012 and March

7, 2013).

99

DPD Directive 304.5 Training, effective May 13, 2011 (revised July 10, 2012).

100

DPD Directive 303.3, In-Car Video, effective March 8, 2012 revised September 4, 2012 and March 7,

2013).

101

See paragraph #100 above. Also, Teletype #11-1468, Roll Call Informational Bulletin, Use of

Department Issued In-Car Video Equipment and Body Microphones.

102

See paragraph #100 above.

103

DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective July 1, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010) (revised May 2, 2012) and the related DPD Discipline Matrix (DPD22a).

104

See paragraph #103 above.

105

See paragraph #103 above.

TRAINING

106

DPD Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011 (revised July 10, 2012).

107

See paragraph #106 above.

108

See paragraph #106 above.

109

See paragraph #106 above.

110

See paragraph #106 above.

111

See paragraph #106 above.

112

See paragraph #106 above.

113

See paragraph #106 above. Also Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective August 4, 2011 (revised

September 27, 2012).

114

See paragraph #106 above.

115

See paragraph #106 above.

116

See paragraph #106 above.

117

See paragraph #106 above.

118

See paragraph #106 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 180 of 190 Pg ID 9706

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 179

October 14, 2013

119

See paragraph #106 above.

120

See paragraph #106 above.

121

See paragraph #106 above.

122

See paragraph #106 above.

123

See paragraph #106 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 181 of 190 Pg ID 9707

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 180

October 14, 2013

APPENDIX B: Conditions of Confinement – Directives/Policies

FIRE SAFETY POLICIES

14

DPD Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan (CEPP), which includes a Fire Safety Plan (FSP)

requiring compliance with the Life Safety Code and inspections. The FSP was approved by DOJ on

May 23, 2006. The Fire Marshal reviews the FSP annually; the last review was conducted on June 7,

2012. Also, DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective July 6, 2012 (revised January 9,

2013).

15

See paragraph #14 above.

16

See paragraph #14 above.

17

See paragraph #14 above.

18

See paragraph #14 above.

19

See paragraph #14 above.

20

See paragraph #14 above.

21

See paragraph #14 above.

22

See paragraph #14 above.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES

23

DPD Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan (CEPP), effective May 2011 and DPD Directive

305.4, effective April 21, 2011 (revised July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013).

24

See paragraph #23 above.

25

See paragraph #23 above.

MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES

26

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake Assessment; effective May 2, 2012; 305.5, Detainee Health

Care and; effective February 22, 2012; 403.2, Infectious Disease Control Plan, effective February 29,

2012, reviewed and updated by a qualified health care professional on February 17, 2012 and

February 29, 2012 as required (revised May 29, 2013). DPD Directive 305.5 cited above along with

forms and logs, comprises the Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening program

(CMMHSP).

27

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

28

See paragraphs #26.

29

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.1).

30

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 403.2).

31

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

32

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

33

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.1)

34

See paragraph #26 above.

PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES

35

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake, effective May 2, 2012; Directive 305.2, Detainee

Registration (revised July 26, 2012); Directive 305.3, Detainee Personal Property, effective May 20,

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 182 of 190 Pg ID 9708

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 181

October 14, 2013

2010 (revised November 3, 2011); DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective February 1, 2008 (revised July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013); Directive 305.5, Detainee Health Care, effective February 22, 2012;Directive 305.7, Transportation of Detainees; effective February 29, 2012 and Directive 305.8, Detainee Food Service and Hygiene, effective May 2, 2012 (revised July 19, 2012 and January 9, 2013).

36

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.1)

37

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.4).

38

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.1 and 305.4).

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES

39

DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective February 1, 2008 (revised July 6, 2012 and

January 9, 2013). Annual review and revision required.

40

See paragraph #39 above.

41

See paragraph #39 above.

42

See paragraph #39 above.

43

See paragraph #39 above.

44

See paragraph #39 above.

45

See paragraph #39 above.

46

See paragraph #39 above.

POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

47

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake and Assessment, effective May 2, 2012 (revised February 29,

2012); and 305.5, Detainee Health Care, effective February 22, 2012, approved and updated by a

qualified medical and mental health professional on February 17, 2012 and February 29, 2012. Also

the Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening Program (CMMHSP), reviewed by the

Consulting Department Physician, April 8, 2013.

48

See paragraph #47 above (DPD Directive 305.1).

FOOD SERVICE POLICIES

49

DPD Directive 305.8, Detainee Food Service, effective May 2, 2012 (revised July 19, 2012 and

January 9, 2013).

50

See paragraph #49 above.

PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES

51

See paragraph #49 above.

USE OF FORCE AND RESTRAINTS POLICIES

52

DPD Directives 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 1, 2010) (revised

July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013) and 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive

201.11, Use of Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012.

53

See paragraph #52 above.

54

See paragraph #52 above.

INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 183 of 190 Pg ID 9709

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 182

October 14, 2013

55

DPD Directives 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and 305.4, Holding Cell Areas,

effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 1, 2010) (revised July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013) and DPD

Directive 201.11, Use of Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30,

2012.

56

See paragraph 55 above. Also DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012 and

DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August

30, 2012.

57

See paragraph #55 above.

EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS

58

See paragraph #55 above. Also see DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008

(revised November 2010) (revised April 13, 2011) (revised December 6, 2012).

59

See paragraph #58 above.

GENERAL POLICIES

60

DPD Directive 404.1, Definitions, effective November 2010.

61

DPD Directive 101.1, Written Directive System, effective November 2010 (revised May 2, 2012).

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

62

DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised April 21, 2011) (revised

July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013).

63

DPD Directive 401.13, Management Awareness System, effective November 6, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010); DPD Directive 401.2, Performance Evaluation Ratings, effective July 1, 2008

(revised November 1, 2010 and June 20, 2013); and DPD Audit Protocol, effective September 30,

2011.

64

See paragraph #62 above.

65

DPD Audit Protocol meeting generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS), effective

August 31, 2008 (revised October 31, 2010 and September 11, 2011).

66

See paragraph #65 above.

67

See paragraph #65 above.

68

See paragraph #65 above.

69

See paragraph #65 above.

70

See paragraph #65 above.

71

See paragraph #65 above.

72

See paragraph #65 above.

TRAINING

73

Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011(revised July 10, 2012).

74

See paragraph #73 above.

75

See paragraph #73 above.

76

See paragraph #73 above.

77

See paragraph #73 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 184 of 190 Pg ID 9710

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 183

October 14, 2013

78

See paragraph #73 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 185 of 190 Pg ID 9711

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 184

October 14, 2013

APPENDIX C: Acronyms
The following is a listing of acronyms frequently used in our quarterly reports.

ACRONYM AT BOPC CAM CBS CCR CDDT CEPP CFD CI City CJ CLBR CLFRT CLO CLI CME CMMHSP CO COC CJ CRIB DCCL DDHWP DDMHIL DFD DFF DFO/PDO DDHWP

DEFINITION Audit Team Board of Police Commissioners Command Accountability Meeting Cell Block Supervisor Citizen Complaint Report Curriculum Design and Development Team Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program Critical Firearm Discharge Chief Investigator City of Detroit Consent Judgment Command Level Board of Review Command Level Force Review Team Compliance Liaison Officer Command Level Investigation Confidential Medical Envelope Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening Program Commanding Officer Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment Civil Rights Integrity Bureau Detention Cell Check Log Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Program Daily Detainee Meal and Hygiene Items Log Detroit Fire Department Detainee File Folders Detention Facility Officer Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Promotion

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 186 of 190 Pg ID 9712

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 185

October 14, 2013

DIF DOJ DPD DRH EMS EPP ERP FI FIS FSP FSPP FY GAS HCCC IA IAD IMAS ITS JIST MAS MCOLES MITN OCI OCR OIC PDDSL PDO PEERS PFC PI PSA

Detainee Intake Form Department of Justice Detroit Police Department Detroit Receiving Hospital Emergency Medical Services Emergency Preparedness Program Emergency Response Plan Force Investigations (interchangeable with FIS) Force Investigation Section Fire Safety Program Fire Safety Practices and Policies Fiscal Year Government Auditing Standards Holding Cell Compliance Committee Internal Affairs Internal Affairs Division Interim Management Awareness System Information Technology Services Joint Incident Shooting Team Management Awareness System Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards MCCOLES Information and Tracking System Office of the Chief Investigator Office of Civil Rights Officer in Charge Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Log Police Detention Officer Performance Evaluation and Enhancement Review Session Policy Focus Committee Performance Indicator Public Service Announcement

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 187 of 190 Pg ID 9713

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 186

October 14, 2013

RFP RMB SIR SME SMT SOP TA UOF CJ UOF USAO WCPO WCJ

Request for Proposals Risk Management Bureau Supervisor’s Investigation Report Subject Matter Expert Senior Management Team Standard Operating Procedure(s) Technical Assistance Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention Consent Judgment Use(s) of Force United States Attorney’s Office Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office Wayne County Jail

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 188 of 190 Pg ID 9714

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 187

October 14, 2013

APPENDIX D: Monitoring Team
Robert S. Warshaw, Monitor Chief (Ret.) Charles D. Reynolds, Deputy Monitor

Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) J. Rick Brown
Evaluates compliance with U16-17 and U19, General Use of Force Policy; U22, Use of Firearms Policy; U24, Intermediate Force Device Policy; U25-26, Chemical Spray Policy; U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34-36, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; and U37-41, Review of Critical Firearm Discharges and In-Custody Deaths.

Division Chief (Ret.) Rachel M. Burgess
Evaluates compliance with U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; U61-63, External Complaints; U64-66, Intake and Tracking; and U67-69, External Complaint Investigations; C14-22, Fire Safety Policies; C23-25, Emergency Preparedness Policies; C60-61, General Policies; and C65-72, Management and Supervision.

Commander (Ret.) John M. Girvin
Evaluates compliance with U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U61-63, External Complaints; U64-66, Intake and Tracking; U67-69, External Complaint Investigations; and C5859, External Complaints.

Chief (Ret.) Eduardo Gonzalez
Evaluates compliance with U14-19, General Use of Force Policy; U22, Use of Firearms Policy; U24, Intermediate Force Device Policy; U25-26, Chemical Spray Policy; U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34-36, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; and U70-72 and U74-77, General Policies.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 189 of 190 Pg ID 9715

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 188

October 14, 2013

John M. Klofas, Ph.D.
Evaluates compliance with U78-90, Risk Management Database; U91, Performance Evaluation System; U92-97, Oversight; and U103-105, Discipline.

Leonard F. Rice, M.E.S., R.S.
Evaluates compliance with C35-38, Prisoner Safety Policies; C39-46, Environmental Health and Safety Policies; C47-48, Policies Concerning Persons with Disabilities; C49-50, Food Service Policies; and C51, Personal Hygiene Policies.

Chief (Ret.) Billy R. Riggs
Evaluates compliance with U42-43, Arrest Policies; U44-45, Investigatory Stop Policies; U4648, Witness Identification and Questioning Policies; U49-51, Prompt Judicial Review Policies; U52-53, Hold Policies; U54-55, Restriction Policies; U56-57, Material Witness Policies; U58, Documentation of Custodial Detention; U59-60, Command Notification; C26-34, Medical and Mental Health Care Policies; and C64, Management and Supervision Policies.

Asst. Director (Ret.) Joseph R. Wolfinger
Evaluates compliance with U20-21 and U23, Use of Firearms Policy; U73, Pre-Service and InService Training for all Detention Officers; U98-99, Oversight; U100-102, Use of Video Cameras; U106-111, Oversight and Development; U112, Use of Force Training; U113, Firearms Training; U114, Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training; U115-117, Custodial Detention Training; U118-120, Supervisory Training; U121-122, Investigator Training; U123, Field Training; C73, Pre-Service and In-Service Detention Training; C74, Retention of Detention Officer Training Records; C75, Detention Officer Emergency Preparedness Training; C76, Detention Officer Medical/Mental Health Training; C77, Detainee Safety Programs and Policies; and Environmental Health and Safety and Hygiene Training.

Robin Busch-Wheaton Editor

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 663-1 Filed 10/15/13 Pg 190 of 190 Pg ID 9716

SIXTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 189

APPENDIX E: Detroit Police Department Management Dashboard Data
The table below presents data on measures relevant to the requirements set forth in the Consent Judgments. The data were compiled by the Detroit Police Department, and are displayed for presentation by the Monitoring Team. These data are presented here with the consent of the Police Department and serve simply as a means to provide information relevant to issues raised in the Consent Judgments.

Dashboard Data: Detroit Police Department 7/12-6/13

July	
  2012 August Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan.	
  2013 Feb	
  

March April May June

12	
  month	
  graph

Total	
  Arrests

1827

1728

1460 1481 1508 1423 1386 1244 1703 1583 1760 1494

Number of Events per 1000 Arrests

Uses	
  of	
  Force Firearms	
  Discharge Citizen	
  Complaints Traffic	
  Crashes Civil	
  Litigation Vehicle	
  Chases Disciplinary	
  Action	
  Closed	
  Date

49.26 3.28 67.87 3.83 10.95 2.74 5.47

63.08 3.47 54.40 3.47 13.31 4.05 14.47

46.58 2.05 46.58 10.27 3.42 6.16 4.11

47.94 5.40 74.27 7.43 6.08 7.43 1.35

72.94 2.65 39.12 3.98 5.97 7.29 0.00

28.81 0.00 54.81 9.84 7.73 5.62 0.70

49.78 1.44 66.38 6.49 1.44 3.61 25.25

61.90 4.02 28.94 8.84 1.61 2.41 8.84

36.99 1.17 29.36 7.63 0.00 7.05 0.00

46.11 3.79 57.49 2.53 8.21 4.42 6.32

54.55 0.57 41.48 6.82 6.82 3.98 9.09

53.55 2.68 57.56 6.02 1.34 2.01 18.07

Arrests	
  for	
  Assault	
  and	
  Battery	
  on	
  a	
  PO	
   Resisting	
  or	
  Obstructing	
  Arrests Disorderly	
  Conduct	
  Arrests Interfering	
  Arrests Total	
  Consent	
  Judgment	
  noted	
  Arrests	
  (above	
  4)	
  

10.40 21.35 3.28 3.83 38.86

10.42 29.51 5.21 2.89 48.03

10.27 24.66 4.11 0.00 39.04

14.18 16.21 2.03 2.70 35.11

24.54 33.82 5.97 3.98 68.30

7.73 18.97 4.92 0.70 32.33

15.15 19.48 0.72 0.72 36.08

18.49 19.29 8.84 0.00 46.62

3.52 25.25 0.00 1.17 0.00

6.95 22.74 0.00 1.90 31.59

6.82 28.98 6.82 1.70 44.32

14.06 22.09 0.67 4.69 41.50

October 14, 2013

 2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 1 of 182 Pg ID 9763
SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT
Independent Monitor
Robert S. Warshaw Office of the Independent Monitor Police Performance Solutions, LLC
January 16, 2014

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 2 of 182 Pg ID 9764
Table of Contents
SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 10
SECTION TWO: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT .............................................................................................. 16 III. USE OF FORCE POLICY ................................................................................................................................. 16 A. General Use of Force Policy ........................................................................................................................... 18
CJ Requirement U14........................................................................................................................................... 18 CJ Requirement U15........................................................................................................................................... 18 CJ Requirement U16........................................................................................................................................... 19 CJ Requirement U17........................................................................................................................................... 20 CJ Requirement U18........................................................................................................................................... 20 CJ Requirement U19........................................................................................................................................... 21 CJ Requirement U20........................................................................................................................................... 21 CJ Requirement U21........................................................................................................................................... 22 B. Use of Firearms Policy .................................................................................................................................... 22 CJ Requirement U22........................................................................................................................................... 22 CJ Requirement U23........................................................................................................................................... 22 C. Intermediate Force Device Policy ................................................................................................................... 23 CJ Requirement U24........................................................................................................................................... 23 D. Chemical Spray Policy .................................................................................................................................... 23 CJ Requirement U25........................................................................................................................................... 24 CJ Requirement U26........................................................................................................................................... 24
IV. DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW............................................................................ 26 A. General Investigations of Police Action.......................................................................................................... 26 CJ Requirement U27........................................................................................................................................... 26 CJ Requirement U28........................................................................................................................................... 28 CJ Requirement U29........................................................................................................................................... 31 CJ Requirement U30........................................................................................................................................... 34 CJ Requirement U31........................................................................................................................................... 36 CJ Requirement U32........................................................................................................................................... 36 CJ Requirement U33........................................................................................................................................... 41

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 3 of 182 Pg ID 9765

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 2

January 16, 2014

B. Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations ............................................................................................... 42 CJ Requirement U34........................................................................................................................................... 42 CJ Requirement U35........................................................................................................................................... 43 CJ Requirement U36........................................................................................................................................... 45 CJ Requirement U37........................................................................................................................................... 46 CJ Requirement U38........................................................................................................................................... 47 CJ Requirement U39........................................................................................................................................... 49 CJ Requirement U40........................................................................................................................................... 50 CJ Requirement U41........................................................................................................................................... 51

V. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES ........................................................................ 53 A. Arrest Policies.................................................................................................................................................... 54 CJ Requirement U42........................................................................................................................................... 54 CJ Requirement U43........................................................................................................................................... 55 B. Investigatory Stop Policies ................................................................................................................................ 55 CJ Requirement U44........................................................................................................................................... 55 CJ Requirement U45........................................................................................................................................... 56 C. Witness Identification and Questioning Policies ............................................................................................... 58 CJ Requirement U46........................................................................................................................................... 58 CJ Requirement U47........................................................................................................................................... 59 CJ Requirement U48........................................................................................................................................... 59 D. Prompt Judicial Review Policies ....................................................................................................................... 60 CJ Requirement U49........................................................................................................................................... 60 CJ Requirement U50........................................................................................................................................... 61 CJ Requirement U51........................................................................................................................................... 61 E. Hold Policies ...................................................................................................................................................... 62 CJ Requirement U52........................................................................................................................................... 62 CJ Requirement U53........................................................................................................................................... 63 F. Restriction Policies.............................................................................................................................................. 64 CJ Requirement U54........................................................................................................................................... 64 CJ Requirement U55........................................................................................................................................... 65 G. Material Witness Policies .................................................................................................................................. 65 CJ Requirement U56........................................................................................................................................... 65 CJ Requirement U57........................................................................................................................................... 65 H. Documentation of Custodial Detention ............................................................................................................. 66 CJ Requirement U58........................................................................................................................................... 66

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 4 of 182 Pg ID 9766

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 3

January 16, 2014

I. Command Notification........................................................................................................................................ 66 CJ Requirement U59........................................................................................................................................... 66 CJ Requirement U60........................................................................................................................................... 67

VI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS ............................................................................................................................ 70 CJ Requirement U61........................................................................................................................................... 71 CJ Requirement U62........................................................................................................................................... 71 CJ Requirement U63........................................................................................................................................... 72
A. Intake and Tracking ........................................................................................................................................... 72 CJ Requirement U64........................................................................................................................................... 72 CJ Requirement U65........................................................................................................................................... 72 CJ Requirement U66........................................................................................................................................... 73
B. External Complaint Investigations..................................................................................................................... 73 CJ Requirement U67........................................................................................................................................... 73 CJ Requirement U68........................................................................................................................................... 76 CJ Requirement U69........................................................................................................................................... 76

VII. GENERAL POLICIES ..................................................................................................................................... 79 CJ Requirement U70........................................................................................................................................... 79 CJ Requirement U71........................................................................................................................................... 79 CJ Requirement U72........................................................................................................................................... 79 CJ Requirement U73........................................................................................................................................... 80 CJ Requirement U74........................................................................................................................................... 80 CJ Requirement U75........................................................................................................................................... 81 CJ Requirement U76........................................................................................................................................... 82 CJ Requirement U77........................................................................................................................................... 82

VIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION ....................................................................................................... 83 A. Risk Management Database........................................................................................................................... 83 CJ Requirement U78........................................................................................................................................... 83 CJ Requirement U79........................................................................................................................................... 84 CJ Requirement U80........................................................................................................................................... 85 CJ Requirement U81........................................................................................................................................... 89 CJ Requirement U82........................................................................................................................................... 89 CJ Requirement U83........................................................................................................................................... 90 CJ Requirement U84........................................................................................................................................... 91

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 5 of 182 Pg ID 9767

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 4

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement U85........................................................................................................................................... 93 CJ Requirement U86........................................................................................................................................... 93 CJ Requirement U87........................................................................................................................................... 93 CJ Requirement U88........................................................................................................................................... 94 CJ Requirement U89........................................................................................................................................... 95 CJ Requirement U90........................................................................................................................................... 95 B. Performance Evaluation System ........................................................................................................................ 96 CJ Requirement U91........................................................................................................................................... 96 C. Oversight............................................................................................................................................................ 97 CJ Requirement U92........................................................................................................................................... 97 CJ Requirement U93........................................................................................................................................... 97 CJ Requirement U94........................................................................................................................................... 98 CJ Requirement U95........................................................................................................................................... 98 CJ Requirement U96........................................................................................................................................... 99 CJ Requirement U97........................................................................................................................................... 99 CJ Requirement U98......................................................................................................................................... 100 CJ Requirement U99......................................................................................................................................... 102 D. Use of Video Cameras ..................................................................................................................................... 102 CJ Requirement U100....................................................................................................................................... 102 CJ Requirement U101....................................................................................................................................... 103 CJ Requirement U102....................................................................................................................................... 105 E. Discipline ......................................................................................................................................................... 107 CJ Requirement U103....................................................................................................................................... 108 CJ Requirement U104....................................................................................................................................... 108 CJ Requirement U105....................................................................................................................................... 108

IX. TRAINING ...................................................................................................................................................... 110 A. OVERSIGHT AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................... 110
CJ Requirement U106 ........................................................................................................................................... 110 CJ Requirement U107....................................................................................................................................... 111 CJ Requirement U108....................................................................................................................................... 112 CJ Requirement U109....................................................................................................................................... 113 CJ Requirement U110....................................................................................................................................... 113 CJ Requirement U111....................................................................................................................................... 114
B. USE OF FORCE TRAINING ............................................................................................................................... 114 CJ Requirement U112....................................................................................................................................... 115

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 6 of 182 Pg ID 9768

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 5

January 16, 2014

C. FIREARMS TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 115 CJ Requirement U113....................................................................................................................................... 116
D. ARREST AND POLICE-CITIZEN INTERACTION TRAINING ...................................................................... 116 CJ Requirement U114....................................................................................................................................... 117
E. CUSTODIAL DETENTION TRAINING ............................................................................................................. 117 CJ Requirement U115....................................................................................................................................... 118 4CJ Requirement U116..................................................................................................................................... 118 CJ Requirement U117....................................................................................................................................... 119
F. SUPERVISORY TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 119 CJ Requirement U118....................................................................................................................................... 119 CJ Requirement U119....................................................................................................................................... 120 CJ Requirement U120....................................................................................................................................... 120
G. INVESTIGATOR TRAINING ............................................................................................................................ 120 CJ Requirement U121....................................................................................................................................... 120 CJ Requirement U122....................................................................................................................................... 121
H. FIELD TRAINING .............................................................................................................................................. 121 CJ Requirement U123....................................................................................................................................... 121

SECTION THREE: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT......................................................................................................................................... 121 III. FIRE SAFETY POLICIES .......................................................................................................................... 123
CJ Requirement C14......................................................................................................................................... 123 CJ Requirement C15......................................................................................................................................... 124 CJ Requirement C16......................................................................................................................................... 124 CJ Requirement C17......................................................................................................................................... 125 CJ Requirement C18......................................................................................................................................... 125 CJ Requirement C19......................................................................................................................................... 126 CJ Requirement C20......................................................................................................................................... 126 CJ Requirement C21......................................................................................................................................... 127 CJ Requirement C22......................................................................................................................................... 127

IV. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES .............................................................................................. 128 CJ Requirement C23......................................................................................................................................... 128 CJ Requirement C24......................................................................................................................................... 128 CJ Requirement C25......................................................................................................................................... 129

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 7 of 182 Pg ID 9769

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 6

January 16, 2014

V. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES............................................................................ 130 CJ Requirement C26......................................................................................................................................... 130 CJ Requirement C27......................................................................................................................................... 130 CJ Requirement C28......................................................................................................................................... 131 CJ Requirement C29......................................................................................................................................... 132 CJ Requirement C30......................................................................................................................................... 132 CJ Requirement C31......................................................................................................................................... 134 CJ Requirement C32......................................................................................................................................... 134 CJ Requirement C33......................................................................................................................................... 135 CJ Requirement C34......................................................................................................................................... 137 CJ Requirement C35......................................................................................................................................... 137 CJ Requirement C36......................................................................................................................................... 138 CJ Requirement C37......................................................................................................................................... 139 CJ Requirement C38......................................................................................................................................... 139

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES ....................................................................... 140 CJ Requirement C39......................................................................................................................................... 141 CJ Requirement C40......................................................................................................................................... 141 CJ Requirement C41......................................................................................................................................... 142 CJ Requirement C42......................................................................................................................................... 142 CJ Requirement C43......................................................................................................................................... 142 CJ Requirement C44......................................................................................................................................... 143 CJ Requirement C45......................................................................................................................................... 143 CJ Requirement C46......................................................................................................................................... 144

VIII. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES............................................................... 144 CJ Requirement C47......................................................................................................................................... 144 CJ Requirement C48......................................................................................................................................... 145

IX. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES .......................................................................................................................... 146 CJ Requirement C49......................................................................................................................................... 146 CJ Requirement C50......................................................................................................................................... 146

X. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES ................................................................................................................ 147 CJ Requirement C51......................................................................................................................................... 148 CJ Requirement C52......................................................................................................................................... 149

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 8 of 182 Pg ID 9770

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 7

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement C53......................................................................................................................................... 149 CJ Requirement C54......................................................................................................................................... 149

XII. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW .................................................... 150 CJ Requirement C55......................................................................................................................................... 151 CJ Requirement C56......................................................................................................................................... 151 CJ Requirement C57......................................................................................................................................... 151
XIII. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS ........................................................................................................................ 152 CJ Requirement C58......................................................................................................................................... 152 CJ Requirement C59......................................................................................................................................... 152
XIV. GENERAL POLICIES................................................................................................................................... 153 CJ Requirement C60......................................................................................................................................... 153 CJ Requirement C61......................................................................................................................................... 153
XV. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION ........................................................................................................ 153 CJ Requirement C62......................................................................................................................................... 154 CJ Requirement C63......................................................................................................................................... 154 CJ Requirement C64......................................................................................................................................... 155 CJ Requirement C65......................................................................................................................................... 156 CJ Requirement C66......................................................................................................................................... 157 CJ Requirement C67......................................................................................................................................... 158 CJ Requirement C68......................................................................................................................................... 158 CJ Requirement C69......................................................................................................................................... 159 CJ Requirement C70......................................................................................................................................... 160 CJ Requirement C71......................................................................................................................................... 161 CJ Requirement C72 ......................................................................................................................................... 162 CJ Requirement C73 ......................................................................................................................................... 162 CJ Requirement C74 ......................................................................................................................................... 162 CJ Requirement C75 ......................................................................................................................................... 163 CJ Requirement C76 ......................................................................................................................................... 163 CJ Requirement C77 ......................................................................................................................................... 164 CJ Requirement C78 ......................................................................................................................................... 164

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 9 of 182 Pg ID 9771

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 8

January 16, 2014

APPENDIX A: USE OF FORCE - DIRECTIVES/POLICIES .......................................................................... 166

APPENDIX B: CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT - DIRECTIVES/POLICIES ........................................ 172

APPENDIX C: ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................ 176

APPENDIX D: MONITORING TEAM ............................................................................................................... 179

APPENDIX E: Detroit Police Department Management Dashboard Data………………………………….. 181

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 10 of 182 Pg ID 9772

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 9

January 16, 2014

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION
On October 5, 2009, the Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr., United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division (the Court), appointed me to serve as the Independent Monitor of the Use of Force and Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgments in the case United States of America v. City of Detroit, Michigan (the City) and the Detroit Police Department (DPD) No. 03-77758, decided in June 2003. With this appointment and assisted by a team of highly respected professionals, I assumed responsibility for monitoring compliance with the requirements of these Judgments – the implementation of a compilation of generally accepted professional police and confinement policies, procedures, and related practices.
Our Team conducted our first quarterly site visit in November 2009, and has conducted subsequent site visits each subsequent calendar quarter. There has been, of course, considerable change within the City and the Detroit Police Department during our engagement.
Similar to previous reports, the issuance of this report follows an onsite visit to assess and guide the Department’s ongoing efforts. This report includes our assessment of the Department’s compliance with each of the requirements contained in Judgments. Our findings are based on the results of discussions and meetings with City and DPD staff, observations of operational activities, inspections of facilities, and our review of documents and data covering the period of July 1, through September 30, 2013.
The body of this report is comprised of our assessments of compliance with the individual requirements of the Consent Judgments. We include introductory narratives for each major section of the Use of Force Judgment and one overall narrative for the Conditions of Confinement Judgment. Following these narratives are their respective requirements and our comments regarding the compliance status for each. After these are summary notations of Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance. A statement of “Critical Issues” follows the reviews of the requirements in each major section of the Judgment. A brief statement of “Next Steps” follows, in which we describe a plan of work for the next visit including a discussion of the data we plan to review. Finally, a table summarizes the compliance finding for that particular section of the Judgment.
Our Team determines compliance through an examination of policies and implementation of practices that support each requirement in the Consent Judgments. Phase 1 compliance is dependent upon the development and adoption of a policy or set of procedures that supports each Consent Judgment requirement. Phase 2 compliance is dependent on the effective implementation of the practices necessary to meet the requirements, consistent with the applicable policy. Full compliance is dependent on both Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance. Accordingly, we note our finding of “in compliance” or “not in compliance” for each requirement.
Additionally, in the limited circumstances where substantial work and time is required to achieve implementation of a policy or procedure and the related practices, and where ongoing progress is clearly evident, we recognize that progress with the designation “pending compliance.” Where there are circumstances in which we are unable to fully determine the compliance status of a requirement due to a lack of data or other reasons, we identify that status with the designation “deferred.”

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 11 of 182 Pg ID 9773

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 10

January 16, 2014

Verification of compliance with the many parts of the Consent Judgments requires the analysis of multiple instances of activity, reviewing cases, or observations of the practical application of policies and procedures. In those circumstances, our first option is to conduct an analysis-based on a review of all cases or data. Where that is not appropriate or possible, we rely on statistically valid samples of the population. To reach conclusions based on analyses of cases, a minimal standard must be met. To achieve compliance based on these analyses, we have determined that more than 94% of relevant indicators must conform to the provisions articulated in the Judgments.
The independent monitoring of two Consent Judgments is a complex process involving complex issues. The delivery of police services to a community – and the simultaneous retention of the public trust – are perhaps the most fundamental and sacred roles of government. In the course of our responsibilities, we endeavor, at all times, to fulfill our mandate in a manner consistent with these principles.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the seventeenth quarterly report of the Independent Monitor in the case of United States of America v. City of Detroit No. 03-72258. The report covers the period of July 1, through September 30, 2013; and is based on our site visit of October 14, through October 18, 2013; and our subsequent analyses of relevant data from this period. Consistent with the practice we established in our first review, we continue to assess all requirements of both active Judgments for compliance. Our report has generally assessed 110 requirements in the Use of Force Judgment, and an additional 65 requirements in the Conditions of Confinement Judgment. During this quarter, DPD’s agreement with the State of Michigan regarding detention was not yet fully implemented and we, therefore, again provide a review of compliance with those requirements. In future reports, we will consider only those Condition of Confinement requirements that remain pertinent to the work of the Detroit Police Department. In this executive summary, I will review the levels of compliance found for this reporting period.
Consistent with our agreement with the Parties, we again limited our assessments to include: all requirements that are not in compliance; as well as particular requirements that were selected by the Parties (specifically, 25% of the compliant requirements) and the Monitor. The specified requirements selected for assessment by the Monitor, which represent 50% of remaining compliant requirements, are randomly selected and may vary from report to report. This resulted in 39 requirements – 36 from the Use of Force Consent Judgment, and three from the Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment – that we did not assess during this reporting period; we are considering these requirements to be in sustained compliance.1
With regard to Phase 1 (policy) compliance, for the ninth consecutive reporting period, we found the City and the Police Department in compliance with all requirements of both Judgments.
1 The requirements that we did not assess include: U14; U19; U20; U21; U23; U26; U31; U41; U44; U54; U55; U56; U57; U58; U61; U62; U63; U64; U65; U66; U70; U71; U72; U74; U76; U77; U81; U85; U86; U87; U88; U89; U120; U121; U122; U123; C54; C75; and C78.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 12 of 182 Pg ID 9774

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 11

January 16, 2014

Following the practice we established in previous reports, all references to supporting policies, directives, and other relevant documents are listed in Appendices A (Use of Force) and B (Conditions of Confinement).
As noted above, the Department is again in Phase 1 compliance with all 110 (100%) of the Use of Force requirements. For the current reporting period, we also found the Department in Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance (full compliance) with 96 (87%) of the 110 Use of Force requirements. This is a decline of one requirement from the level found in our last report, which showed a decline of one requirement from the previous report. The specific changes are discussed below. During this reporting period, one Use of Force requirement (U18, regarding the use of force policy) is again deferred.
The Department is again in Phase 1 compliance with all 65 (100%) of the Conditions of Confinement requirements. This level has been maintained since the fourth reporting period. Noting an achievement first reported in our last report, we again found the Department in Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance (full compliance) with all of the 65 requirements. The current figures are presented in the table below.

 
 
  
 
  
  


Use of Force Cond of Conf

Total

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2

Paragraph Numbers Number of Requirements Pending Compliance Not in Compliance Deferred In Compliance

14-123

110 110

0

0

0

13

0

1

110

96

14-78

65

65

0

0

0

0

0

0

65

65

175 175

0

0

0

13

0

1

175 161

Percent in Compliance

100% 87% 100% 100% 100% 92%

In summary, this is the ninth consecutive report in which we have found DPD in Phase 1 compliance with all (100%) of the 175 monitored requirements. We found the Department to be in full compliance (that is, both Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance) with 161 (92%) of the 175 monitored requirements of the applicable paragraphs of both Consent Judgments. One additional compliance determination is deferred. The overall level reflects a decrease of compliance, by one requirement, from what was reflected in our last report. As shown in the table below, the net decrease was the result of a decline of compliance with three requirements and an improvement in two.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 13 of 182 Pg ID 9775

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 12

January 16, 2014

Change in Status from Last Report

Requirement

Report 16

Report 17

Direction

U67, Revision of complaint investigations

Not in Compliance In Compliance

Positive

U69, Required finding categories specified

Not in Compliance In Compliance

Positive

U73, Adequate officer/supervisor ratio

In Compliance Not in Compliance Negative

U75, Revise policies regarding off-duty officers In Compliance Not in Compliance Negative

U98, Random reviews of in-car camera videos In Compliance Not in Compliance Negative

The chart below illustrates the levels of compliance achieved on both Judgments and across all 17 reporting periods. It shows the nearly continuous improvement in overall compliance levels since our first report, but the setback in this report with the decline in compliance with one requirement.

The table below provides the summary data illustrating the status of compliance over the course of all of our quarterly reporting periods.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 14 of 182 Pg ID 9776

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 13

January 16, 2014


 
Report 1 Report 2 Report 3 Report 4 Report 5 Report 6 Report 7 Report 8 Report 9 Report 10 Report 11 Report 12 Report 13 Report 14 Report 15 Report 16 Report 17


 Use of Force
Phase 1 Phase 2 81% 24% 94% 41% 96% 49% 98% 62% 97% 61% 99% 68% 99% 75% 100% 79% 100% 82% 100% 84% 100% 85% 100% 86% 100% 85% 100% 85% 100% 89% 100% 88% 100% 87%

Percent in Compliance

Cond of Conf

Total

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2

83% 37%

82% 29%

92% 51%

93% 44%

95% 54%

96% 51%

100% 51%

99% 58%

100% 60%

98% 61%

100% 58%

99% 65%

100% 68%

99% 72%

100% 75% 100% 78%

100% 77% 100% 80%

100% 83% 100% 83%

100% 85% 100% 85%

100% 88% 100% 87%

100% 92% 100% 88%

100% 95% 100% 90%

100% 94% 100% 91%

100% 100% 100% 93%

100% 100% 100% 91%

Perhaps the most noteworthy finding from the above chart is not the apparent progress from our first report but the counterpoint; there have really been no appreciable gains in compliance over the past year. That returns us to a now familiar conclusion. The road forward has gotten tougher. The path to constitutional policing, as reflected in the requirements of the Consent Judgments, is on an incline, where the steps have gotten progressively more challenging. As we stated in our sixteenth report:

…some of the most complex and difficult requirements – those that lie closest to the core of sound and constitutional police practice – are the ones that remain to be fully embraced, despite the Department’s laudable successes on the large volume of other requirements. It should not be surprising that those that remain pose the greatest challenge.

The table below is proof of that point. It identifies the requirements that remain out of compliance. The reader should consult the report below to consider the full text of these requirements. But it is fair to ask; what issues could be more basic to constitutional policing than the appropriateness of force when it is used, the ability of a department to properly supervise its officers, and its ability to scrutinize its own conduct through internal review processes and investigations? Many of the other requirements, for which the Department has been found to be in compliance, pale in significance when compared with those that remain outstanding.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 15 of 182 Pg ID 9777

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 14

January 16, 2014

Requirements Not in Compliance, Report 17

¶ U15 U18 U28 U29 U32 U33 U36 U38 U45 U73 U75 U98 U101 U102

Requirement The use of lethal, less lethal force Approval of policy Investigation by uninvolved supervisor Procedures for investigative interviews Revise investigatory report policies Chain of command reviews Completion of command investigations Protocol for critical discharge investigations Written account of stops and frisks Adequate officer/supervisor ratio Revise policies regarding off-duty officers Random reviews of in-car camera videos Revision of video camera policy Record all vehicle stops, searches, etc.

Phase 2 – Implementation Not in Compliance Deferred Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance

The difficulty in making progress on these requirements is compounded by a sense of racing to a finish line that may now seem just out of reach. We understand and appreciate the external factors and circumstances that contribute to a sense of urgency, but to stumble now could erase the gains from more than a decade’s effort. This is why we are concerned about the potential shift of the Department’s emphasis from the goal of bringing about the substantive and cultural changes supporting constitutional policing as envisioned by the Judgment, to a focus on the mechanics of compliance such as achievement of the 94% compliance rate required by our methodology.
Consideration of the creation of a specialized unit in Force Investigations to conduct the Command Level Investigations is an example that illustrates our concern about a change in focus. From the inception of our Monitoring of this judgment, we have consistently encouraged DPD to focus more heavily on the command reviews of these investigations, believing that critical reviews at the command level were the key to implementing the requisite changes. Unfortunately, with some rare command level exceptions, that emphasis did not materialize, and errors in investigative and documentation practices continue. Issues with documenting deescalation techniques also continue to plague DPD, as do the problems making efforts to resolve material inconsistencies. Video and audio recordings of uses of force are almost non-existent; and rather than address the problem, we are informed that DPD does not believe that audio is included in the requirements that state the need for video recordings. Such self-deception cannot be acceptable. DPD must continue to demonstrate the substantive interest in reform that has brought it to this point. Compliance cannot be achieved through specious arguments that have nothing to do with the goal of constitutional policing.
We all agree that the Detroit Police Department has made significant progress on implementation of its Consent Judgments. We have also seen that the structure and reporting relationships within the local government have been altered as a result of financial and legal matters between the City and the State of Michigan. Oversight and supervisory processes normally vested in the Board of

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 16 of 182 Pg ID 9778

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 15

January 16, 2014

Police Commissioners, the elected Mayor, and City Council, have, for now, been set aside. Whether or not these developments have had an impact on compliance is a matter worth scrutinizing. Checks and balances in the course and conduct of police service delivery is an essential requirement in the furtherance of constitutional policing.
The Department remains out of compliance. Now is the time to recommit to the path to reform.

Chief (Ret.) Robert S. Warshaw, Monitor
The Monitoring Team: Chief (Ret.) Charles D. Reynolds, Deputy Monitor
Lt. Colonel (Ret.) J. Rick Brown Division Chief (Ret.) Rachel M. Burgess
Commander (Ret.) John M. Girvin Chief (Ret.) Eduardo Gonzalez John M. Klofas, Ph.D. Leonard F. Rice, M.E.S., R.S. Chief (Ret.) Billy R. Riggs
Asst. Director (Ret.) Joseph R. Wolfinger Robin Busch-Wheaton, Editor

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 17 of 182 Pg ID 9779

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 16

January 16, 2014

SECTION TWO:
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT
III. USE OF FORCE POLICY
This section of the Consent Judgment, containing paragraphs U14 through U26, requires that DPD review and revise its general use of force, firearms, and chemical spray policies; select an intermediate impact device and develop guidelines on its use; and provide appropriate training relating to the use of force. To determine compliance with this section’s various requirements, we verify that DPD has both developed the required policy and effectively implemented the policy, including providing any necessary and appropriate training.
DPD has conducted the requisite reviews and revisions of policies, which have been approved by the Department of Justice. The revised policies include a force continuum that identifies lethal and less lethal force options; relates the force options to the types of conduct by the individuals justifying the various force options; and describes de-escalation, disengagement, and other appropriate tactics and responses. The revised firearms policies address qualification requirements, approved firearms and ammunition, and a prohibition on the firing at or from moving vehicles. DPD also selected an intermediate impact device, developed guidelines on its use, and provided the required training. The chemical spray policy requires, when appropriate, a verbal warning prior to the deployment of chemical spray; sets forth requirements for decontamination, medical assistance, and requires supervisory approval if the chemical spray is to be used against a crowd. It prohibits officers from using chemical spray on a handcuffed individual in a police vehicle or keeping a sprayed individual facedown.
To assess implementation of these policies for this and previous reporting periods, we visited police districts, precincts, and other commands; met and discussed operational activities with command, supervisory, and training staff; observed training classes; reviewed arrest, use of force, and related police reports; and reviewed investigations of force, detainee injuries, and allegations of force.
To assess compliance with the requirements relating to the issuance and carrying of authorized weapons and ammunition, we examined the investigations of critical firearm discharges by FI. During this reporting period, we reviewed documentation that included six critical firearm discharges.
The DPD selected the PR-24 collapsible baton as its impact device, and provided training on its use to 463 members (22%) through the first quarter of the fiscal year. In the use of force reports we reviewed during this reporting period, there was one PR-24-related incident where a subject was inadvertently struck in the head by an officer. Though the command level review supported the inadvertent strike, FI was notified and assumed responsibility for the review. We reviewed instances of chemical spray deployments during this reporting period, and found that there were five cases in which chemical spray was utilized. A warning was articulated or danger documented prior to its use in all five of those cases.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 18 of 182 Pg ID 9780

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 17

January 16, 2014

There were 267 use of force report numbers issued during the third quarter of 2013, a decrease of 9% from the 293 issued during the last quarter.
During this reporting period, DPD continued its practice of issuing Roll Call Information Bulletins that are designed to improve member compliance with DPD policy reflecting the Consent Judgment requirements.
• During our last site visit, DPD informed us that it had expanded the Force Investigations program to more closely monitor and enforce corrective actions provided to the districts/precincts regarding their Command Level Investigations. Force Investigations had previously implemented a program in which it identified issues in completed Command Level Investigations regarding policy and Judgment requirements. FI then generates a Corrective Action Notice (CAN) that is transmitted to the command, requiring that the command document any actions that it has taken to remedy the issues identified in the Corrective Action Plan (CAP).
• FI members responsible for administering this CAN program identified problems with the responses they were receiving from the commands; as a result of their identification of those problems, FI developed an additional level of monitoring, the command responses. During our last site visit, the two DPD sergeants administering this program provided a firsthand explanation of the program and a demonstration of how they deal with the response issue. They have created a computer program that allows them to track members as well as commands – and they have the ability to drill down to the core issues. They issue memorandums (DPD 568) to the commands when the CAP are identified as being incomplete or poorly completed, requesting supplemental information from the commands. To address the amount of movement of members currently being experience at DPD, this program now issues profiles to the receiving entity of transferred members, ensuring that the new Command is aware of patterns and trends being exhibited by the member with the preparation, response or review of SIRs and UF002 reports. We believe that this is the type of program that maintains the focus on gaining compliance at the appropriate level in the agency.
Below are some examples of some of the pertinent bulletins relating to both Judgments; these were issued between August 5, and September 20, 2013.

DATE 07/05/13 07/12/13

NUMBER 13-27 13-28

07/19/13 07/26/13 08/02/13 08/09/13

13-29 13-30 13-31 13-32

SUBJECT Transfers Updating MAS Reporting/Documenting the “Acquiring Of a Target” Crime Scene Preservation Pat Down Search Frisk Traffic Stops – Notification to Dispatch Updated City Ordinances

TELETYPE # 13-0674 None
03-0736 13-0766 13-0798 13-0815

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 19 of 182 Pg ID 9781

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 18

January 16, 2014

DATE 08/16/13 09/04/13 09/11/13
09/20/13

NUMBER 13-33 13-35 13-36
13-37

SUBJECT

TELETYPE #

Enforcement of Loitering Ordinances 13-0861

Conveying Sick or Injured Detainees to Detroit Receiving Hospital. Prohibited Harassment or Discrimination Activity By Members Documenting MICR Arrest Charge Codes

13-0947 13-0962 13-1005

A. General Use of Force Policy CJ Requirement U14 The DPD shall revise its use of force policies to define force as that term is defined in this Agreement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U15
The use of force policy shall incorporate a use of force continuum that:
a. identifies when and in what manner the use of lethal and less than lethal force are permitted;
b. relates the force options available to officers to the types of conduct by individuals that would justify the use of such force; and
c. states that de-escalation, disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units are often the appropriate response to a situation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our previous reviews of use of force reports found that they lacked sufficient documentation or specificity with regards to de-escalation and details of actual disengagement to make a definitive determination regarding Phase 2 compliance. In the last reporting period, we found that 84% of the Command Level Investigations we reviewed contained sufficient explanations of officers’ efforts to de-escalate or implement some of the disengagement responses suggested in U15c.
Command Level Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed 82 Command Level Investigations, which described the conduct of individuals against whom force was used and the

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 20 of 182 Pg ID 9782

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 19

January 16, 2014

corresponding response from the involved officers.2 In evaluating officers’ de-escalation techniques, we eliminated 22 cases, 11 incidents in which there were no opportunities to attempt de-escalation, and 11 cases involving detainee injuries in which force was not used. We evaluated 60 cases; in 52 (87%) of them, we found evidence of some efforts at de-escalation, a 9% increase from the last reporting period. We continue to recommend that DPD emphasize the importance of de-escalation techniques as a means of avoiding violent confrontations between citizens and police, and to emphasize the importance of adequately documenting the steps taken by the officers to minimize the use of force. Increased video/audio recordings of encounters with the citizens would prove beneficial in documenting compliance with this requirement.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement for Command Level Investigations.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U16
The use of force policy shall reinforce that individuals should be provided an opportunity to submit to arrest before force is used and provide that force may be used only when verbal commands and other techniques that do not require the use of force would be ineffective or present a danger to the officer or others.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 183 uses of force reports, of which 156 were applicable to this paragraph. We found that 150 (96%) of the 156 included verbal commands and an opportunity to submit to arrest prior to the use of force; or provided a reason why the verbal command was not given.3
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level Investigation portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed five force investigations. The five cases were not applicable due to exigent circumstances existing that prevented the use of verbal commands, or because DPD personnel did not use force. One of the cases included an onduty accidental discharge, and another involved an off-duty suicide that was investigated by another agency.

2 We randomly selected 99 cases for review. Of these, 17 had no SIR investigations, leaving 82 cases for review. Of the 17 cases eliminated, 13 were assumed by Force Investigations; and four were acquired target incidents which do not require SIR investigations.
3 The base was reduced from 183 to 156, due to 18 being detainee injuries with no force used and nine with reflected there was no time for commands to be given due to the exigency of the situations.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 21 of 182 Pg ID 9783

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 20

January 16, 2014

In one of the above cases, the officer’s use of force on a person was found to be not within policy and the arrest was determined to be improper; the officer is currently facing disciplinary action. This represents a 100% compliance rate. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Force Investigations portion of this paragraph. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U17
The use of force policy shall prohibit the use of chokeholds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we reviewed 183 uses of force reports and 82 Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs).4 There was one case in which a subject claimed that he was choked. Although the investigation and interview of independent witnesses disproved the allegation, Force Investigations (FI) was notified – but did not assume the case. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for Command Level Investigations.
Force Investigations: Our review of five force investigations for this reporting period identified no incidents wherein a DPD officer used a chokehold to restrain a subject.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U18
The DPD shall develop a revised use of force policy within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The policy shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the revised use of force policy within three months of the review and approval of the DOJ.
4 The terms Command Level Investigations and Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs) are used interchangeably throughout the quarterly report.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 22 of 182 Pg ID 9784

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 21

January 16, 2014

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the effective field implementation of the requirements contained in paragraphs U14-17 and U19. We found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with U14, U16, U17, and U19, but not in compliance with U15; therefore, DPD remains in deferred Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Deferred

CJ Requirement U19 The use of force policy shall provide that a strike to the head with an instrument constitutes a use of deadly force. Comments: During this reporting period, there was what was reported as an inadvertent PR-24 to the head, which caused bleeding. FI was notified and has assumed the investigation. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U20 The DPD shall revise its use of firearms policies to provide that officers must successfully qualify with their department-issued firearm and any other firearm they are authorized to use or carry on-duty on a bi-annual basis, as described in paragraph 113.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 23 of 182 Pg ID 9785

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 22

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement U21
Officers who fail to re-qualify shall be relieved of police powers and relinquish immediately all department-issued firearms. Those officers who fail to re-qualify after remedial training within a reasonable time shall be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

B. Use of Firearms Policy
CJ Requirement U22
The firearm policy shall prohibit shooting at or from a moving vehicle except in exceptional circumstances. The policy shall also prohibit officers from intentionally placing themselves in the path of a moving vehicle.5
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: During this reporting period, we reviewed 183 uses of force reports and 82 Supervisory Investigation Reports (SIRs). We found one incident in which officers placed their scout car in front of a stolen vehicle, and as the officers exited the scout car, the driver of the stolen vehicle accelerated towards them, striking the scout car and forcing the officers to jump to their safety. The officers did not fire any shots, though one acquired a target.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed five FI investigations, and found no incidents involving an officer firing at a moving vehicle. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for Force Investigations in this requirement.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U23 The DPD shall identify a limited selection of authorized ammunition and prohibit officers from possessing or using unauthorized firearms or ammunition. The DPD shall specify the number of rounds DPD officers shall carry.
5 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011; approved by the BOPC, November 3, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 24 of 182 Pg ID 9786

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 23

January 16, 2014

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U24
The DPD shall select an intermediate force device, which is between chemical spray and firearms on the force continuum, that can be carried by officers at all times while on-duty. The DPD shall develop a policy regarding the intermediate force device, incorporate the intermediate force device into the force continuum and train all officers in its use on an annual basis.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: During this reporting period, we reviewed 183 uses of force reports, and found one strike to the head, characterized as inadvertent, with the designated intermediate force device (PR-24). FI was advised of the strike and assumed the investigation. DPD reported it had provided training on its use to 463 members (22%) through the first quarter of the fiscal year. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for use of force reports.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed five cases completed by FI; there was one case where an intermediate force device (PR-24) was used. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for Force Investigations.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Chemical Spray Policy
CJ Requirement U25
The DPD shall revise its chemical spray policy to require officers to:
a. provide a verbal warning and time to allow the subject to comply prior to the use of chemical spray, unless such warnings would present a danger to the officer or others;
b. provide an opportunity for decontamination to a sprayed subject within twenty minutes of the application of the spray or apprehension of the subject;
c. obtain appropriate medical assistance for sprayed subjects when they complain of continued effects after having been de-contaminated or they indicate that they have a pre-existing medical condition (e.g., asthma, emphysema, bronchitis or heart ailment)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 25 of 182 Pg ID 9787

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 24

January 16, 2014

that may be aggravated by chemical spray and if such signs are observed the subject shall be immediately conveyed to a local hospital for professional medical treatment; and
d. obtain the approval of a supervisor any time chemical spray is used against a crowd.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Use of Force Reports: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 183 uses of force reports and 82 Command Level Investigations. We found five deployments of chemical spray, with warnings or danger articulated in all five (100%) of the cases.6 This maintains the 100% compliance rate registered during the last reporting period. During our evaluation of decontamination requirements, we found that all five cases (100%) provided details of decontamination within 20 minutes of spraying or capture. This is an increase from the 80% registered during the last reporting period. There were three individual complaints of ill effects from the spraying noted in the five cases and all were dealt with appropriately.7
As we continue to note, the use of chemical spray by DPD officers is very limited; consequently, the Department must continue to emphasize the importance of attention to all of the details regarding the use of chemical spray.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for Command Level Investigations.
Force Investigations: During this reporting period, we reviewed five cases completed by FI, and there were no cases of chemical spray being used during our assessment of FI cases submitted for this reporting period. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the reporting of the use of chemical spray in use of force investigations.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U26
The DPD shall prohibit officers from using chemical spray on a handcuffed individual in a police vehicle. The DPD shall also prohibit officers from keeping any sprayed subject in a face down position, in order to avoid positional asphyxia.

6 This number includes one case in June, no cases in July, and four cases in August.
7 This number includes three subjects sprayed in June. (June included one SIR investigation with three subjects sprayed, two adults to Detroit Receiving Hospital and a juvenile to Children’s Hospital.)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 26 of 182 Pg ID 9788

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 25

January 16, 2014

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

Critical Issues:
• The issue of how best to determine DPD’s efforts at deescalating and disengaging with respect to use of force situations remains a perplexing issue, and one that affects DPD’s compliance with several of the requirements. As we have noted above, an improved reliance on body microphones and a strict requirement that officers utilize them when engaging Detroit citizens could prove beneficial to better documenting the de-escalation techniques. Unfortunately, in spite of our recommendations regarding attention to this detail, there has been no improvement in reliance on the video/audio equipment. While DPD previously advised that the issues experienced with the Data 911 Video System have been resolved and the system operational again, we find officers continuing to experience difficulties with their microphones. We again strongly recommend that DPD conduct an Investigation and Report regarding the microphones in an effort to determine if, in fact, they will ever be made to work properly. If following that review the determination is made that the issues are related to user errors, DPD must implement procedures to address the user errors effectively. The proper use of the recording equipment is one of the cornerstones of the use of force investigative process and remains one which is not only unavailable to the investigators, but also to the Monitoring Team, which is charged with verifying that the information in the investigative reports is accurate.
DPD continues to provide improved documentation of the application of de-escalation measures, and we encourage the Department to continue to emphasize the importance of practicing de-escalation and documenting same.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to monitor the numbers of use of force reports generated during the next reporting period, and continue to discuss with DPD the issue of documenting the deescalation of use of force situations in an effort to identify a sound methodology for measuring the effort. We will monitor any increase in the reliance on audio recordings to enhance the documentation provided by the officers. If DPD continues to ignore the recommendations regarding the investigation of its failure to record encounters with citizens, it may become necessary to obtain a court order directing DPD to conduct the investigation and report of the problems associated with obtaining video/audio recordings of DPD the encounters. We will also meet with CRIB personnel to further discuss issues associated with use of force compliance.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 27 of 182 Pg ID 9789

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 26

January 16, 2014

¶ Requirements 14 Revise use of force policies 15 The use of lethal, less lethal force 16 Opportunity to submit to arrest 17 Prohibit chokeholds 18 Approval of policy 19 Strike to the head-deadly force 20 Bi-annual firearms qualification 21 Failure to qualify with firearms 22 Prohibit firing at vehicles 23 Selection of ammunition 24 Intermediate force device 25 Chemical spray policy 26 Spraying handcuffed subjects

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Deferred In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

IV. DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW
A. General Investigations of Police Action
CJ Requirement U27
The DPD and the City shall revise their policies regarding the conduct of all investigations to ensure full, thorough, and complete investigations. All investigations shall, to the extent reasonably possible, determine whether the officer’s conduct was justified and the DPD and the City shall prohibit the closing of an investigation being conducted by the DPD and/or the City simply because a subject or complainant is unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate, including a refusal to provide medical records or proof of injury.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with these requirements, we meet on a quarterly basis with Command, Internal Affairs, Force Investigations, OCI and other staff. We also review relevant investigative and other reports, including the Department’s quarter status reports.
Command Level Investigations: To assess DPD’s Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for this reporting period, we again met with relevant staff and reviewed 183 uses of force reports resulting in 82 SIRs.8 There were no instances where a SIR was closed simply because a subject

8 Many of the command-level investigations contained multiple uses of force forms. Acquired target cases, and cases assumed by FI were removed from the numbers reported as SIRs.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 28 of 182 Pg ID 9790

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 27

January 16, 2014

or complainant was unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate, including a refusal to provide medical records or proof of injury. We also found sufficient justification for officers’ conduct in all 82 (100%) of the SIRs.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: In our previous reports, we noted that our reviews of FI and JIST investigations – which included critical firearm discharges, pursuits, and allegations of excessive force – found these investigations sufficiently detailed to support the findings relating to the conduct of the officer(s) in each case. In addition, no investigations were closed because the subject or complainant was unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate. Although we noted lack of detail or required specificity in early cases, FI addressed these issues with strengthened supervision and in-service training.
During this reporting period, we reviewed five FI cases, and found all in compliance with the requirements. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the FI cases portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During our previous reviews of completed cases, we noted that while the case files generally contained sufficient facts to support a determination that justified or did not justify an officer’s actions, there were several inconsistencies between investigators, and some cases lacked the necessary information to reach a proper determination.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled cases from the 348 cases that were closed in July, August, and September 2013. (This represents a 27% increase in closed cases over the previous reporting period.) Generally, the investigations established sufficient facts to support determinations that justified or did not justify the actions of the officer(s) or non-sworn member of the Department.9
We noted five cases that we believe were closed prematurely, as compared to six such cases during the previous reporting period. In one of these cases, the investigator failed to attempt to contact a potential witness. She indicated in her summary that no witnesses were identified, despite the fact that the potential witness – the other party in a dispute the complainant was involved in – was referenced in the Citizen Complaint Report (CCR) and in the complainant’s statement. In another case, the investigator also made no attempts to identify and interview a potential witness – the passenger in the complainant’s vehicle during a traffic stop. In this same case, the investigator failed to ask the subject officer questions about three of the allegations lodged by the complainant. In two other cases, potentially involved officers were not interviewed. One was administratively closed because one of the subject officers retired from the Department, but before another subject officer was interviewed. In the other case, OCI did not question the subject officer’s partner and a sergeant who responded to the scene. In the remaining case, during his interview, the complainant expressed his displeasure with the demeanor of the sergeant who took his complaint. This new allegation was never explored.

9 If an allegation appropriately received a finding of unfounded or not sustained, justification for the conduct was not assessed since, by definition, its occurrence was either refuted or not substantiated.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 29 of 182 Pg ID 9791

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 28

January 16, 2014

While complainants failed to cooperate in 32% of the cases, their lack of cooperation was not a factor in the closing of these cases. Invariably, the narrative contained in the Citizen Complaint Report (CCR) served as the complainant’s statement in these instances.
With a 95% compliance rate, the City remains in compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: To assess Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, we interviewed IAD supervisors and selected staff, and reviewed the 21 cases that were closed by IAD in July, August, and September 2013. We assessed the investigations for consistency with the procedures contained in applicable DPD directives and generally accepted law enforcement techniques – specifically relating to procedural fairness, timeliness, confidentiality, and the meticulous reporting of facts and results of an investigation.
We found that all of the cases were sufficiently investigated – including five cases where the complainants and/or witnesses failed to respond to requests to be interviewed. All of the cases met the requirements of this paragraph.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U28
The DPD and the City shall ensure that investigations are conducted by a supervisor who did not authorize witness or participate in the incident and that all investigations contain:
a. documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene during the incident and a canvas of the scene to identify civilian witnesses;
b. thorough and complete interviews of all witnesses, subject to paragraph 31 below and an effort to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements;
c. photographs of the subject’s(s’) and officer’s(s’) injuries or alleged injuries; and
d. documentation of any medical care provided.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: During the previous reporting period, we determined the following:
• There was one case in which an involved supervisor conducted an interview of the subject. This resulted in a 99% compliance rate. In 78 (98%) of the cases, the names of all of the officers involved or on the scene during the incident were included. In all (100%) of the cases, the investigating supervisor conducted a canvass to identify civilian witnesses, or explained why a canvass was not conducted.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 30 of 182 Pg ID 9792

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 29

January 16, 2014

• Thorough and complete interviews were conducted in 72 (90%) of the cases. Investigating supervisors must elicit pertinent details from witnesses while conducting their interviews and ask follow-up questions that can clarify information being provided. Continued critical reviews at the command level can help to improve compliance with this requirement.
• Material inconsistencies were addressed in 12 of 24 applicable cases (50%).10
• In 66 cases, photos should have been requested for officer or subject injuries. The reports noted that photos were ordered in 58 (88%) of the cases. Sixty-eight of the cases could have included documentation of medical care and 66 (97%) did. Not all of the administered medical care was related to police actions. Thirteen of the cases involved care ranging from psychiatric evaluations to a need for medications.
During this reporting period, we determined the following:
• There were three cases in which an involved supervisor conducted an interview of the subject. This resulted in a 96% compliance rate. In 81 (99%) of the cases, the names of all of the officers involved or on the scene during the incident were included. In 80 (97%) of the cases, the investigating supervisor conducted a canvass to identify civilian witnesses, or explained why a canvass was not conducted.
• Thorough and complete interviews were conducted in 76 (93%) of the cases. Investigating supervisors must illicit pertinent details from witnesses while conducting their interviews and ask follow-up questions that can clarify information being provided. Continued critical reviews at the command level can help to improve compliance with this requirement.
• Material inconsistencies were addressed in 22 of 33 applicable cases (67%).11
• In 69 cases, photos should have been requested for officer or subject injuries. The reports noted that photos were ordered in 62 (90%) of the cases. Fifty-nine of the cases could have included documentation of medical care and 58 (99%) did. Not all of the administered medical care was related to police actions. Twelve of the cases involved care ranging from psychiatric evaluations to a need for medications to injuries caused by someone or something other than police action.
Due to <94% evaluations in the areas dealing with thorough and complete interviews (93%), material inconsistencies (67%) and the taking of photos (90%), DPD remains not in Phase 2 compliance for the Command Level Investigations during this reporting period.
Force Investigations: Our previous reviews of force investigations found appropriate documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene of the various incidents. The cases also contained witness interviews (recorded and written). The investigations we reviewed also contained documentation of canvasses for civilian witnesses and any medical care provided.

10 In 56 of the 80 SIRs reviewed, there were no inconsistencies identified. 11 In 49 of the 80 SIRs reviewed, there were no inconsistencies identified.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 31 of 182 Pg ID 9793

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 30

January 16, 2014

To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed five force investigations.12 The case files included complete documentation of the name and badge number of all officers involved in or on the scene of the various incidents, canvasses for civilian witnesses in all applicable cases, and any medical care that was provided.
The investigations contained witness interviews, both written and recorded. While we have acknowledged improvement by FI in addressing material conflicts in investigations, we noted that material inconsistencies were not addressed one of the five cases reviewed during this reporting period. Photographs were not taken as taken as required in one case.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled OCI investigations. All were investigated by investigators who did not authorize, witness, or participate in the incidents being investigated. In 17 cases, involved officers were not identified by both name and badge number. One case was transferred to Force Investigations based on the allegations and before steps were taken to identify the officers involved. Another case involved officers from the Detroit Public School Police and was appropriately referred to that agency. Another case alleged inadequate service that did not involve a specific officer. In the remaining cases, OCI took diligent steps to identify involved personnel. If they were not identified, they were listed as “unknown.”
In all but two of the cases retained for investigation by OCI, investigators attempted to contact potential witnesses when appropriate. In one, the complainant identified a potential witness in the CCR and in her statement, but this person was not contacted. In another, a subject officer indicated that the complainant had a passenger in his vehicle during a traffic stop that resulted in the complaint. There were no attempts to locate this female passenger. In many of the other cases, witnesses refused to cooperate, but investigators documented their steps to try to obtain statements.
In all of the cases alleging excessive force that were retained by OCI, photographs were referenced where appropriate. In most of the cases, force could not be substantiated and use of force documentation, including photographs, did not exist. In three cases, it was appropriate to reference medical care; and in all of these cases, the documentation was included in the investigative packages.
With greater than 94% compliance with the paragraph requirements, the City is in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: We reviewed the 21 cases that were completed by IAD during this reporting period. The investigations consistently included the names and badge numbers of all officers who were involved in or on the scene during an incident. In six of the cases, the complainant could not identify the officer(s) that were the subject of their complaints. IAD expended particular efforts in identifying officers when allegations of criminal misconduct were reported and the officer(s) was unknown to the complainant. IAD conducted canvasses to identify witnesses or obtain any video recordings that might be available from businesses near
12 These investigations included one critical firearm discharge (unintentional) event.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 32 of 182 Pg ID 9794

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 31

January 16, 2014

the location. IAD has the capacity to access recordings from in-car video storage from the division’s desktop computers. If any related evidence has been recorded, it can be requested from the Technical Services Unit within a 90-day period. In an effort to resolve the allegations, in-car video was requested in six of the cases where video should have been recorded. Five videos and three audio recordings were available to be used in the investigations. We also found in the cases that we reviewed that witnesses were interviewed, and that the investigators made an effort to resolve inconsistencies between witness statements.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not In Compliance

CJ Requirement U29
The DPD and the City shall revise their procedures for all investigatory interviews to require:
a. officers who witness or are involved in an incident to provide a timely statement regarding the incident (subject to paragraph 31 below);
b. whenever practicable and appropriate, interviews of complainants and witnesses be conducted at sites and times convenient for them, including at their residences or places of business; and
c. that all IAD, OCI and Critical Firearm Discharge Investigations shall also include inperson video or audio tape-recorded interviews of all complainants, witnesses, and involved DPD officers and prohibit group interviews. In cases where complainants/witnesses refuse in-person video or audio tape recorded interviews, written statements shall be taken and signed by the complainant/witness along with a signed refusal statement by the complainant/witness.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: During the previous reporting period, we determined that in 68 (85%) of the 80 cases we reviewed, timely statements were taken from officers who were involved in or witnessed the incident, which represents a decrease from the 86% noted in our previous report. The interviews of complainants and witnesses were conducted at sites and times convenient for them in each (100%) of the 80 cases we reviewed.
During this reporting period, we determined that in 74 (90%) of the 82 cases we reviewed, timely statements were taken from officers who were involved in or witnessed the incident. This percentage is an increase from the 85% noted in our last report. The continuing non-compliance with this requirement is not indicative of a credible effort on the part of DPD to resolve this investigative shortcoming. The interviews of complainants and witnesses were conducted at sites and times convenient for them in 81 (99%) of the cases we reviewed.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 33 of 182 Pg ID 9795

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 32

January 16, 2014

DPD continues to be out of Phase 2 compliance for the Command Level Investigations during this quarter.
Force Investigations: In previous reporting periods, we noted that statements were generally taken at sites and times convenient for the person(s) being interviewed. However, we expressed concerns that statements from witness officers were unnecessarily delayed, or that investigators instead relied on the officer’s Crisnet report. We noted that there were significant delays in taking Garrity statements due to the practice of awaiting prosecution declinations from the District Attorney. We also noted our concerns regarding the variance in practice between FI and Homicide members of the Joint Incident Shooting Team (JIST) when interviewing witnesses and taking statements. Specifically, we were concerned with the practice adopted by Homicide members of JIST to take written, rather than recorded, statements. This is a longstanding noncompliance issue that the Department has not yet addressed.
To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed five closed FI cases, and continued to find much the same as described above. Statements were generally taken at sites and times convenient for the person(s) being interviewed. Statements of non-police witnesses were generally taken in a timely manner, usually within minutes or hours of the event; statements from involved officers or witness officers under the provisions of Garrity in the five cases reviewed during this reporting period were sometimes unnecessarily delayed.
We found that Garrity interviews of involved officers in all of the cases ranged from one to 50 days from the date of the incident. In addition, we noted Garrity interviews of witness officers ranged from the same day to 46 days from the date of the incident. Witness officer interviews should be conducted very close to the date of the incident that is under investigation. We have discussed with FI our concern regarding interview delays for a host of reasons – not the least of which is credibility; however, this problem has not been resolved. As we have previously noted, officers’ recollections of the facts, weeks and months after an event, particularly one involving the use of deadly force, are externally and perhaps significantly affected by news accounts and their interactions with friends, family, and colleagues, and thus, often altered. The practice of delaying interviews, for whatever reason, mitigates the accuracy and credibility of the information provided by officers. In addition, aside from investigative reasoning regarding the delaying of interviews of involved officers, we find no legitimate basis to delay interviews of witness officers; quite the contrary, there is a compelling need to interview all witnesses – including witness officers – in an expeditious manner. We have expressed our concerns with this continuing investigative shortcoming on several occasions; however, the DPD has yet to satisfactorily address it.
As reported, the delays discussed above often result from the desire to await a declination decision from the District Attorney. Accordingly, we examined five cases closed by FI during this reporting period, and found one where a prosecutorial decision from the Wayne County District Attorney’s Office was sought with the following results:
• FI conducted the Garrity interview of the subject officer after the prosecutorial decision by the District Attorney.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 34 of 182 Pg ID 9796

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 33

January 16, 2014

• The one case included the Garrity interview that was completed within 30 days after the prosecutorial decision was rendered or completion of the criminal investigation, as required by paragraph U38.
There are few situations requiring more diligence or a professional police response than an allegation or a perceived use of excessive force – especially when involving a critical firearm discharge. All warrant a priority, thorough response and expeditious conclusion. We encourage the DPD, with the cooperation of the District Attorney, to resolve these issues.
Although the DPD met the above requirement in the one applicable case reviewed during this reporting period, we do not find a one-case review sufficient to change our compliance finding; accordingly, we find that the DPD Force Investigations is not in Phase 2 compliance.
Office of the Chief Investigator: During previous reporting periods, we noted ongoing issues with untimely interviews, particularly of officers. Interviews of sworn personnel frequently take place many months after the incident complained of. Often, no reason is given for the delay other than the difficulty in scheduling the interviews. We noted that complainant/witness and officer interviews were, with limited exceptions, properly recorded.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly sampled investigations. Timely interviews of involved parties – particularly officers – again showed improvement during this reporting period. In one case, an officer was not interviewed until 87 days after the complaint was lodged, but OCI’s efforts to secure the interview were well documented, and the case was not ruled out of compliance. We noted two cases, described above, in which officers and civilian witnesses were not interviewed.
Complainants were identified as uncooperative in 32 of the investigations we reviewed. OCI investigators relied on the synopsis contained in the Citizen Complaint Report in these cases. When complainants and witnesses were available for interviews, they were recorded, either over the telephone or in person. When interviews were conducted, they were administered and recorded in accordance with requirements.
With a 98% compliance rate, the City is in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: During earlier reporting periods, we found that the DPD directive requiring timely statements from officers was inconsistently applied. Interviews of involved witness officers were often delayed with little justification other than unavailability. There were exceptions involving pending criminal proceedings against officers in some cases.
During this reporting period, timely interviews were appropriately conducted in all 21 cases that were completed during this quarter.
When the Internal Affairs Alert Teams, who are available or on-call 24 hours a day, respond to a complaint or allegation of criminal activity or serious misconduct by a Department member, preliminary interviews are conducted immediately and according to DPD directives.
In all of the investigations, complainants and witnesses were interviewed at times and sites convenient for them. DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 35 of 182 Pg ID 9797

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 34

January 16, 2014

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U30
The DPD and the City procedures for all investigatory interviews shall prohibit:
a. the use of leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s(s’) actions when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques; and
b. the use of interviews via written questions when it is contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command-Level Investigations: During this reporting period, we found that in 79 (99%) of 80 cases, the question-and-answer format, without the use of leading questions, was used to document officer interviews in the SIR. During this reporting period, we found that in 80 (98%) of 82 cases, the question-and-answer format, without the use of leading questions, was used to document officer interviews in the SIR.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level portion of this requirement.
Force Investigations: Our previous review of FI cases for compliance with these requirements found instances where leading questions were contained in written statements. Additionally, when listening to randomly selected recorded interviews conducted by various investigators, we noted that investigators asked leading questions in 80% of the interviews.
We also noted that the details of Garrity interviews are often adversely affected by the excessive delays in scheduling them. Officers being interviewed are routinely referring to their Crisnet reports and/or do not have a recollection of specific details because so much time has elapsed between the incident and the day of their interview. We noted that investigators routinely fail to ask appropriate follow-up questions leaving the interviews appearing to revolve around reporting – not investigating. Finally, we noted our continued concern with investigators’ lack of preparation to conduct Garrity interviews.
To assist with our assessment of compliance for this reporting period, we listened to five randomly selected recorded interviews of police officers and one interview of a civilian witness. We noted that, although the interviews were not primarily based on leading questions, the use of leading questions has not been entirely eliminated and still on occasion surface. We continue to be concerned with the tendency of some interviewing officers to preface questions with “Do you remember…do you recall” or similar phrases, which tend to prompt “I do not remember…I do

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 36 of 182 Pg ID 9798

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 35

January 16, 2014

not recall” responses. This has been a persistent deficiency that can – and should – be addressed. While recognizing that interviewing skills must be acquired through training and experience and also that the DPD has attempted to address these issues, the overall quality of the interviews remains marginally acceptable.
Additionally, we compared the officers’ spoken words with the documented summaries of the interviews prepared by FI investigators that are included in their investigative reports. We are mindful that use of force incidents generated by DPD policy, and not routinely initiated by a citizen complaint, require prompt reporting and preparation of Crisnet reports by all involved officers contemporaneous to the event. The review of officers’ Crisnet reports prior to their Garrity interviews provides a useful snapshot to FI investigators of what occurred at the time of the event. During our review of the six recorded interviews, we noted that the investigators’ summaries are generally consistent with the recordings. We also noted that investigators failed to ask probing questions when opportunities were present. We caution FI to continue to review these investigations diligently to ensure that significant facts involving the use of force are thoroughly investigated and accurately documented.
We have previously recommended that the DPD seek comprehensive interview training, and carefully supervise and critique all interviews in order to avoid non-compliant findings. To date, the DPD has not addressed the training deficiency leaving investigators to learn this special skill on their own. Accordingly, we again recommend that the DPD expeditiously address this training requirement in order to provide its FI (and other) investigators with training consistent with generally accepted professional standards.
The DPD is in compliance with the FI portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: OCI supplied digitally recorded interviews for both sworn and civilian interviewees for a randomly selected subset of our review sample. During this reporting period, we listened to 96 interviews (56 employees, 40 citizens) associated with 23 cases. Generally, investigators are employing proper interviewing techniques, using open-ended rather than leading questions.
During this reporting period, we noted three instances in which leading questions were used inappropriately. In general, we were not provided with written questions, although it is probable that they were used to structure interviews in most, if not all, of the cases involving interviews.
In the past, we have noted a wide disparity in the interviewing skills of OCI’s investigators, and have recommended that supervising investigators either observe the interviews conducted by OCI’s investigators or listen to the recordings, in order to identify training needs and provide appropriate, individualized corrective measures. The supervising investigators provided documentation that they either observed, or reviewed recordings of, interviews in 72 cases during the reporting period. This represents a 11% increase when compared to the last reporting period.
The City is in compliance with the OCI portion of this requirement.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: Since the first reporting period, we have found no evidence of the use of leading questions during IAD interviews. In all cases, we sought evidence in the case summary that the investigators had asked particular questions to clarify complainants’

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 37 of 182 Pg ID 9799

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 36

January 16, 2014

and witnesses statements, and/or physical evidence. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U31 The DPD and the City shall develop a protocol for when statements should (and should not) be compelled pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U32
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding all investigatory reports and evaluations to require:
a. a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident, including a detailed account of the subject’s(s’) or complainant’s(s’) and officer’s(s’) actions and an evaluation of the initial stop or seizure;
b. a review of all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence;
c. that the fact that a subject or complainant pled guilty or was found guilty of an offense shall it justify discontinuing the investigation;
d. reasonable credibility determinations, with no automatic preference given to an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement or discounting of a witness’s statement merely because the witness has some connection to the subject or complainant
e. an evaluation of whether an officer complied with DPD policy;
f. an evaluation of all uses of force, including the officer’s tactics, and any allegations or evidence of misconduct uncovered during the course of the investigation;
g. all administrative investigations to be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard;
h. written documentation of the basis for extending the deadline of a report and evaluation and provide that the circumstances justifying an extension do not include an investigator’s vacation or furlough and that problems with investigator vacations or workload should result in the matter being reassigned; and
i. any recommended non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action be documented in writing.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 38 of 182 Pg ID 9800

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 37

January 16, 2014

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our assessment of compliance with the Phase 2 requirements of this paragraph included interviews with relevant staff; and a review of closed command-level, FI, IAD, and OCI cases.
Command Level Investigations: During the current reporting period, we found the following:
• The data reflects a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident, including a detailed account of the actions of the subject(s) or complainants and officer(s) in 64 (78%) of the investigations, an increase from the 76% registered during the last reporting period. Some of the issues that continue to adversely affect compliance in this area remain: insufficient details in interviews; interviews that are almost verbatim from officer to officer; officers providing evasive and nebulous statements; investigators not asking follow-up questions; investigators failing to address discrepancies between officer statements; and investigators failing to interview complainants/victims.13 In all (100%) of the cases, an evaluation of the initial stop or seizure was conducted. In 26 (44%) of the 59 cases evaluated, all of the relevant evidence – including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence – was reviewed.14 This is a decrease from the 48% we found during the last reporting period. We continue to assert that the review of both video and audio recordings of citizen contacts with DPD members is essential to use of force investigations; and consequently, we continue to recommend, in the strongest of terms, that DPD initiate all of the corrective actions necessary to ensure that encounters are captured in both video and audio recordings. Given that most uses of force occur out of the line of sight for the video, the audio recordings take on greater importance. DPD must continue to work on improving the audio capability of its system – and make every effort to determine if the failures to capture audio recordings at the scenes are system issues or user errors, and then institute the appropriate corrective measures. Commands must make every effort possible to review available video/audio recordings prior to the submission of the SIR. The failure to have these reviews conducted prior to the submission of the final report is an unacceptable practice.
• Eighty-two (100%) of the investigations contained evidence that reasonable credibility determinations, with no automatic preference given to an officer’s statement over a nonofficer’s statement, were made to reach conclusions regarding the investigations. Eighty (98%) of the investigations contained an evaluation of whether or not an officer complied with DPD policy. We eliminated 17 cases from consideration because they were detainee injuries with no force used by the officers. The remaining 67 (100%) of the cases that we reviewed contained an evaluation of the use of force.15 Officers’ tactics
13 This is not an all-inclusive list.
14 Twenty-three of the cases reflected either no equipment installed or officers assigned to walking beats, leaving 59 cases to evaluate. In at least one case, a video was obtained from a restaurant by an investigator but no details of its contents were provided to the investigating supervisor. There was also an acquired target case in which the investigating unit responsible for collecting these videos was unavailable at it was taped over.
15 Fifteen cases were eliminated, as they were detainee injuries, with no use of force.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 39 of 182 Pg ID 9801

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 38

January 16, 2014

were evaluated in all (100%) of the 82 cases reviewed. There was one case in which the supervisor determined the force was excessive.16 All (100%) of the 82 cases were evaluated on a preponderance of the evidence standard.
• Sixty-two (76%) cases had no extension request; of the remaining 20 cases, we found one that referred to an extension in the file, but no copy of the document was provided. Nineteen contained documentation for the delays. We reviewed the 19 requests that were provided and found that nine of them had issues with vacations, furloughs, lack of new due date, and lack of specifics regarding the need for the extension. We continue to urge DPD to provide guidance regarding the importance of properly documenting the extensions and the returns of reports for corrections routinely documented in the Timeline section of the SIRs. Documents returned for corrections should reflect the new due dates.
• There were 60 SIRs in which corrective action might have been taken; corrective action was documented in 57 (95%) of the investigations. Inclusive in the corrective action were misconduct investigations, negative administrative counseling registers, re-instructs, re-training, written reprimands, trial boards and verbal counseling.
A precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident – including a detailed account of the actions of subject(s) or complainants and officer(s) – was only provided in 64 (78%) of the 82 investigations; relevant evidence – including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence – was reviewed in only 26 of the 59 relevant cases. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with the Command Level Investigations portion of this requirement.
Force Investigations: Our review of completed FI cases for previous reporting periods found them to be in overall compliance, but we noted cases wherein there was no evaluation of the initial stop and/or seizure; no reference to the presence or absence of circumstantial evidence; and a lack of reference to the conducting of credibility determinations.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we examined five completed case files and noted the continued inclusion of a detailed account of the facts of the event.17 Investigators evaluated the initial stop/contact in each case, but need to more thoroughly evaluate available direct, circumstantial, and physical evidence. For example, investigators need to review related police reports; medical documentation for injured subjects; and autopsy reports. Investigators miss opportunities to complete thorough and factual investigations when evidence is obtained and not properly analyzed. This also includes the lack of satisfactory ballistics examinations. Lastly, command/supervisory personnel are reviewing a number of these investigations and are rendering findings based upon incomplete information.
During this reporting period, there were no instances where a subject’s court-related appearances had any effect on the outcome of investigations.
The files documented some reasonable credibility determinations, but also demonstrated the need for FI to continue to provide training on this issue. We found that investigations contained

16 The supervisor recommended a trial board and anger management classes. 17 These investigations included one critical firearm discharge (unintentional) event.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 40 of 182 Pg ID 9802

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 39

January 16, 2014

reviews of tactics and identified officers’ unrelated conduct violations. Findings were based mostly on a preponderance of evidence standard, and recommended referrals for disciplinary intervention were documented.
We noted during this assessment that no extensions were requested. We recognize the challenges inherent with effective case management, and recognize the continued efforts of DPD – particularly the FI staff – to address them.
Office of the Chief Investigator: We noted in our previous reports that OCI investigations were most often not completed within the prescribed 90-day timeframe. Requests for extensions were frequently submitted well after the case was overdue, and adequate justification of the need for the extension was rarely provided. The delay in securing timely interviews has been a recurring problem that has impacted the quality of the investigations. However, OCI investigations have generally been factual and complete, and more often than not the preponderance of evidence standard is used in reaching determinations.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected cases, all of which were received this year. In all of the cases, there was a precise description of the facts and circumstances of the incident complained of. We noted one case in which an additional allegation was raised during an interview, but not documented or addressed. In his OCI interview, the complainant expressed displeasure with the supervisor who took his complaint, indicating that he believed she was biased and “needed lessons in how to deal with the public.”
We did not identify any cases in which OCI did not consider relevant evidence that was potentially available. We observed that investigators generally explore the availability of video evidence in cases where it is appropriate. In 50 cases, investigators inquired as to the availability of video. In 24, or 48%, of these cases, video evidence was not available. This is concerning, given the large monetary and resource investment that DPD has made in this technology. We continue to recommend that investigators inquire about video as early in the investigation as possible, as retention times for both DPD and private sources can result in the deletion of video evidence before it can be acquired.
We found no evidence where a complainant’s conviction or guilty plea had a bearing on the investigation. Credibility assessments were generally lacking for both officers and complainants/witnesses. In all of the cases we reviewed, we noted appropriate evaluation of whether officers complied with DPD policy.18
In five cases, OCI investigators appropriately discovered potential misconduct during the course of their investigations. In two cases, officers were sustained for truthfulness issues based on the content of their statements to OCI investigators. In another case, it was discovered that an officer improperly filled out a log sheet and failed to document a traffic stop. In another case, the investigator learned that an Emergency Services Operator (ESO) sent officers to the incorrect address. In the remaining case, an officer and his responding supervisor failed to document an injury after a vehicle door was accidently closed on the complainant’s foot.

18If an allegation appropriately received a finding of unfounded or not sustained, evaluation of policy compliance was not assessed since, by definition, its occurrence was either refuted or not substantiated.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 41 of 182 Pg ID 9803

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 40

January 16, 2014

In one case, the preponderance of evidence standard was not used – a vast improvement over previous reviews. This is based on our determination that different findings were warranted based on the documentation provided for our review. In the case, the complainant alleged that an ESO was rude during a 911 call. The investigator believed that the ESO’s demeanor was proper, but the recording – and the ESO’s own supervisor’s investigation – supported a sustained finding. As is our practice, each of the non-compliant cases will be discussed in detail with OCI staff during our next site visit.
All of the cases we reviewed were completed within the prescribed 90-day time period. This is a first for OCI and should be recognized. Untimely investigations have plagued OCI for the duration of our tenure, and have resulted in Court intervention on at least two occasions. We credit the case management and accountability systems put in place by the Chief Investigator for finally achieving compliance with this standard.
There were no cases in which corrective action or specific disciplinary action was recommended as a result of the investigation. All sustained cases were referred to the Office of the Chief of Police “for appropriate action.”
We note that neighborhood canvasses are being conducted on a timelier basis, but we nonetheless reviewed several cases in which the canvasses were performed so long after the alleged occurrence as to have no investigative value. We have repeatedly recommended that canvassing be one of the first few investigative steps taken by investigators after they are assigned their cases.
The City is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: Our review during this reporting period found that the IAD investigative packages continue to be well organized, and elements of the investigation are easy to locate. We found that the IAD investigations were conducted in a professional manner. The supervisor meets with the investigators every two weeks to discuss the case progress and grant extensions when necessary. During this review of 21 completed IAD investigations, we found that there were precise descriptions of the incidents and reviews of all relevant evidence. There were two cases that exceeded the 90-day requirement due to the criminal court process. Appropriate credibility determinations were made in all of the cases, and ultimately the determinations were made using the preponderance of evidence standard. In three of the 21 investigations, additional DPD policy violations were identified and sustained.
DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 42 of 182 Pg ID 9804

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 41

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement U33
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding the review of all investigations to require:
a. investigations to be reviewed by the chain of command above the investigator;
b. the reviewing supervisors to identify any deficiencies in those investigations and require the investigator to correct any deficiencies within seven days of the submission of the report and evaluation to the reviewing supervisor;
c. the reviewing supervisors to recommend and the final reviewing authority to refer any incident with training, policy or procedural implications to the appropriate DPD unit;
d. appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action when an investigator fails to conduct or reviewing supervisor fails to evaluate an investigation appropriately; and
e. a written explanation by any supervisor, including the Chief of Police, who disagrees with a finding or departs from a recommended non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action, including the basis for the departure.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our assessment of compliance with the Phase 2 requirements of this paragraph included interviews with staff; and a review of closed command-level, FI, IAD, and OCI cases.
Command Level Investigations: Our assessment for this reporting period found that in all (100%) of the 82 SIRs reviewed there was a chain of command review above the investigator. DPD identified deficiencies in 80 (97%) of 82 cases, with 67 (84%) requiring corrections within seven days of submission. We found a number of instances where timelines were incomplete, not reflecting new return/submission dates. We again caution the command reviewers that they need to conduct critical reviews of these investigations to correct these issues before the report is entered into MAS. As we have previously mentioned, the review of SIRs by the command level remains the most critical step in the conduct of these investigations. With specific training and more critical command reviews of the investigations, DPD will be able to improve the quality of investigations conducted at the command level. It is incumbent on the captains and commanders to continue to ensure that deficiencies in the investigations are corrected, and to consult the appropriate units if any procedural or tactical issues are identified.
Only 67 of 80 cases in which deficiencies were identified, or 84%, were submitted within the seven-day required timeframe. DPD is not in compliance with the Command Level Investigations portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: In our previous reviews of FI cases for compliance with these requirements, we noted that the case files included chain of command reviews and recommended referrals to training. The investigations also included references to supervisors’ requests for additional information or investigative work.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 43 of 182 Pg ID 9805

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 42

January 16, 2014

To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed five completed FI cases. Although it appears, based on our discussions with FI staff, that supervisory reviews and evaluations are occurring, we recommend that these reviews continue to be more thoroughly documented.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Office of the Chief Investigator: In our previous reports, we noted our inability to determine what appropriate supervisory intervention has taken place when investigations are deficient. While there has been evidence of supervisory review in most cases, when investigations are returned, specific issues and corrective measures were usually not documented. Glaring deficiencies such as chronic timeliness issues, which would warrant counseling and/or discipline, were not addressed in writing.
For the current reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 100 closed investigations. During this reporting period, 72 cases were returned for deficiencies. Most of these were for spelling, grammar, and formatting. In four of the cases, deficiencies were either missed or not corrected within seven days. Three of these cases involved the failure to contact potential witnesses or involved officers, and one of these cases resulted in an inappropriate administrative closure. In the fourth case, the investigator’s recommended findings in the investigative summary did not match the findings submitted to the Board of Police Commissioners.
We did not review any cases in which a reviewer disagreed with the recommended findings of the investigator.
The City is in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of the paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: During this reporting period, the IAD supervisor used the case management system, Case Trax, to record any deficiencies and instructions in the investigators’ progress notes. All of the investigations were reviewed and approved by the chain of command above the investigators within the required timeframe.
IAD is in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

B. Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations CJ Requirement U34
The DPD shall revise its reporting policies to require officers to document on a single auditable form any prisoner injury, use of force, allegation of use of force, and instance in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 44 of 182 Pg ID 9806

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 43

January 16, 2014

During the previous reporting period, we reviewed 181 auditable forms, and found that 91% were prepared correctly and documented the prisoner injuries, uses of force, and allegations of force. The forms included 17 forms that were referred to FI/IAD, and one in which the officers acquired a target.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 183 auditable forms, and found that 173 (95%) were prepared correctly and documented the prisoner injuries, uses of force, and allegations of force. The forms include 18 forms that were referred to FI/IAD, and seven in which the officers acquired a target.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for Command Level Investigations.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U35
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding use of force and prisoner injury notifications to require:
a. officers to notify their supervisors following any use of force or prisoner injury;
b. that upon such notice, a supervisor shall respond to the scene of all uses of force that involve a firearm discharge, a visible injury or a complaint of injury. A supervisor shall respond to all other uses of force on a priority basis. Upon arrival at the scene, the supervisor shall interview the subject(s), examine the subject(s) for injury, and ensure that the subject(s) receive needed medical attention;
c. the supervisor responding to the scene to notify IAD of all serious uses of force, uses of force that result in visible injury, uses of force that a reasonable officer should have known were likely to result in injury, uses of force where there is prisoner injury; and
d. IAD to respond to the scene of, and investigate, all incidents where a prisoner dies, suffers serious bodily injury or requires hospital admission, or involves a serious use of force, and to permit IAD to delegate all other use of force or prisoner injury investigations to the supervisor for a command investigation.19
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: During the previous reporting period, we reviewed 80 Command Level Investigations cases and found that in 79 (99%), a supervisor was notified following a use of force or a prisoner injury. There were 17 cases in which the use of force involved a firearms discharge, a visible injury, or a complaint of injury. A supervisor responded
19 Amended by Court Order dated September 15, 2008.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 45 of 182 Pg ID 9807

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 44

January 16, 2014

to 16 of them. Supervisors responded to other uses of force on a priority basis in the remaining 63 cases. In combination, a supervisor responded to 79 (99%) of the 80 cases reviewed.
In 76 (95%) of the 80 cases, a supervisor interviewed the subject at the scene, at the district/precinct, or at DRH.20 Also, in 73 (99%) of 74 cases, a supervisor examined the subject for injury and ensured that the subject received needed medical attention.21 Notifications were made to FI, IAD or Notifications and Control (N&C) on 54 occasions; there were 22 instances where N&C was contacted and they advised the incident did not warrant FI notification (95%). Notifications were not made in four of the 80 cases. FI assumed responsibility for eight cases. There was one allegation of choking, and it was resolved through the Command Level Investigation. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for Command Level Investigations.
During this reporting period, we reviewed 82 Command Level Investigations cases and found that in 80 (97%), a supervisor was notified following a use of force or a prisoner injury. There were 47 cases in which the use of force involved a firearms discharge, a visible injury, or a complaint of injury. A supervisor responded to 46 of them. Supervisors responded to other uses of force on a priority basis in 33 of the remaining 36 cases. In combination, a supervisor responded to 80 (97%) of 82 cases.
In 76 (95%) of the 80 cases, a supervisor interviewed the subject at the scene, at the district/precinct, or at DRH.22 Also, in 73 (99%) of 74 cases, a supervisor examined the subject for injury and ensured that the subject received needed medical attention.23 Notifications were made to FI, IAD or Notifications and Control (N&C) on 54 occasions; there were 22 instances where N&C was contacted and they advised the incident did not warrant FI notification (95%). Notifications were not made in four of the 80 cases. FI assumed responsibility for eight cases. There was one allegation of choking and it was resolved through the Command Level Investigation. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance for Command Level Investigations with this paragraph.
Force Investigations: Our review of five FI cases relevant to this requirement found that no officers failed to report the use of force to supervisors as required.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

20 In some instances, a subject is moved to the district/precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject.
21 In some instances, a subject is moved to the district/precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject. The number examined is reduced to 74 from 80 due to six having no injuries.
22 In some instances, a subject is moved to the district/precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject.
23 In some instances, a subject is moved to the district/precinct or DRH due to circumstances at the scene or the health of the subject. The number examined is reduced to 74 from 80 due to six having no injuries.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 46 of 182 Pg ID 9808

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 45

January 16, 2014

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U36
The DPD shall revise its use of force and prisoner injury investigation policies to require:
a. command use of force preliminary investigations to be completed within 10 days of the incident. These investigations shall include a synopsis of the incident, photographs of any injuries, witness statements, a canvas of the area, and a profile of the officer’s prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct, and a first-line supervisory evaluation. The final command use of force investigation shall be completed within 30 days of the incident;
b. IAD investigations to be completed within 90 days of the incident; and
c. copies of all reports and command investigations to be sent to IAD within 7 days of completion of the investigation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Command Level Investigations: In the last reporting period, we found that 74 (92%) of the preliminary investigations were completed within 10 days of the event. There were photographs of injuries in seven of the files, an improvement over the five in the last reporting period. In 80 (100%) of the cases, the canvass and witness information was included in the file. Officers’ prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct were included in 80 cases (100%). Eighty firstline supervisor evaluations were made in the cases (100%). The final command use of force investigations were completed within 30 days in 76 (95%) of the cases. Copies of completed Command Level Investigations were transmitted to IAD within seven days of completion of the investigations in 76 (95%) of the cases. DPD must place greater attention to the requirements dealing with the 10- and 30-day reporting requirements and the transmission to FI of the completed reports within the seven-day requirement. These issues appear to be related to a lack of a tracking system and we would once again encourage DPD to install a more sophisticated system than currently exists.
During this reporting period, we found that 71 (86%) of the 82 preliminary investigations were completed within 10 days of the event. There were photographs of injuries in five of the files. In 80 (97%) of the 82 cases, the canvass and witness information was included in the file. Officers’ prior uses of force and allegations of misconduct were included in 82 cases (100%). Eighty-one first-line supervisor evaluations were made in the cases (99%). The final command use of force investigations were completed within 30 days in 68 (83%) of the cases. Copies of completed Command Level Investigations were transmitted to IAD within seven days of completion of the investigations in 75 (91%) of the cases. DPD must place greater attention to the requirements dealing with the 10- and 30-day reporting requirements and the transmission to

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 47 of 182 Pg ID 9809

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 46

January 16, 2014

FI of the completed reports within the seven-day requirement. DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of this paragraph.
Force Investigations: To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed five completed FI cases.24 For FI to have only completed five cases, one not requiring an extensive investigative effort and the second principally investigated by another agency, is troubling. Although these cases were completed within the specified time limit, the low number of completed cases is not sufficient to change our compliance finding at this time. In addition, we continue to recommend that DPD closely evaluate case management and related issues, including staffing, and more closely monitor FI investigators’ time management and report preparation to more expeditiously complete these investigations.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U37
The DPD has created a Shooting Team, composed of officers from the Homicide Section and IAD. The Shooting Team shall respond to the scene and investigate all critical firearms discharges and in-custody deaths.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Previously, we found that the JIST appropriately responded to critical firearm discharge events; accordingly, we found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. There was one critical firearm discharge investigation completed during this reporting period. JIST appropriately responded to all of the events.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

24 These investigations included one critical firearm discharge (unintentional) event and one case involving a Detroit officer, which occurred outside of the jurisdiction of the DPD and was investigated by the agency having jurisdiction.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 48 of 182 Pg ID 9810

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 47

January 16, 2014

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U38
The DPD shall develop a protocol for conducting investigations of critical firearm discharges that, in addition to the requirements of paragraphs 27-36, requires
a. the investigation to account for all shots fired, all shell casings, and the locations of all officers at the time the officer discharged the firearm;
b. the investigator to conduct and preserve in the investigative file all appropriate ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests; and
c. the investigation to be completed within 60 days of the incident. If a Garrity statement is necessary, then that portion of the investigation may be deferred until 30 days from the declination or conclusion of the criminal prosecution.25
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Our review of critical firearm discharge investigations for previous reports noted a number of significant issues relating to the requirements of this paragraph. We found that although investigators inventoried the officers’ ammunition to assist with determining the number of shots fired, and collected shell casings at the scene, there were instances where the number of shots believed to have been fired did not match the inventory of officers’ ammunition and/or the number of retrieved shell casings. We emphasized the importance of accounting for all rounds that are fired, and where there appears to be a discrepancy due to the described magazine problems, documenting it in the case reports. The DPD attributed this to an ongoing problem with the ammunition magazines that sometimes prevented officers from loading them to capacity and indicated its intent to correct the problem with the issuance of replacement equipment.
In addition, we noted that while the locations of officers were generally described, the files do not consistently include diagrams depicting their positions. We also expressed concern regarding the absence of gunshot residue and DNA collection and analysis. The DPD advised that gunshot residue analysis is no longer available; that DNA analysis is limited and that there are significant delays in ballistics analyses, which are conducted by the State Crime Lab. These have been – and remain – issues mitigating the ability of FI to conduct complete and timely critical firearm discharge investigations. And finally, we have repeatedly expressed concern with the failure to complete these investigations within the required 60-day time limit.
During the last reporting period, we assessed an off-duty critical firearm discharge; the way in which it was investigated and reviewed is troubling. There were material conflicts in the
25 Consent Judgment amendment, April 23, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 49 of 182 Pg ID 9811

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 48

January 16, 2014

investigation regarding how the decedent was positioned and where she was shot at the time of the critical firearm discharge. (This conflict also extends to the CLFRT analysis, and will be further discussed in U40.) Also, we found the FI’s analysis deficient for the following reasons: (1) command personnel did not address the three critical witness statements missing from the Homicide Unit; (2) the officer’s t-shirt and boxer shorts that the bullet passed through were not collected as evidence nor retained for trajectory analysis; (3) the lack of a thorough ballistics examination, Gun Shot Residue Testing (GSR), and crime scene analysis; (4) the bullet removed from the victim was never recovered by the DPD, placed into evidence, and submitted to the MSP Lab; (5) the failure to administer a Breathalyzer or blood test to the officer – who admitted (prima facie evidence, contrary to FI’s position) consuming alcoholic beverages – as required by DPD policy; (6) the DPD’s focus on a worn holster when the weapon should have also been examined for any malfunctions or alterations to the trigger; and (7) the DPD’s failure to address the secondary policy violation on the amount of ammunition carried in the off-duty Department weapon contrary to policy that might have been part of the reason for the discharge. In order to address and or clarify these issues, we requested that the DPD provide additional information relating to this incident. The DPD provided some of the requested information; however, we find it necessary to further assess this case, which we will attempt to accomplish during the next site visit. Accordingly, we expect to include our findings related to this investigation in our next quarterly report.
The generally accepted professional police practice is to investigate all critical firearm discharge events that result in death as a homicide until proven otherwise. Investigating in this manner protects the integrity of the investigation and all evidence until a thorough and comprehensive review and subsequent findings can be made. It is troubling that in the case described above, although there were witnesses and physical evidence available, that the Medical Examiner’s report indicated, in part, “the manner of death is indeterminate.” We recommend that the DPD reopen this investigation and reassess how this incident occurred.
To assess compliance with requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed one completed critical firearm discharge investigation that involved an unintentional discharge during a firearm inspection by a DPD supervisor.
The DPD on occasion gives officers the benefit of the doubt involving their conduct at the outset of an investigation. We have noted and discussed this concern with the DPD on several prior occasions. The benefit of the doubt should only be given to officers only after all the facts and evidence has been completely collected, thoroughly investigated, and analyzed at the completion of an investigation.
The investigations that we reviewed described the locations of the officers; however, the diagrams that were included did not specifically indicate the officers’ locations when their firearms were discharged. The locations of shell casings were noted; however, we are concerned that FI did not reconcile the number of shots that were believed to have been fired in two firearm discharge events. We have continuing concerns regarding the lack of gunshot residue tests (in five cases) where such tests would have served as an investigative aid in determining whether or not the suspect discharged a firearm and the lack of ballistic testing on firearms and shell casings.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 50 of 182 Pg ID 9812

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 49

January 16, 2014

We are aware that the DPD relies on the Michigan State Laboratory for ballistic testing, and have been advised that the present lab protocols and procedures do not allow for some of the required testing and analysis. This must be addressed.
Although the one critical firearm discharge investigation we reviewed was timely, the abovecited ongoing issues are significant and continue to mitigate the quality, thoroughness, and credibility of these investigations. Each critical firearm discharge must be investigated with a focus on whether the deadly force was used in accordance with DPD policy, regardless of whether or not it resulted in injury or death. Crime scene activities and the analyses of all evidence – including important ballistic evidence – often form the basis for making appropriate decisions regarding these most serious issues. Therefore, the deficiencies described herein and in our previous reports must be addressed.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U39
The DPD shall require a Command-level Force Review Team to evaluate all critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths. The team shall be chaired by the Deputy Chief who directly supervises IAD. The DPD shall establish criteria for selecting the other member of the team.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The Team is chaired by the Commander, Internal Affairs/Force Investigations, and includes Deputy Chiefs, the Training Commander, and a specified Chief of Police designee.
The DPD submitted one CLFRT report that met the composition requirements of this paragraph during this reporting period. The report assessed included one critical firearms discharge (unintentional).
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 51 of 182 Pg ID 9813

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 50

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement U40
The DPD policy that defines the Command-level Force Review Team’s role shall require the team to:
a. complete its review of critical firearm discharges that result in injury and in-custody deaths within 21 days from the completion of the investigation and require the Chief of Police to complete his or her review of the team’s report within 14 days;26
b. comply with the revised review of investigations policies and procedures;
c. interview the principal investigators; and
d. prepare a report to the Chief of Police in compliance with the revised investigatory report and evaluation protocol.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During this reporting period, the DPD submitted one CLFRT report that met the time limitations for completion. The CLFRT’s assessments complied with DPD protocols, and the principal investigator was interviewed.
During the previous reporting period we disagreed with the conclusions of the CLFRT as outlined in paragraph U38 (and described below) involving a fatal off-duty critical firearm discharge event that was assessed on a deficient force investigation. We have requested additional information and suggested this investigation be reopened. We will report our findings based upon the receipt of the requested information in our next quarterly report.
The CLFRT rendered its finding without the benefit of a complete and thorough analysis of all the evidence and without addressing material conflicts. The issues include:
(1) A material conflict exists with the CLFRT’s report and Force Investigation’s report as to the decedent’s position (squatted) behind the officer and where she was shot;
(2) The failure to address the missing Homicide Unit statements of three material witnesses;
(3) The failure to address the collection of physical evidence, such as the bullet at the Medical Examiner’s Office and the officer’s clothing that was subjected to the gunshot for trajectory analysis;
(4) The failure to address secondary policy violations as to the officer not being tested for alcohol impairment as required by DPD policy and not carrying the required amount of ammunition in a DPD weapon; and
(5) The failure to address testing the weapon itself with focus on an old worn holster. There were no reviews completed by the Chief of Police that were untimely.

26 Amended by Court Order dated April 23, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 52 of 182 Pg ID 9814

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 51

January 16, 2014

DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. However, during the next reporting period, if we find DPD has not addressed/clarified the issues related to the case discussed in U38, we may find it necessary to find the DPD in Phase 2 non-compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U41
The commanding officer of Force Investigation or other appropriate DPD executive designated by the Chief of Police shall annually review critical firearm discharges and in-custody deaths in aggregate to detect patterns and/or problems and report his or her findings and recommendations, including additional investigative protocols and standards for all critical firearm discharge and in-custody death investigations, to the Chief of Police. A copy of the report shall be submitted to the Monitor within five months after the end of the year reported on.27
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

Critical Issues:
• The failure to conduct complete, quality investigations within prescribed timelines remains a critical issue. We again emphasize the need to provide formal documentation of reasons for delays in the completion of investigations. Many cases indicate that they are returned for corrections, but do not explain what is needed to be corrected, nor what new time limits have been established for re-submission. This is not acceptable administrative practice. Complete information must be provided under the Timeline category of the SIR. Timelines need to be checked by the Command Review to ensure completeness. The final submission date in the timeline chronology should be the MAS entry date.
• DPD needs to continue to provide more attention to the quality of interviews; some lack details regarding the incident and exactly how the officers on the scene responded to the incident; it appears that investigators, armed with new information from interviews seldom re-interview officers to resolve differences. Training must be provided to officers/investigators who have responsibility for conducting these important interviews. Video and audio recordings must be reviewed as part of the investigative process; the Department needs to place greater emphasis on the appropriate use of the body
27 Amended by Court Order dated January 28, 2009.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 53 of 182 Pg ID 9815

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 52

January 16, 2014

microphones to capture interactions between officers and the public/subjects. Supervisors need to ensure that activity logs are properly completed with respect to the video and audio capabilities; unknown is not an acceptable category of the capabilities. When equipment is inoperative, the proper documentation should be prepared and commented on in the investigation. We continue to recommend that a formalized practice of forwarding complex/faulty investigations to the Training Division and/or the Policy Section for their review as a measure of ensuring that both units are aware of the situations officers are confronting in the streets and institute any corrective measure they may deem appropriate.
• The DPD needs to carefully monitor case management issues including assignment, due dates, extensions, and case status in order to more effectively address case management deficiencies.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to assess compliance, paying particular attention to the thoroughness and completeness of investigations, their review by supervisors, and compliance with the timelines.

¶ Requirements 27 Revise investigative policies 28 Investigation by uninvolved supervisor 29 Procedures for investigative interviews 30 Leading questions prohibited, etc. 31 Garrity Protocol required 32 Revise investigatory report policies 33 Chain of command reviews 34 Auditable form required 35 Notification of supervisors, etc. 36 Completion of command investigations 37 Joint Incident Shooting Team 38 Protocol for critical discharge investigations 39 Command Level Force Review Team 40 Review critical firearm discharges 41 Command-level force review requirements

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 54 of 182 Pg ID 9816

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 53

January 16, 2014

V. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES
The arrest and detention policies and practice requirements are a critical component of this Agreement. The policies prohibit an officer from making an arrest without probable cause, and the existing policy requires supervisory review within 12 hours of the arrest. It further requires that for an arrest that is unsupported by probable cause, or a warrant that is not sought, an auditable form must document the circumstances within 12 hours of the event.
The DPD revised its investigatory stop-and-frisk policies to appropriately define investigatory stops and reasonable suspicion and supported this effort by frequent roll call training and two Administrative Messages issued in January and April 2011 and again on July 26, 2013. As a result of additional emphasis by the Department on investigatory stops/frisks, DPD has previously attained compliance in this area, but compliance has been inconsistent. DPD also revised its witness identification policies to comply with the revised arrest and investigatory policies. Policy establishes that a material witness can only be taken into custody by obtaining a Court order prior to such taking.
The revised policies and procedures in this area require significant documentation and reviews by supervisors. Command notification is required in all instances where there exists a reported violation of DPD arrest, holds/warrants, investigatory stop-and-frisk, witness identification and questioning policies, and all reports in which an arraignment warrant is not sought.
While previous compliance had been achieved in these areas, we note that DPD has had issues with the inability of personnel to indicate holds over 48 hours on the Warrant Tracking Form. This has been problematic in that when command review occurs, the commanders had relied solely on whether the OIC had indicated on the Warrant Tracking Form the hold status of the detainee. Due to previous compliance, the current issues stemmed from combining the general investigative units that were previously housed in the districts and precincts into two central facilities. There have been internal discussions among DPD staff to return the general investigative units to the districts/precincts to provide more accountability to the command personnel in those areas. The issue of failing to document holds over 48 hours has been addressed in the Command Accountability Meetings and commanders are now required to verify the existence of any holds in violation of policy.
DPD had improved its documenting traffic/investigatory stops, detainee registration, and following internal witness identification policies during previous reporting periods. DPD officers’ ability to articulate reasonable suspicion with frisks has declined during this and the two previous reporting periods. A review of in-car video of traffic stops by DPD supervisors has indicated a number of these stops where frisks occur but are not documented by the officer(s) on their activity log.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 55 of 182 Pg ID 9817

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 54

January 16, 2014

However, of particular note is the present process for recording stops and related frisks in officers’ daily logs. This is a longstanding deficiency that must be addressed. It is important to uniformly capture stop and related search (frisk) data so as to allow for a credible analysis of these stops and related searches (frisks) in order to determine whether there are any indications of personal, district or department wide issues relating to the basis for stops, frisks, or disparate treatment.
We still note that the Department’s ability to document and timely prepare warrant submittals to the prosecutor has been problematic, in that the failure to do so caused other violations of policy. (See U50, U51, and U53.) We continue to find in a few instances, the failure to prepare the required auditable form or timely review (see U59) by a commanding officer has kept DPD from compliance with certain paragraphs. Supervisory and command review continues to be lacking in some areas, and that documentation of violations should be a Departmental priority.
Most of the detainees arrested by DPD exceed the 48-hour requirement for arraignment within 48 hours of the arrest. Much of this process is not under control of DPD (prosecutor’s office/court system). There has been discussion among the parties to offer an additional daily arraignment time to more expeditiously arraign arrestees; this should reduce the number of detainees arraigned over 48 hours.
All paragraphs under the Arrest and Detention Policies and Practices require supervisory review and command review when violations of policy are discovered. On August 7, 2012, Administrative Message (Teletype 12-066) mandated 12-hour work shifts for police officers in the field and the holding facilities. However, sergeants and higher level ranks remained on eight-hour shifts. Since adequate supervisory and command review has been major issues for compliance purposes, it appears that consistency of supervision for field personnel could jeopardize DPD’s ability to monitor subordinates’ activity. As a result of meetings with the Chief and DPD personnel a decision has been made for all patrol entities to revert back to the eight-hour shift schedule. In addition to the eight-hour shifts, a 10-hour power shift will be instituted at all precincts/districts (Administrative Message, Teletype 13-0977, issued September 16, 2013).

A. Arrest Policies CJ Requirement U42 The DPD shall revise its arrest policies to define arrest and probable cause as those terms are defined in this Agreement and prohibit the arrest of an individual with less than probable cause. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance is linked to and dependent upon the implementation of U43. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 56 of 182 Pg ID 9818

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 55

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement U43
The DPD shall review all arrests for probable cause at the time the arrestee is presented at the precinct or specialized unit. This review shall be memorialized in writing within 12 hours of the arrest. For any arrest unsupported by probable cause or in which an arraignment warrant was not sought, the DPD shall document the circumstances of the arrest and/or the reasons the arraignment warrant was not sought on an auditable form within 12 hours of the event.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with these requirements for this reporting period, we reviewed a random sample of 102 arrest case files. The review included Crisnet reports, Detainee Input Sheets, DPD Warrant Verification Logs, officers’ Daily Activity Logs, Arraignment Verification Logs, and detainee file folders. In all cases, sufficient probable cause for the arrest was present.
In all cases supervisory approval for probable cause occurred within 12 hours of the arrest. In one arrest probable cause did not exist for the charge but the supervisor reviewing the report promptly completed the auditable form for Warrant Not Served but failed to complete form DPD UF-001 (Review of Arrest Exception). When an officer is not seeking an arraignment warrant, the Department is required to complete Auditable Form U004, Warrant Tracking Hold Form (effective September 2009). Of the 102 arrest cases we reviewed, the Department did not seek a warrant in 26. In all cases but one, the required auditable form was completed; and in another instance, the form was not completed in a timely fashion.
DPD’s compliance rate is 98%, a slight decline from the previous quarter’s 99%, for the three separate and distinct requirements of this paragraph. DPD has been in compliance with Phase 2 of this paragraph in all our previous reports.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Investigatory Stop Policies CJ Requirement U44
The DPD shall revise its investigatory stop and frisk policies to define investigatory stop and reasonable suspicion as those terms are defined in this Agreement. The policy shall specify that a frisk is authorized only when the officer has reasonable suspicion to fear for his or her safety and that the scope of the frisk must be narrowly tailored to those specific reasons.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 57 of 182 Pg ID 9819

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 56

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement U45
The DPD shall require written documentation of all investigatory stops and frisks by the end of the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD shall review all investigatory stops and frisks and document on an auditable form those unsupported by reasonable suspicion within 24 hours of receiving the officer’s report.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In our tenth quarterly report, we determined that DPD was in compliance with the provisions of this paragraph; this was the first reporting period that DPD achieved compliance in this area. DPD had previously come into compliance with traffic and investigatory stops. In the last reporting period, DPD’s compliance rate for frisks was 90%. Supervisors must scrutinize each officer’s Daily Activity Log and complete the required auditable form when reasonable suspicion for the stop does not exist. Due to settling previous litigation, DPD issued Training Directive 1203 on January 12, 2012 reinforcing Detroit City Code 38-1-3 as it pertains to the loitering ordinance. The new guidelines clearly define the rights of the individual and provide clarity to personnel when enforcing loitering violations. On August 16, 2013, DPD issued Teletype #130861 reaffirming Section 38-1-3 of the Detroit City Code and advising officers that simply writing “loitering” on their Activity Log without any other description does not meet the requirements of this paragraph.
DPD issued Teletype 13-073 (read at all Roll Calls from February 16, through February 22, 2013) regarding traffic stops and the codes used by the officers to notify Communications Operations Zone Dispatchers when they clear the stop. One of the codes indicates “advised/released without requiring the officer to state to the dispatcher the reason for the initial stop.”
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 303 officers’ Daily Activity Logs completed on two randomly selected dates.28 Each district/precinct provided the logs requested, which included traffic stops and other situations where officers made investigatory stops of individuals who were not in vehicles or in vehicles stopped in places where a police inquiry was warranted.
Our review yielded 141 investigatory stops, of which 123 indicated a lawful purpose. We observed and noted in previous reports that supervisors are now more thorough in their reviews of officers’ Daily Activity Logs and would complete auditable forms for violations. There were 19 auditable forms completed by supervisors/CLOs for investigatory stops in violation: 11 were submitted in a timely basis and eight were late. Typically, those submitted after the time requirement were reviewed by CLO’s and they are doing the work that should have been done by the officer’s immediate supervisor. Most of the investigatory stops involved subjects being in a park after posted hours, entering premises/property without owner’s permission, and loitering. In all instances, supervisors reviewed all investigatory stops within the required timeframe.
28 For this review, we randomly selected Daily Activity Logs completed on July 26, and September 1, 2013; for the August 1-14 2013 sample, all DPD Activity Logs containing documentation of any frisks were requested.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 58 of 182 Pg ID 9820

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 57

January 16, 2014

DPD’s compliance rate for investigatory stops only (excluding frisks and traffic stops) during this reporting period is 95%, a slight reduction from the 97% in the previous quarter.
The logs included 473 traffic stops, and our review indicated that 22 did not contain sufficient information to justify the stop, which is a basic requirement. One officer accounted for 12 of the violations. We found 10 auditable forms completed for the violations; however, only one was completed in a timely fashion. Supervisors reviewed all the officers’ Daily Activity Logs containing traffic stops in a timely fashion, marking their signatures, and dates and times of review. DPD’s compliance rate for traffic stops is 95%.
In earlier reporting periods, there was a significant decline in the number of frisks contained in our sample population. For this report, we requested a one-day sample for the months of July and September 2013; and requested that DPD forward all Daily Activity Logs containing a frisk for August 1-14, 2013. Consequently, we reviewed 125 frisks appearing on officers’ Daily Activity Logs for the reporting period, and we found that 114 met the requirement. There were 24 that did not meet the requirement; however, 14 of them had timely supervisory review and contained the appropriate Investigatory Stop and/or Frisk Exception Form. There were three auditable forms completed that were submitted late and seven of the frisks in violation did not contain the required auditable form. We observed that the Compliance Liaison Officers (CLO) in some of the precincts were completing the required auditable forms for these violations upon their review, but they fell outside the reporting timeframe. The CLO’s are conducting the Activity Log reviews when they do internal inspections but that is the task that the officer’s immediate supervisors should have been doing. Officers are required to complete the “Recap of Activity” portion of the log to indicate their total daily activities and also mark the “Frisk” box in the narrative portion of the report. This is a tool for the supervisor to locate and review the frisks that occur by his/her subordinates. However, supervisors have not used this tool – as we continue to find instances where the officer properly conducts a frisk, but does not mark either of the appropriate boxes or the frisk box is marked erroneously and the supervisors fail to discover the errors. We found one Activity Log where a frisk was indicated on the face sheet of the Activity Log, but there were no frisks indicated in the narrative portion of the log. In one instance, officers conducted a frisk where the only articulation of reasonable suspicion was “furtive gestures.” In another, the officers asked for consent to frisk, and the supervisors failed to complete the required auditable form.
During a previous site visit, the Parties held a meeting to discuss DPD’s request that consent searches (frisks) met the legal requirements of the Consent Judgment. No changes were made as a result of that meeting, and we have found that on the few occasions when an officer conducts a consent frisk the supervisors have completed the auditable form.
A review of in-car video of frisks by the training staff and commanders is helpful in ensuring that legal authority exists for the frisks. In our eleventh quarterly report, we noted that supervisors conducted in-car video review of their subordinates’ investigatory stops and frisks; however during this review we only found one instance where this occurred. This is a sound supervisory practice and we encourage DPD to continue the video review of these stops when the legality of these stops is in question. As noted above, Administrative Message 11-0151, issued on January 28, 2011; Administrative Message 11-0477, issued on April 22, 2011; Administrative Message 11-1497, issued on December 22, 2011; and a subsequent

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 59 of 182 Pg ID 9821

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 58

January 16, 2014

Administrative Message, issued on November 9, 2012; emphasized the recording of investigatory stops and frisks by officers and supervisory review. In addition to the previous emphasis DPD has placed on stop and frisk, the Department issued Administrative Message, Teletype #13-0766 on July 26, 2013, clarifying when a frisk can be conducted during an investigatory stop.
U102 mandates that DPD policy on video cameras shall require officers to record all vehicle stops. Considering that DPD officers conduct thousands of traffic stops monthly, the number of undocumented frisks on Activity Logs could be significant.
In previous reporting periods, we found a few cases where auditable forms were completed after they were requested by the Monitoring Team and reviewed by DPD personnel. DPD personnel have been trained; this is no longer an issue of training but one of accountability. Command personnel must ensure that their sergeants/lieutenants review investigatory stops and take action when they occur. DPD continues to fail in the area of supervisory and command review. Firstline supervisors are the key personnel in ensuring that all investigatory stops are in compliance with policy. DPD’s compliance rate for frisks this quarter is 92%, an increase from the 90% we found during the previous reporting period. Conducting frisks that follow appropriate guidelines and meet established law is an important part of this paragraph and must be compliant.
The present process for recording stops and related frisks in officers’ daily logs does not allow for the capture of various data required to conduct a credible analysis of these stops and related searches (frisks). To address this, we continue to suggest that the DPD design a stop (field contact) data form that requires officers to uniformly capture information related to the stop and any subsequent search (frisk). Contemporary police practices suggest that this data should include – but not be limited to – the reasons for stops, basis for any subsequent searches (frisks), results of searches (frisks), arrest/citation or other action taken, and personal data related to the person stopped. This analyses of this and related data should allow the DPD to determine whether there are any personnel-, district-, or Department-wide issues relating to the basis for stops, frisks, or disparate treatment.
DPD is not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not In Compliance

C. Witness Identification and Questioning Policies
CJ Requirement U46
The DPD shall revise its witness identification and questioning policies to comply with the revised arrest and investigatory stop policies. The DPD shall prohibit the seizure of an individual without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual and require that the scope and duration of any seizure be narrowly tailored to the reasons supporting the police action. The DPD shall prohibit the conveyance of any individual to another location without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent of the individual.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 60 of 182 Pg ID 9822

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 59

January 16, 2014

Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U48; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U47
The DPD shall develop the revised witness identification and questioning policies within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The revised policies shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the revised witness identification and questioning policies within three months of the review and approval of the DOJ.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Full compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U48; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U48
The DPD shall document the content and circumstances of all interviews, interrogations and conveyances during the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD shall review in writing all interviews, interrogations and conveyances and document on an auditable form those in violation of DPD policy within 24 hours of the interview, interrogation or conveyance.29
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
On June 1, 2011, the Court issued an order relevant to a DOJ letter dated May 1, 2010, where an agreement was accepted for timelines required for the review of all interviews, interrogations, and conveyances. The Court order permits that supervisors can review all interviews, interrogations, and conveyances within 24 hours, compared to the 12 hours previously mandated by the paragraph.
29 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 61 of 182 Pg ID 9823

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 60

January 16, 2014

On June 13, 2012, DPD advised us that all general investigative operational units would be merged under one command, the Criminal Investigation Unit, and be divided geographically into East and West facilities (Central District and Second Precinct). Although this change should increase efficiency, it has resulted in commanders’ reviews of holds often exceeding the 48-hour mandate (U53, U60). We have noted that during this review that both general investigations units located at Central District (East) and the Second Precinct (West) are now conducting their own internal inspections of their witness/interrogation forms for completeness and accuracy. This is a sound practice and should be expanded to other functions within the Department.
We reviewed 27 case files containing 81 interviews/interrogations (DPD Form 103, revised April 2009) from Homicide and found all in compliance. There were no violations of policy that would have required an auditable form. Homicide’s compliance rate with this paragraph is 100%.
We reviewed case files containing 54 interviews/interrogations from the Second Precinct (West), and found two that did not meet the requirement. In the two instances of policy violations we found that in one the name of the interviewing officer was not indicated on the interview form and in the other, supervisor approval was dated prior to the date of the interview. There were no required auditable forms generated for the policy violations. The Second Precinct’s compliance rate for interviews/interrogations increased from the previous quarter’s 94% to 96%.
We reviewed 26 interview/interrogation forms from the Domestic Violence Unit and found all in compliance (100%).
We reviewed 47 interview/interrogation forms from the Sex Crimes Unit and found all in compliance (100%).
We reviewed 26 interview/interrogation forms from the Child Abuse Unit and found that one did not contain a required supervisory review (96%).
We reviewed 26 witness conveyances from Homicide and the Sex Crimes Unit during the reporting period, and found all in compliance. In our previous report, we found two conveyances not in compliance. Due to the nature of homicide and sexual abuse investigations, witness conveyances are generally exclusive to more serious crimes.
DPD’s compliance rate for this paragraph is 997%, an increase from the 97% in the previous quarter.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

D. Prompt Judicial Review Policies
CJ Requirement U49
The DPD shall revise its policies to require prompt judicial review, as defined in this Agreement, for every person arrested by the DPD. The DPD shall develop a timely and systematic process for all arrestees to be presented for prompt judicial review or to be released.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 62 of 182 Pg ID 9824

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 61

January 16, 2014

Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U50; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U50
The DPD shall require that, for each arrestee, a warrant request for arraignment on the charges underlying the arrest is submitted to the prosecutor’s office within 48 hours of the arrest.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Due to a few case reports involving traffic, probation violations, and warrant arrests that are handled by other means, or where the arrestee is taken directly to court, we reviewed 76 case reports that eventually were submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office for arraignment. The documentation supporting this review included Crisnet reports, Warrant Verification Logs, Arraignment Sheets, Detainee Input Sheets, and Warrant Tracking Hold Forms. Of the 76 cases we reviewed where an arraignment warrant was submitted or the detainee taken directly to court, all but two met the 48-hour requirement.
In one instance, the warrant submittal to the prosecutor’s office was late; however, the appropriate Warrant Tracking Form was timely submitted by the officer in charge of the case and submitted for command review. In the remaining case, the warrant submittal was late, but the officer in charge failed to document the late submittal on the Warrant Tracking Form. DPD’s compliance rate for this for this paragraph is 99%, a slight increase from the previous quarter’s 98%.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U51
The DPD shall document on an auditable form all instances in which the request for an arraignment warrant is submitted more than 48 hours after the arrest. The DPD shall also document on an auditable form all instances in which it is not in compliance with the prompt judicial review policy and in which extraordinary circumstances delayed the arraignment. The documentation shall occur by the end of the shift in which there was: 1) a failure to request an

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 63 of 182 Pg ID 9825

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 62

January 16, 2014

arraignment within 48 hours, 2) a failure to comply with the prompt judicial review policy, or 3) an arraignment delayed by extraordinary circumstances.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess Phase 2 compliance with these requirements, we reviewed the same documents referenced in U50. Of the 102 arrest case reports we reviewed, there were 76 that began at the initial arrest and in which a warrant was submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office for arraignment. There was one case where the warrant submittal to the prosecutor’s office was late; however, the auditable Warrant Tracking Form was completed and submitted timely. In one other case, the auditable form was not generated for the failure to submit the warrant request timely.
There were 58 detainees who went to arraignment, and 39 of these where the arraignment occurred more than 48 hours from the time of the initial arrest. There were two cases where an auditable form was not completed for failing to have the detainee released or arraigned timely. When the commanding officer reviews the auditable form, s/he must inspect the document to ensure that the OIC is dating or placing the time the event was recognized. If the commanding officer reviews the dates and times of the events prior to approval, determining compliance is straightforward.
DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement for the current reporting period remains at 97%. DPD personnel who prepare the detainee warrant request information to the prosecutor should process and forward those documents promptly as any delay can create situations where detainees are not arraigned within the 48-hour time requirement.
On June 20,2013, DPD issued Teletype 13-0593 (to be read at consecutive Roll Calls) emphasizing member responsibility with Prompt Judicial Reviews (DPD Policy 202.1-7.2). As we noted previously, the elimination of evening arraignments by the 36th District Court of the State of Michigan will continue to be problematic for DPD in its ability to arraign detainees within the 48-hour time requirement.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

E. Hold Policies
CJ Requirement U52
The DPD shall revise its hold policies to define a hold as that term is defined in this Agreement and require that all holds be documented. This policy shall establish a timely and systematic process for persons in DPD custody who have holds issued by a City of Detroit court to have those holds cleared by presenting the arrestee to the court from which the warrant was issued or

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 64 of 182 Pg ID 9826

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 63

January 16, 2014

the setting and posting of bond where applicable. The fact that an arrestee has not been arraigned or charged in the current arrest shall not delay this process. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon the successful implementation of U53; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U53
The DPD shall document all holds, including the time each hold was identified and the time each hold was cleared. The DPD shall document on an auditable form each instance in which a hold is not cleared within 48 hours of the arrest. The documentation shall occur within 24 hours of each instance of a hold not being cleared.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In previous reporting periods, DPD was not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph, due to holds/warrants not being cleared and the auditable form not being prepared. In the last reporting period, the Department’s compliance rate with this requirement was 95%.
To assess compliance with the requirements, we reviewed 102 arrest case packets from all districts, precincts, and specialized units. We reviewed DPD Detainee Input Sheets, and found a total of 33 holds/warrants listed on the forms. In our earlier reports, we noted that DPD was inconsistent in its ability to maintain compliance with this paragraph due to supervisors and OICs (officer in charge) failing to identify those holds exceeding 48 hours and the detainee still in custody. Form (DPD UF004-007, revised June 2009) was created and contains appropriate indications for officers to identify more than one violation of the Prompt Judicial Review Policies. DPD personnel must be aware that if an arraignment occurs more than 48 hours after an arrest and the detainee has an outstanding hold/warrant, there is a likelihood that the warrant may not be cleared within the requirement and both boxes should be checked. There can also be an issue if the warrant submittal for the outstanding arrest is denied by the prosecutor and there is a hold on the detainee. In these cases, DPD has an expectation that the hold(s) will be addressed at the arraignment on the current charge; and if the warrant is denied, the detainee may be presented to the judge at the next available arraignment opportunity.
Since DPD combined the general investigative units in 2012, it had difficulty complying with this paragraph. As a result of the Department’s inability to comply with policy, the commander of the investigative units directed that all members completing the Warrant Tracking Hold Form submit a copy of the Detainee Input Sheet to the reviewing commander to ensure that holds over 48 hours were captured on the auditable form. Of the 33 holds we reviewed, there were 31 that

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 65 of 182 Pg ID 9827

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 64

January 16, 2014

were compliant. (There were 12 holds that were not cleared within 48 hours.) In the two noncompliant cases, the required auditable form was not completed for holds not being cleared within 48 hours of the arrest.
DPD personnel advised us that the commander of the precinct – or, in the absence of the commander, the lieutenant on duty – receives the Warrant Tracking Form only when violations occur and the form is completed and forwarded by the OIC or a supervisor. Reviewing command personnel previously did not receive the entire package, and assumed all violations were properly indicated when they reviewed and approved the forms. When the supervisors receive and review the form from the OIC, they must ensure that it is complete prior to forwarding it for command review. The failure of personnel to indicate detainees being held with outstanding holds increased since the general investigative operations units were merged. DPD devised a method of ensuring the holds are either cleared or the required auditable form has been generated; however, issues with the process still remain. We will closely monitor to see if these issues are resolved during the next reporting period.
On May 25, 2012 DPD issued Administrative Message (Teletype 12-0400) advising all personnel of the proper procedure to ensure that auditable forms for arraignments and holds/warrants exceeding the 48-hour requirement are processed according to DPD policy.
As we have noted previously, the lack of DPD personnel properly indicating the date and time that holds/warrants are identified/cleared and generating the required auditable forms for violations continues to be problematic for the Department. If command personnel would verify the existence of holds from the Detainee Information Sheet prior to signing off on the Warrant Tracking auditable form, the problem of non-compliance would be resolved, and it would ensure that subordinate supervisors are completing the forms accurately. The issue of failure to complete required auditable forms for holds not being cleared within 48 hours has been a topic of discussion at Command Accountability Meetings on several occasions. The mechanism put forward during those exchanges between commanders has not rectified the existing problems for this quarter.
DPD’s compliance rate for this requirement is 94%, a decrease from the 95% registered during the previous reporting period. DPD must exceed the 94% compliance rate to remain in compliance for the next quarter.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

F. RESTRICTION POLICIES
CJ Requirement U54
The DPD shall develop a policy regarding restricting detainee’s access to telephone calls and visitors that permits individuals in DPD custody access to attorneys and reasonable access to telephone calls and visitors.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 66 of 182 Pg ID 9828

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 65

January 16, 2014

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U55
The DPD shall require that such restrictions be documented and reviewed at the time the restriction is issued and reevaluated each day in which the restriction remains in effect. The DPD shall document on an auditable form any violation of the restriction policy by the end of the shift in which the violation occurred.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

G. Material Witness Policies CJ Requirement U56 The DPD shall revise its material witness policies to define material witness as that term is defined in this Agreement and remove the term “police witness” from DPD policies and procedures. Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U57 The DPD shall obtain a court order prior to taking a material witness into DPD custody. The DPD shall document on an auditable form the detention of each material witness and attach a copy of the court order authorizing the detention.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 67 of 182 Pg ID 9829

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 66

January 16, 2014

H. Documentation of Custodial Detention CJ Requirement U58 The DPD shall revise its arrest and detention documentation to require, for all arrests, a record or file to contain accurate and auditable documentation of:
a. the individual’s personal information; b. the crime(s) charged; c. the time and date of arrest and release; d. the time and date the arraignment was submitted; e. the name and badge number of the officer who submitted the arraignment; f. the time and date of arraignment; was lodged and cleared, if applicable; g. the time each warrant was lodged and cleared, if applicable; and h. the individual’s custodial status, e.g., new arrest, material witness or extradition. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

I. Command Notification
CJ Requirement U59
The DPD shall require the commander of the precinct and, if applicable, of the specialized unit, to review in writing all reported violations of DPD arrest, investigatory stop and frisk, witness identification and questioning policies and all reports of arrests in which an arraignment warrant was not sought. The commander’s review shall be completed within 7 days of receiving the document reporting the event. The commander’s review shall include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase I compliance with this paragraph. We reviewed 102 arrest case packets for this quarter and found a much higher number of auditable forms submitted by supervisors or CLO’s for violations of DPD policy. The lack of supervisory review in past inspections has kept the department out of compliance with several of the paragraphs in this section. An equally important function is command review of the actions of personnel under the command of the Districts/Precincts to ensure officers are complying with all DPD policies and procedures. Our review for the requirements of this paragraph included the inspection of 68 auditable forms submitted by supervisors for violation of DPD policy. Forty-three of the forms were properly reviewed by a commanding officer within the seven day requirement. Twenty of the forms did not contain a commanding officers signature (a requirement). In three cases the section of the

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 68 of 182 Pg ID 9830

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 67

January 16, 2014

command review was left blank and in two cases a sergeant signed off where a command officer’s signature is required.
We are aware that two internal issues may have had an impact on DPD’s ability to maintain compliance with this paragraph for the quarter: several commanding officers retired and due to the reassignment of lieutenants some units were left without a commanding officer. DPD must immediately address these issues if compliance is to be maintained. DPD’s compliance rate for this paragraph is 64%; a decrease from the 100% we found in the previous reporting period. In order to maintain continued compliance, DPD must be compliant with this paragraph in the next quarter.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U60
The DPD shall require the commander of the precinct, and, if applicable, of the specialized unit, to review in writing all violations of DPD prompt judicial review, holds, restrictions and material witness policies on a daily basis. The commander’s review shall include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance for this reporting period, we reviewed 102 arrest case reports, of which 76 were submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office and 58 went to arraignment. There were 39 cases where the arraignment occurred more than 48 hours after the arrest.
In all but two cases, the request for the warrant was submitted in a timely fashion. In one instance, an auditable form was completed and command review occurred. An auditable form was not generated by the OIC in the remaining case.
In the 58 cases that went to arraignment, 39 of these were arraigned more than 48 hours after arrest, and auditable forms were completed in all but two cases. There were 12 instances where the commander failed to place their signature in the required section of the form to indicate the command review. This is the first time in all our previous reviews where we have observed the excessive number of times that the reviewing commander has failed to sign the form. We noted previously that OCR sent Corrective Action Notices to commanders who failed to review the auditable forms within the allotted time constraints.
Of the 33 hold/warrants that we identified, there were 12 holds that were not cleared within the required 48 hours. In 10 instances, the Warrant Tracking Form was properly completed and forwarded to the commander for review; in one case, the “hold” box was not marked indicating a hold over 48 hours and in the other case the auditable form was completed five days after the arrest. In four of the auditable forms for holds over 48 hours, the commanding officers failed to

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 69 of 182 Pg ID 9831

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 68

January 16, 2014

indicate the review of the forms by signing the document. There was one material witness taken into custody during this reporting period, and the auditable form was completed. Under this paragraph, there were a total of 48 auditable forms in our sample that should have been reviewed and signed by a commanding officer. In the event of a commander’s absence from the district or precinct, the on-duty commanding officer (lieutenant or above) has the authority to review and sign off on the auditable forms as they serve as precinct commanders during that timeframe. There should not be any instance where the officer in charge of the case cannot contact a lieutenant or above to review those cases where there are violations of the prompt judicial policies.
DPD’s overall compliance rate for this paragraph is 75%, a decrease from the 96% we found in the last reporting period. DPD will remain in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. If DPD does not come into compliance during the next reporting period, it will be removed from compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
• Prior to this reporting period, we noted instances in which the OIC failed to indicate on the Warrant Tracking Form when holds exceed 48 hours. During the last reporting period, DPD took steps to rectify this failure by including it as a point of discussion at the Command Accountability Meetings. We have stressed this issue with DPD in previous site visits and our quarterly reports. DPD has begun transferring their detainees to the State (MDOC) facility immediately upon arrest and as of the end of October 2013 all DPD holding facilities have been closed. The Warden of the Detroit Detention Center (DDC) informed us in our meetings that his policy is to release all detainees prior to 72 hours of incarceration so it is incumbent upon DPD personnel to ensure that holds and arraignments occur more timely than they have been in the past. We note that upon review of DPD’s arraignment times for those facilities that have been closed, we have found that extreme times in custody have been significantly reduced. If warrant submittals to the prosecutor were made timelier, violations of the prompt judicial policies would be reduced significantly; therefore reducing the amount of unnecessary work and documentation by DPD staff.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 70 of 182 Pg ID 9832

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 69

January 16, 2014

• We have previously recommended that DPD explore other methods of capturing information related to investigatory stops and frisks. The current method does not capture sufficient data for management and accountability purposes. In addition, the Activity Log currently used for this purpose is difficult to read and does not allow accurate review by supervisors. It is not OCR’s or the CLO’s primary responsibility to review documents created by field personnel; it is the duty of the first-line supervisor. For this quarter compliance for U59-60 is due to the failure of lieutenants and above to review the auditable forms in this section and indicate their approval by signing the forms.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Meet with DPD’s Civil Rights Integrity Bureau (CRIB) to discuss our investigatory stop concerns, and the failure of commanding officers to conduct proper reviews as it relates to auditable forms. U60 requires daily review (24 hours). Completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of all reports and auditable forms continue to affect field units and the quality of administrative review.
• Review other investigative units to determine their compliance with interrogations, interviews, conveyances, and material witness policies.
• Command reviews of auditable forms (U60) have been exceptional until this review. DPD needs to determine the cause and provide remedies.
• We have been advised that the recent retirements and transfers of commanding officers have had an effect on DPD’s ability to maintain compliance in this area. Conduct reviews of in-car video for investigatory stops/frisks with supervisors and commanders during the site visit.
• Meet with the commanders, if possible, of each district and precinct to discuss issues relating to auditable forms and their role in ensuring compliance.
Inquire with DPD if any developments have been enacted with the Prosecutor’s Office to streamline the warrant submittals process and/or the timeliness of arraignments.

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

42

Define and prohibit arrest without probable cause

In Compliance

43 Review all arrests for probable cause

In Compliance

44 Revise investigatory stop-and-frisk policy

In Compliance

45 Written account of stops and frisks

In Compliance

46 Revise witness policies

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation
In Compliance
In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 71 of 182 Pg ID 9833

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 70

January 16, 2014

¶ Requirements 47 Revise above in three months 48 Document content, etc. of interviews, etc. 49 Arrests receive prompt judicial review 50 Charges to Prosecutor within 48 hours 51 Document of late warrant requests 52 Revise hold policies 53 Documentation of all holds 54 Policy for restricting telephone access 55 Document and review such restrictions 56 Define material witness 57 Custody of material witnesses-court order 58 Arrests and detention record requirements 59 Required written review of violations 60 Required written review of violations

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS
The stated mission of the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) is to assure the public’s trust and confidence in DPD by conducting thorough and impartial investigations into allegations of criminality and serious misconduct lodged against members of the Department, as well as other City of Detroit employees. IAD is charged with the prevention, discovery, and investigation of criminal allegations and allegations of serious misconduct against Department members and City employees who are assigned within the DPD; IAD is responsible for all external complaints alleging possible criminal misconduct.
Consistent with this obligation, IAD accepts information from any source; and requires that all officers and employees document all complaints filed in writing, verbally, in person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile, or by electronic mail.
During our most recent site visit, we examined the investigative procedures employed by IAD for consistency in the application of procedural fairness, timeliness, confidentiality, and the meticulous reporting of facts and results of an investigation. The IAD Standard Operating Procedures were revised in January 2011 to include Section 5-8, Case Tracking.
The Office of the Chief Investigator (OCI) is the investigative arm of the Board of Police Commissioners (BOPC). OCI is responsible for investigating non-criminal external complaints. The Board has plenary authority over citizen complaints. OCI operates independently of the Detroit Police Department and is led by a civilian Chief Investigator who is appointed by the BOPC. OCI is staffed with a combination of civilian and sworn investigators who assist in the

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 72 of 182 Pg ID 9834

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 71

January 16, 2014

investigation of citizen complaints. OCI’s mission is to provide meaningful and objective investigations of citizen complaints of police misconduct.
OCI investigates non-criminal allegations of misconduct against Detroit Police Department personnel for the following: Arrest; Demeanor; Entry; Harassment; Force; Procedure; Property; and Search and Seizure. OCI employees are required to accept complaints from any source and by any method of communication including in writing, verbally, in person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile, or by electronic mail. Members of the public may also file complaints at the BOPC office or at BOPC meetings.
During our most recent site visit, we met with the BOPC Staff, the Chief Investigator, and supervising investigators assigned to OCI. We discussed with specificity the cases that were deemed noncompliant during the last reporting period. We also attended case review meetings with all investigative staff.

CJ Requirement U61
The DPD and City shall revise their external complaint policy to clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of OCI and the DPD regarding the receipt, investigation and review of external complaints. At a minimum, the plan shall specify each agency’s responsibility for receiving, recording, investigating and tracking complaints; each agency’s responsibility for conducting community outreach and education regarding complaints; how, when and in what fashion the agencies shall exchange information, including complaint referrals and information about sustained complaints.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U62
The DPD and the City shall develop and implement an informational campaign regarding external complaints, including:
a. informing persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any DPD employee;
b. distributing complaint forms, fact sheets and informational posters at City Hall, OCI, all DPD precincts, libraries, on the internet and, upon request, to community groups and community centers;
c. broadcasting public service announcements that describe the complaint process; and
d. posting permanently a placard describing the complaint process, with relevant phone numbers, in the lobby of each DPD precinct

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 73 of 182 Pg ID 9835

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 72

January 16, 2014

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U63
The DPD shall require all officers to carry informational brochures and contact forms in their vehicles at all times while on-duty. The DPD shall develop a contact form within 60 days of the effective date of this Agreement. The contact form shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall implement the contact form within 60 days of the review and approval of the DOJ. The DPD shall require all officers to inform an individual of his or her right to make a complaint, if an individual objects to an officer’s conduct. The DPD shall prohibit officers from discouraging any person from making a complaint or refusing to take a complaint.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

A. Intake and Tracking CJ Requirement U64
The DPD and the City shall revise their policies regarding the intake and tracking of external complaints to define complaint and misconduct as those terms are defined in this Agreement and require all officers and OCI employees to accept and document all complaints filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U65 The DPD and the City shall permit the intake officer or employee to include a factual account and/or description of a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but not an opinion regarding the complainant’s mental competency or veracity.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 74 of 182 Pg ID 9836

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 73

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement U66 The DPD and the City shall assign all complaints a unique identifier, which shall be provided to the complainant, and a description of the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy or improper search).
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

B. External Complaint Investigations
CJ Requirement U67
The DPD and the City shall revise its policies regarding external complaint investigations to:
a. provide that all complaints shall be referred for investigation and resolution by OCI or, if the complaint alleges potentially criminal conduct by an officer, by IAD;
b. permit the informal resolution of complaints alleging only inadequate service or the complainant’s innocence of a charge and require the investigation and formal resolution of all other complaints;
c. refer all complaints to the appropriate agency within five business days of their receipt;
d. require that the complainant shall be periodically kept informed regarding the status of the investigation;
e. develop written criteria for IAD and OCI investigator applicants, including the applicant’s complaint and disciplinary history and investigative experience;
f. implement mandatory pre-service and in-service training for all IAD and OCI investigators, including intake, investigations, interviews and resolutions of external complaints;
g. require IAD and OCI to complete all investigations within 90 days of receiving the complaint and
h. require that: (1) upon completion of the investigation by a command other than OCI, the complainant shall be notified of its outcome and, if the complaint is sustained, whether disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action has been recommended; and (2) upon completion of an investigation by OCI the complainant shall be notified of its outcome and, if the complaint is sustained, its referral to the Chief of Police for appropriate disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.30

30 Amended by Court Order dated September 15, 2008.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 75 of 182 Pg ID 9837

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 74

January 16, 2014

Comments:
Office of the Chief Investigator: For this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected OCI cases closed during July, August, and September 2013. Two of the cases were transferred to IAD, and two were transferred to Force Investigations. The cases transferred to IAD involved allegations of theft and falsifying documents. Three of these transfers were timely, taking 10 days or less to complete, but one transfer to Force Investigations took 74 days.
Two cases were resolved informally, and both met the criteria for an Informal Complaint Resolution (ICR), as they involved complaints of inadequate service or innocence of the charge. In one case, the complainant alleged that an officer failed to return his license and registration after a traffic stop. When interviewed, the complainant indicated that he found the missing paperwork in his vehicle. In the other case, the complainant alleged that an Emergency Services Operator asked too many questions during a call to report a shooting. The questions were deemed appropriate for the situation.
Six cases in our sample were administratively closed, and all but one were appropriate for such closure. In two cases, the investigations revealed that the officers or employees complained of did not work for the Detroit Police Department. One involved a Detroit Public School officer, and one involved a security guard employed by the owners of the building which houses Central District. Two of the cases lacked the specificity necessary to pursue an investigation, and the complainants were uncooperative. In another case, originally opened as a force complaint, the complainant indicated that he sustained his injury (dislocated shoulder) long before his contact with DPD officers, and he merely was requesting treatment while in detention. It was not his intention to make a complaint.
We believe one case was improperly administratively closed. A complainant alleged that an investigator failed to return his calls and his property was inappropriately auctioned without his permission. The investigator retired, which would normally result in an administrative closure, but the documentation in the file indicated that another officer made the decision to release the property for auction after the initial investigator’s retirement. His actions should have been investigated.
All of the 100 cases we reviewed were completed within 90 days, a first for OCI.
All of the 100 cases we reviewed were referred to OCI within five business days as required by DPD policy; most cases were transferred within one to three days. However, we also noted the untimely transfer of one case from OCI to Force Investigation, as described earlier.
In most cases, we noted efforts to keep the complainant informed of case progress. Often, this correspondence involved attempts to encourage uncooperative complainants to participate in their investigations. However, we identified two cases in which complainants did not receive update letters after 45 days as required by OCI policy. In all applicable cases, the complainants were notified of the disposition of their cases, and if any allegations were sustained, they were advised that the case was referred to the Chief of Police for appropriate corrective action.
During our previous site visits, we verified ongoing in-service training for OCI personnel. Much of this training occurs in conjunction with other DPD employees. While we do not discourage this practice, we urge OCI to explore training specific to OCI’s responsibilities, in order to

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 76 of 182 Pg ID 9838

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 75

January 16, 2014

address knowledge and skill gaps that impact the quality of its investigations. The Chief Investigator continues to develop OCI specific training, and her staff meetings frequently have a training component. We also reviewed the pre-service training provided to all newly hired investigators.
With a 95% compliance rate, the City is in Phase 2 compliance with the OCI portion of this paragraph.
Internal Affairs Division Investigations: IAD Standard Operating Procedures do not specifically permit or encourage informal resolution due the nature of their investigative jurisdiction of alleged criminality and/or serious misconduct lodged against Department personnel. Accordingly, IAD investigates and makes findings in each case.
IAD Standard Operating Procedures and OCI policy require that all complaints be referred to the appropriate agency within five business days of their receipt. Historically, we discovered significant delays in transferring appropriate cases from OCI to IAD. During the current reporting period, we reviewed 21 IAD cases, and determined that one complaint alleging criminal misconduct had been erroneously forwarded to OCI from the District, and then held at OCI for 12 days before referral to IAD.
The IAD Standard Operating Procedures contains criteria for investigator applicants and training. IAD is current in its training requirements and the members have recently received advanced Internal Investigations training. There are two investigators who were recently transferred to IAD. One has previous investigative experience; the other has none. According to DPD, they are both expected to receive appropriate training before the next reporting period.
In cases of prolonged investigations, IAD must provide an updated case status to complainants, and upon closure, notify them of the closure, finding(s), and action(s) taken, where appropriate.
Our review determined that IAD is in compliance with the notifications to complainants upon both the opening and the closure of all investigations.
During our current review of 21 investigations, two exceeded the 90-day time limit due to criminal prosecution. Each investigative folder contained appropriately requested and approved extension requests. There were no cases that were inappropriately delayed during this period.
DPD is in compliance with the IAD portion of this paragraph.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 77 of 182 Pg ID 9839

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 76

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement U68
The DPD and the City shall review and evaluate the external complaint review process to require:
a. the Chief Investigator or his/her designee to complete review of OCI investigations within 7 days of completion of the supervisor’s review;
b. the Board of Police Commissioners to complete review of OCI investigations within 45 days of completion of the Chief Investigator’s review;31 and
c. the Chief of Police or his or her designee to complete his or her review of external complaints within 7 days of completion of the BOPC’s review.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During this reporting period, the Chief Investigator (or in her absence, her designee) reviewed all investigations submitted to her within the prescribed seven-day period.
The Board of Police Commissioners completed all of its reviews within the prescribed forty-fiveday period.
During our most recent site visit, we reviewed the correspondence documenting the exchange of cases between OCI and the Chief’s Office, and the timely review by the Chief’s staff.
The City remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U69
In addition to the investigatory report and evaluation requirements, each allegation in an administrative external complaint investigation shall be resolved by making one of the following dispositions:
a. “Unfounded,” where the investigation revealed no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred;
b. “Sustained,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur and the actions of the officer violated DPD policies, procedures or training;
c. “Not Sustained,” where there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and

31 Amended by Court Order dated July 18, 2003.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 78 of 182 Pg ID 9840

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 77

January 16, 2014

d. “Exonerated,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate DPD policies, procedures or training.
Comments:
During this reporting period, we reviewed 100 randomly selected OCI cases. For purposes of this paragraph, we evaluated the determination of finding based on the information in each case file. We do not concur with the findings assigned to one or more allegations in four cases. In one case, we believe a demeanor allegation against an Emergency Services Operator should have been sustained. In another, the paperwork contained two different findings for the same allegation, and we were unable to determine which one OCI believed was appropriate. In another case, the investigator failed to question the subject officer specifically about the allegations lodged, and so the findings were premature at best – and potentially improper. In the last case, an allegation of demeanor was raised in the complainant’s interview, but never documented or investigated.
OCI must not only make one of the findings specified above, but the findings must be consistent with the defined requirements and supported by the investigations conducted. However, with a compliance rate of 96%, the City is in Phase 2 compliance with this portion of the requirement.
In addition, we reviewed all 21 IAD cases – including internal and external complaints – that were completed during this reporting period. During earlier reviews, there were dispositions in each of the investigations. We did not always agree with the dispositions, especially those that were derived from faulty interviews and/or the failure to gather pertinent evidence. When we discussed this issue with IAD personnel, IAD advised that it was making efforts to correct the problems.
During this reporting period, all IAD investigations contained the required dispositions. Included in the 21 investigations were 30 allegations of misconduct. The following is a breakdown of the dispositions of the 30 allegations: 14 unfounded; 14 sustained; two not sustained; and none exonerated. Based on our review of the investigative documents, these are appropriate dispositions. IAD is in compliance with this requirement.
IAD is in compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
We examined 21 closed IAD cases and 100 closed OCI cases for the period of July 1, through September 30, 2013. Our review disclosed that the following issues continue to require attention:
• IAD New Investigator Recruitment and Training: During the last reporting period, two new investigators were assigned to Internal Affairs. It is expected that they will receive the appropriate training during the current reporting period.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 79 of 182 Pg ID 9841

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 78

January 16, 2014

• Case Tracking of Cases at the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office: In spite of an apparent shortage of staff at the Prosecutor’s Office, IAD appears to have eliminated the backlog of overdue cases, including most of the cases that are awaiting disposition or prosecution at the Prosecutor’s Office. The IAD manager meets regularly with members of the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office to discuss the viability of the cases still awaiting decisions.
• Quality v. Quantity of OCI Investigations: As noted in our past several reports, OCI worked extremely hard to address their large backlog of cases. The quality of their investigations suffered, both because of long periods of inactivity and because of the pressure to complete these investigations and get them off of the books. OCI has eliminated the backlog and as of this writing, OCI has no overdue cases. OCI’s Chief Investigator and its supervising investigators have turned their attention to addressing the quality of investigations. During every site visit, we discuss numerous cases in detail from our most recently completed assessment. We note many deficiencies that can be addressed with a thorough review of the cases and independent verification of the content of interviews.

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Review a sample of the cases closed by OCI and IAD for the months of October, November, and December 2013.

¶ Requirements 61 Revise external complaint policies 62 Information campaign re complaints 63 Officers carry information/contact forms 64 Policy to define complaint intake/track 65 Permit factual account, no opinion 66 Unique identifier for complaints 67 Revision of complaint investigations 68 Time limits for review of investigations/complaints 69 Required finding categories specified

Phase 1 - Policy Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 80 of 182 Pg ID 9842

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 79

January 16, 2014

VII. GENERAL POLICIES
This section of the Consent Judgment addresses a variety of issues in general terms. It seeks to ensure that when the DPD develops policies, all the terms used are clearly defined, and that prior to making policy revisions, the DPD posts the proposals on the DPD website to inform the community of the proposed revisions. It requires DPD to advise all of its officers that taking police actions in violation of DPD policies shall subject them to a variety of possible actions, to include disciplinary, criminal prosecution, or civil liability. This section also requires officers to report acts of misconduct by other officers, whether on or off duty. Additionally, this section required DPD to revise its policy regarding police actions by off-duty officers; and to revise the policies on how DPD handles prisoners, to include summoning first aid as necessary, summoning assistance if required, and prohibiting the accompanying of prisoners to the holding cell area. This section also required DPD to develop a foot pursuit policy and to plan for adequate distribution of manpower. DPD has developed the appropriate policies and has achieved implementation.

CJ Requirement U70 In developing and revising the policies discussed in this Agreement, the DPD shall ensure that all terms are clearly defined. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U71 The DPD shall continue to make available proposed policy revisions to the community, for their review, comment and education. Such policy revisions shall also be published on the DPD’s website to allow comments to be provided directly to the DPD.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U72
The DPD shall advise all officers, including supervisors, that taking police action in violation of DPD policy shall subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 81 of 182 Pg ID 9843

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 80

January 16, 2014

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U73
The DPD and the City shall develop a plan for ensuring regular field deployment of an adequate number of supervisors of patrol units and specialized units that deploy in the field to implement the provisions of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
In the past, we have reviewed the Daily Details for the platoons that operated on three randomly selected days during the quarter preceding our site visit to determine if units were in compliance with a 1:10 supervisory ratio. Since our April 2011 review and report, we have found DPD in compliance with the 1:10 supervisory ratio in over 94% of the assignments that we surveyed. During the second quarter of calendar year 2013, however, we found that only 91% of the randomly selected platoons and specialized units were in compliance with the required 1:10 ratio of supervisors to officers in patrol and specialized units on the dates surveyed.
Since DPD had been in compliance since April 2011, we continued it in that status . We noted in our last report that if during this review, we found the Department below >94%, we would take it out of compliant status.
During the October 2013 site visit, we again surveyed Daily Details for three days selected at random (Monday, July 15; Saturday, August 24; and Wednesday, September 11, 2013). We found that 102 (92%) of 111 DPD Platoons and 1,227 (90%) of the 1,362 officers working on those days met the required 1:10 ratio. Inasmuch as DPD has dropped below the >94% compliance test on two consecutive reviews and we advised the Department that it was jeopardy of losing its compliance, we find DPD no longer in compliance with Requirement 73.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U74 The DPD shall enforce its policies requiring all DPD officers to report any misconduct committed by another DPD officer, whether committed on-duty or off-duty. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 82 of 182 Pg ID 9844

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 81

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement U75
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action to:
a. provide that off-duty officers shall notify on-duty DPD or local law enforcement officers before taking police action, absent exigent circumstances, so that they may respond with appropriate personnel and resources to handle the problem;
b. prohibit off-duty officers from carrying or using firearms or taking police action in situations where an officer’s performance may be impaired or the officer’s ability to take objective action may be compromised; and
c. provide that, if it appears the officer has consumed alcohol or is otherwise impaired, the officer shall submit to field sobriety, breathalyzer, and/or blood tests.
Comments:
In the previous reporting period, we identified three instances in which off-duty officers engaged in police actions; accordingly, we assessed compliance of the requirement for that report. We found that two of those three cases were policy violations; only one was found to be an exigent circumstance requiring the immediate police action (33%). We caution DPD that failure to achieve >94% next reporting period could result in the loss of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
During this reporting period, we identified two instances of off-duty police actions by DPD members. The first was an off-duty officer who escorted an uninvited disorderly candidate from a mayoral forum at the church. Force was used in the escorting of the individual, and the incident was not an exigent circumstance requiring immediate action. The second involved an off-duty officer who discharged his weapon when approached by individuals attempting to accost some women as they entered a party. This was an exigent situation that FI is investigating.
In our last report, we cautioned DPD that its failure to achieve >94% next reporting period could result in the loss of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Given that only one of the two instances was actually an exigent circumstance (50%), DPD is not in compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 83 of 182 Pg ID 9845

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 82

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement U76
The DPD shall revise its policies regarding prisoners to:
a. require officers to summon emergency medical services to transport prisoners when the restraints employed indicate the need for medical monitoring;
b. require officers to utilize appropriate precautions when interacting with a prisoner who demonstrates he or she is recalcitrant or resistant, including summoning additional officers, summoning a supervisor and using appropriate restraints; and
c. prohibit arresting and transporting officers from accompanying prisoners into the holding cell area.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U77 The DPD shall develop a foot pursuit policy to:
a. require officers to consider particular factors in determining whether a foot pursuit is appropriate, including the offense committed by the subject, whether the subject is armed, the location (e.g., lighting and officer familiarity), whether more than one officer is available to engage in the pursuit, the proximity of reinforcements, and the ability to apprehend the subject at a later date;
b. emphasize alternatives to foot pursuits, including area containment, surveillance, and obtaining reinforcements;
c. emphasize the danger of pursuing and engaging a subject with a firearm in hand; and
d. require officers to document all foot pursuits that involve a use of force on a separate, auditable form, such as the use of force report.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

Critical Issues:
DPD must make a concerted effort to ensure member compliance with the DPD policy dealing with foot pursuits. The Department should give special attention to considering alternatives to foot pursuits, relying more strongly on area containment and availability of support units.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 84 of 182 Pg ID 9846

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 83

January 16, 2014

Next Steps: During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to monitor relevant policy changes, including efforts to address the public’s interest in policy.
• Continue to heed the training requirements inherent in policy development in this area. • Monitor the presence of arresting or transport officers in the holding cell areas.

¶

Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

Phase 2 – Implementation

70

Clear definitions in policies

In Compliance In Compliance

71

Proposed policy changes open to comm.

In Compliance In Compliance

72

Advise officers policy violations disciplined In Compliance In Compliance

73

Adequate officer/supervisor ratio

In Compliance Not in Compliance

74

Enforce misconduct reporting requirements In Compliance In Compliance

75

Revise policies regarding off-duty officers In Compliance Not in Compliance

76

Revise prisoner-related policies

In Compliance In Compliance

77

Develop foot pursuit policy

In Compliance In Compliance

VIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
This portion of the Use of Force Consent Judgment addresses several key management areas including the development of a risk management system, audit requirements, in-car cameras, personnel evaluations, and the reduction of a backload of disciplinary cases. Thirteen of the 28 requirements in this section address the development and use of a comprehensive risk management system.

A. Risk Management Database CJ Requirement U78 The DPD shall devise a comprehensive risk management plan, including:
a. a risk management database (discussed in paragraphs 79-90); b. a performance evaluation system (discussed in paragraph 91); c. an auditing protocol (discussed in paragraphs 92-99); d. regular and periodic review of all DPD policies; and e. regular meetings of DPD management to share information and evaluate patterns of
conduct by DPD that potentially increase the DPD’s liability.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 85 of 182 Pg ID 9847

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 84

January 16, 2014

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
This requirement established the general requirements of the risk management system that are spelled out in greater detail in the requirements that immediately follow. It has now been six quarters since DPD achieved Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. The overall system now functions well and is used to assess and manage risk in the Department. The individual focus of the system with its attention to officer behavior is buttressed by the use of data at the organizational level. For the quarter under review we examined the most recent Quarterly Risk Assessment Review, which covered the second quarter, and the monthly MAS Status Reports for the Quarter, and attended the Command Accountability Meetings during the site visit. These all incorporate the use of risk data and show continued development and analysis in the process o risk management.
Even with these indicators of stability, there are significant transitions occurring with the risk management process. The administration of the unit is in the process of change. With the addition of an auditor to the unit, risk assessment is conducting unannounced site inspections and reviewing original documents to assure the quality of the data. These include reviews of stop and frisk logs, completed use of force forms and investigations and other investigative reports in areas relevant to the Consent Judgments.
The Risk Management Unit is continuing the process of identifying outliers using risk indicators normed by officers’ numbers of arrest. Outlier analysis was used in the identification of officers for review this quarter. The risk management unit is also continuing to conduct initial reviews prior to engaging supervisors. This has reduced the workload on first-level supervisors and standardized components of the process.
This requirement has been seen as requiring an overall assessment of the functioning and use of the risk management system. The current review supports the view that compliance levels remain unchanged.
As noted previously, some final steps remain to be completed including the full integration of the current procedures into the computerized system and Departmental policy. Sustainability of this important process will be enhanced by those steps and by continued attention, particularly to the use of the system by supervisors.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U79
The DPD shall enhance and expand its risk management system to include a new computerized relational database for maintaining, integrating and retrieving data necessary for supervision and management of the DPD. Priority shall be given to the DPD obtaining an established program and database. The DPD shall ensure that the risk management database it designs or acquires is adequate to evaluate the performance of DPD officers across all ranks, units and

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 86 of 182 Pg ID 9848

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 85

January 16, 2014

shifts; to manage risk and liability; and to promote civil rights and best police practices. The DPD shall regularly use this data for such review and monitoring.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
This requirement also requires a broad assessment of the risk management process. The review supports the view that the compliance status of this requirement remains unchanged. To consider compliance we review monthly MAS status reports. For the reporting period, we also reviewed the monthly command reviews that document the use of MAS, and the results of PEERS reviews that are now completed through the Risk management Unit. We also reviewed the reports of the intervention processes used by supervisors.
Based on our examination of the use of the system, including the input of data, the use of that data; the identification, review and intervention with officers exceeding thresholds established in the system; and our review of the continued development and use of this system, we again recognize the achievement of Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U80 The new risk management database shall collect and record the following information:
a. all use of force reports and use of force investigations; b. all canine deployments; c. all canine apprehensions; d. all canine bites; e. all canisters of chemical spray issued to officers; f. all injured prisoner reports and injured prisoner investigations; g. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,”
“assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct” or “interfering with a city employee;” h. all firearm discharge reports and firearm discharge investigations; i. all incidents in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target; j. all complaints and complaint investigations, entered at the time the complaint is filed and updated to record the finding; k. all preliminary investigations and investigations of alleged criminal conduct;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 87 of 182 Pg ID 9849

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 86

January 16, 2014

l. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the City, or its officers, or agents, resulting from DPD operations or the actions of DPD personnel, entered at the time proceedings are initiated and updated to record disposition;
m. all vehicle and foot pursuits and traffic collisions;
n. all reports regarding arrests without probable cause or where the individual was discharged from custody without formal charges being sought;
o. all reports regarding investigatory stops and/or frisks unsupported by reasonable suspicion;
p. all reports regarding interviews, interrogations or conveyances in violation of DPD policy;
q. the time between arrest and arraignment for all arrests;
r. all reports regarding a violation of DPD prompt judicial review policy;
s. all reports regarding a violation of DPD hold policy;
t. all restrictions on phone calls or visitors imposed by officers;
u. all instances in which the DPD is informed by a prosecuting authority that a declination to prosecute any crime was based, in whole or in part, upon concerns about the credibility of a DPD officer or that a motion to suppress evidence was granted on the grounds of a constitutional violation by a DPD officer;
v. all disciplinary action taken against officers;
w. all non-disciplinary corrective action required of officers, excluding administrative counseling records;
x. all awards and commendations received by officers;
y. the assignment, rank, and training history of officers; and
z. firearms qualification information of officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Once again, we find that the expected information is present for all the mandated data categories. The totals for data entered during the reporting period for all relevant subtasks are presented below. Our review of MAS reports also supports the fact that these data are consulted and used in the risk management process. We continue to recognize the importance of sound data entry and retention practices and we anticipate further review of specific data elements each reporting period. The data below show that there is a general consistency in the numbers across most categories for the time periods shown. The dashboard data presented in the appendix also show no major changes in patterns over the previous 12 months.
The one area where large differences in data are evident notables is the count of Stop and Frisk Exception Forms (Category o below). These show only the exception form filed when

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 88 of 182 Pg ID 9850

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 87

January 16, 2014

supervisors reviews of activity reports indicate that stops or frisks occurred but appropriate documentation was not generated. For the current quarter, Stop Exception Forms increased by 435%, and Frisk exception forms increased by 290%, over the last reporting period. This reflects an extensive audit conducted during the quarter. The Risk Management Unit conducts audits on high-risk topics and on Decree requirements that are not in compliance.
The findings here are clear evidence of the need for diligence in the review of the risk data to assure accuracy. Another area of concern with this is the number of times it is reported that an officer “draws a firearm and acquires a target.” The experience of the Monitoring Team suggests these numbers are not accurate. Members are particularly concerned with the lack of reporting of this activity in connection with narcotics enforcement. The potential that such numbers are fudged is of great concern – and cannot help but raise concerns about the accuracy of other data. Accurate data are, of course, the foundation of the entire risk management process. We are pleased to see the expansion of audits of this data, but dismayed by the early findings.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 89 of 182 Pg ID 9851

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 88

January 16, 2014

U80 Data Requirements – Quarterly Department Totals

Subtask Text

4/1-6/30, 2012

7/1-9/30, 2012

10/1-12/31, 2012

1/1-3/31, 2013

4/1-6/30, 2013

7/1-9/31, 2013

a use of force reports

334

267

222

209

249

194

a use of force investigation

118

107

86

63

97

72

b canine deployments

7

3

5

5

1

0

c canine apprehension

1

2

3

4

1

0

d canine bites

0

1

0

0

0

0

f injured prisoner reports

17

16

16

15

19

26

g injured prisoner investigations

17

15

14

9

19

26

g force and arrests for resisting arrest

120

126

102

94

120

78

g force and arrests for assault on an officer

65

52

69

50

44

37

g force and arrests for disorderly conduct

31

21

19

12

13

10

g force and arrests for interfering with city employee

16

12

11

3

13

17

h firearm discharge reports

8

15

12

9

11

7

h firearm discharge investigations

8

15

12

9

11

7

i officer draws a firearm & acquires target

43

21

15

10

23

12

j Complaints

232

286

247

178

250

303

k investigations of criminal misconduct by officers

0

0

0

12

17

10

l. criminal proceedings against members

3

3

2

4

2

1

l. all civil lawsuits

18

48

29

4

27

7

m vehicle pursuits

40

21

30

20

17

36

m foot pursuits

35

16

8

16

21

17

m traffic collisions

36

28

31

33

25

26

n reports of arrests w/o probable cause

0

0

4

3

3

9

n individuals discharged from custody w/o charges

610

529

453

444

473

582

o investigatory stops and frisks w/o reasonable suspicion

Fris ks =13 Sto p s =6

Fris ks =2 Sto p s =6

Fris ks =4 Sto p s =3

Fris ks =4 Sto p s =7

Fris ks =20 Sto p s =23

Fris ks =78 Sto p s =123


  

reports of interviews, interrogation, or conveyances in viol 
 
 
 
  
  


  


  


  


  

p of policy

 
 


 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
    
    
    
    
   



r reports of violations of prompt judicial review

829

765

769

825

899

850

s reports of violation of DPD hold policy

189

350

431

528

553

460

t reports of restrictions on phone calls or visits

18

15

35

9

0

0

report of declination to prosecute due to police conduct or

u suppressed evidence

0

0

0

0

0

0

v disciplinary action taken against officers w non-disciplinary corrective action

15

41

3

0

0

81

131

228

135

161

178

89

*Note: Under category o (Stops and Frisks), only those for which no reasonable suspicion is reported are collected in MAS.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 90 of 182 Pg ID 9852

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 89

January 16, 2014

The quarterly review of these data provides a means by which DPD can assess Department activity and also examine the quality of information entered into MAS. This analysis continues to indicate that the appropriate data are collected and entered into the risk management system.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U81 The new risk management database shall include, for each incident, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (including name, pension number, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (including race, ethnicity or national origin, sex, and age).
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U82
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management database and addressing data storage. The Data Input Plan shall:
a. detail the specific fields of information to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise);
b. specify the unit responsible for inputting data, the deadlines for inputting the data in a timely, accurate, and complete manner;
c. specify the historical time periods for which information is to be input and the deadlines for inputting the data in an accurate and timely fashion; and
d. requires that the data be maintained in a secure and confidential manner.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The current Data Input Plan was submitted for review and approved by the Department of Justice. Our observations and interviews with DPD continue to support the conclusion that the provisions of the Data Input Plan are reflected in the practices of the Department. We have identified no significant deviations from the existing plan during this quarter.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 91 of 182 Pg ID 9853

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 90

January 16, 2014

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U83
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Report Protocol for the risk management database that details the types of routine reports the DPD shall generate and pattern identifications the DPD shall conduct. The Report Protocol shall:
a. require the automated system to analyze the data according to the following criteria:
i. number of incidents for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
ii. average level of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit; and
iii. identification of patterns of activity for each data category by individual officer and by all officers in a unit;
b. establish thresholds for the numbers and types of incidents requiring a review by an officer’s supervisor of whether the officer or group of officers is engaging in at-risk behavior (in addition to the regular reviews required by paragraph 84); and
c. require the database to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The Department’s revised Report Protocol was also approved by the Department of Justice in a letter dated June 9, 2011. Our observations and interviews with DPD continue to support the conclusion that the provisions of the Report Protocol are reflected in the practices of the Department. To consider this, we also examine command monthly reviews in MAS, and confirm both the availability and use of the MAS data at the command level. As in previous quarters, during our most recent site visit, members of the Monitoring Team attended the Command Compliance Review Meeting and observed the use of information from MAS.
The Department also issues a Monthly MAS Status Report to document and report on changes in the system and other relevant issues. No major changes were reported in the most recent document covering the reporting period.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 92 of 182 Pg ID 9854

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 91

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement U84
The DPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Review Protocol for using the risk management database that addresses data analysis, supervisory assessment, supervisory intervention, documentation and auditing. The Review Protocol shall require:
a. that when an officer or group of officers pass a threshold established in the Report Protocol the officer’s(s’) supervisor shall review all information in the risk management database regarding the officer(s), together with other relevant information;
b. the reviewing supervisor to document whether he or she took non-disciplinary corrective action or recommended disciplinary action, the basis for this decision, and what corrective action was taken, if any;
c. supervisors to review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, database reports, together with other relevant information, to evaluate individual officer and unit activity for at-risk behavior;
d. precinct and unit commanders to review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, database reports, together with other relevant information, to evaluate individual supervisor’s assessment and analysis of information in the risk management database and the corrective action taken by supervisors;
e. appropriate DPD supervisors to review and evaluate, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, police performance citywide, using all relevant information from the risk management database and other relevant information and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all DPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents;
f. commanders and supervisors conducting such periodic reviews to take non-disciplinary corrective action when appropriate for individual officers, supervisors or units and document any such action in writing;
g. that the information in the database be accessible to commanders, supervisors and the BPC;
h. that the information in the database is considered when evaluating a DPD employee for transfer or promotion;
i. commanders and supervisors to promptly review records of all officers recently transferred to their sections and units;
j. commanders and supervisors to be evaluated on their ability to use the risk management database to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk;
k. that a designated DPD unit be responsible for managing and administering the database, including conducting quarterly audits of the system to ensure action is taken according to the process described above; and
l. that aggregated information from the risk management database be shared on a regular and periodic basis with training and policy planning staff.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 93 of 182 Pg ID 9855

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 92

January 16, 2014

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The Review Protocol was last revised, submitted for review, and approved by DOJ on June 9, 2011. Interviews with staff assigned to MAS continue to support the conclusion that the review process is being implemented consistent with policy. To further assess that, we examine all Personnel Evaluation and Enhancement Review Sessions (PEERS) completed and signed off in the reporting period for the quarter. The data comparing this reporting period to the previous reporting period are presented below.
This chart reflects the revised PEERS process in which, when thresholds are met, PEERS are completed by the Risk Management Unit. This process was adopted three reporting periods ago and is reflected in the number of PEERS conducted and the elimination of PEERS returned to supervisors. When action is seen as needed, supervisors prepare and implement monitoring and intervention processes. This approach has eliminated the problem of false positives that required extensive review and reporting by supervisors.


 
      #


  
  ! " 


 
  

$  +)** $  +)*+ $  +)*+ " *$ ,) +)*+

00

/,

/1

.1

/0 %105&

., %1-5&

.. %1*5&

-* %1-5&

0 %25&

1 %*,5&

1 %*+5&

/ %*+5&

- %.5&

+ %,5&

. %05&

+ %-5&

)

)

)

)


    2   *+   ,   . ,   .

   ,,  ! *,  !

 !

 !


 
 









 *$  ,* +)*+ +0 ) *, 0

$  +)*, +. ) *) -

0

+-

)

)



*-*

$  +)*, "$ +)*,

+,

+/

)

)

**

0

-

*,

)

/

2

/

*.,

127

As noted, for the cases shown above, the risk management unit now performs an initial review of officers who exceed thresholds to determine if they are suitable for review. The unit also selects officers for review based on the MAS indicators as normed by arrest numbers. Seven of 26 reviews (54%) and resulted in monitoring. Thirteen remained pending, awaiting completion and six were returned to supervisors for correction or completion. We will continue to consider these cases as they are completed.
We will continue to monitor the level of consistency across the stages of the review process. These reviews document supervisors’ reviews of the MAS records of the officers they supervise and, together, suggest appropriate use of the system at this level.
All of the above data indicate that the system is heavily used and carefully administered in a manner consistent with risk reduction goals. The number of reviews returned to supervisors for revision indicates the transition to internal reviews by the risk unit is not complete. That transition should be aided by the elevation of leadership of the Risk Management Unit to the level of commander. The use of risk management data through the command accountability meeting process illustrates the value of this system to the daily management of DPD.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 94 of 182 Pg ID 9856

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 93

January 16, 2014

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U85
The DPD shall seek to ensure that the risk management database is created as expeditiously as possible. As part of this effort, the DPD, in consultation with the DOJ, shall organize the risk management database into modules in developing the Data Input Plan, the Report Protocol, the Review Protocol and the Request for Proposals and in negotiating with contractors, such that difficulties with one aspect of the risk management database do not delay implementation of other modules.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U86
Where information about a single incident is entered into the risk management database from more than one document (e.g., from a complaint form and a use of force report), the risk management database shall use a common control number or other equally effective means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U87
The City shall maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management database during the officer’s employment with the DPD and for at least five years after separation. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis shall be maintained indefinitely in the risk management database.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 95 of 182 Pg ID 9857

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 94

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement U88
The new risk management database shall be developed and implemented according to the following schedule:
a. By January 24, 2008, the City shall have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management database consisting of: 1) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the City and DPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary database software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the information system completed, including historic data. The DOJ and the Monitor shall have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using new and historical data and test data created specifically for the purposes of checking the risk management database.
b. The risk management database shall be operational and fully implemented by July 24, 2008.
c. The parties and the independent monitor shall meet on a monthly basis to discuss what actions have been taken during the previous month toward development of the new risk management database.
d. The defendant shall present to the plaintiff and the independent monitor, on a monthly basis, evidence of satisfactory progress sufficient to justify a conclusion that completion of the new risk management database by August 11, 2008 remains feasible. If at any time the plaintiff concludes that successful completion of the project within the timeframes described in this paragraph is unlikely, the plaintiff shall so notify the Court and the defendant. Within sixty days after receipt of such notice, the defendant shall issue an RFP to develop or complete development of the new risk management database as was required by 88c. of this Consent Judgment before it was amended. In that event, the requirements of paragraphs 88.d., 88.e., 88.f., and 88.g. of this Consent Judgment before it was amended shall be enforced, with dates adjusted as follows: the Review Protocol (paragraph 88.d.) shall be issued within five months after issuance of the RFP; the defendant shall select the contractor (paragraph 88.e) within seven months after issuance of the RFP; the beta version (paragraph 88.f) shall be ready for testing within fifteen months after issuance of the RFP; and the risk management database shall be operational (paragraph 88.g) within twenty-six months after issuance of the RFP.32
e. By May 31, 2004, the DPD shall select the contractor to create the risk management database.
f. By June 30, 2005, the City shall have ready for testing a beta version of the risk management database consisting of: i) server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the City and DPD’s existing automated systems; ii) necessary database software installed and configured; iii) data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv) the information system completed, including historic data. The DOJ and the Monitor shall have the opportunity to participate in
32 Amended by Court Orders dated November 9, 2007, and July 22, 2008

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 96 of 182 Pg ID 9858

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 95

January 16, 2014

testing the beta version using new and historical data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the risk management database.
g. The risk management database shall be operational and fully implemented by December 31, 2005.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U89
Prior to implementation of the new risk management database, the DPD shall develop an interim system to identify patterns of conduct by DPD officers or groups of officers. The interim system shall require periodic reviews of relevant information, but no less than monthly, and evaluations of whether an officer or group of officers is engaging in at-risk behavior. This interim system shall collect and analyze the following information: citizen complaint reports and investigations; use of force investigations; shootings; vehicle chases; injured prisoner investigations; traffic collisions; canisters of chemical spray issued to officers; firearms qualifications; training; prompt judicial review; disciplinary action; arrest without probable cause; all reports regarding investigatory stops and/or frisks unsupported by reasonable suspicion; and all reports regarding interviews, interrogations or conveyances in violation of DPD policy in a format that facilitates entry into the final risk management database, to the fullest extent possible.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U90
Following the initial implementation of the risk management database, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the DPD may propose to subtract or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and subtract or modify standardized reports and queries. The DPD shall submit all such proposals for review and approval by the DOJ before implementation.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the Phase 2 compliance status of this requirement. We will continue to monitor the risk management system to ensure that any significant changes are handled in a manner consistent with this requirement. DPD has incorporated descriptions of its data norming process in the relevant Standard Operating Procedures operating procedures. Monthly MAS reports indicate that the Department has not made any significant changes during the reporting period in data collection or the reports generated through MAS.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 97 of 182 Pg ID 9859

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 96

January 16, 2014

The changes in review process as noted above have not yet been reflected in policy and reviewed by DOJ, although they have been widely described in monthly status reports and discussed with DOJ and the Monitoring Team.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Performance Evaluation System
CJ Requirement U91
DPD shall ensure that performance evaluations for all DPD employees below the rank of Deputy Chief occur at least annually and include, but are not limited to, consideration of the following:33
a. civil rights integrity;
b. adherence to law, including performing duties in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution and the Civil Rights laws of the United States; and
c. supervisor’s performance in identifying and addressing at-risk behavior in subordinates, including their supervision and review of use of force, arrests, care of prisoners, prisoner processing, and performance bearing upon honesty and integrity.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph for the past ten reporting periods. To verify continued compliance for the current reporting period, we again examined a random sample of 120 evaluations drawn from all a list of all personnel. Evaluations for three officers eligible for review could not be located. All eligible reviews were current and properly completed with original narratives, references to “no change in status,” and/or references to material in MAS. Seven reviews were eliminated due to leave, disabled status or other acceptable circumstances.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

33 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 98 of 182 Pg ID 9860

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 97

January 16, 2014

C. Oversight
CJ Requirement U92
The DPD shall develop a protocol for conducting annual audits to be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol shall establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all DPD units and commands. The annual audit period for conducting the audits required by paragraphs 93 to 97 for the first year shall end on August 31, 2004. The subsequent annual periods shall end on July 17, 2005, and every year thereafter.34
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
This requirement, and the five that follow it, establish the structure and processes for auditing key functions in the Department. The required audits have been completed annually.
Phase 2 compliance with this requirement is linked to compliance with the requirements of U9397. As noted in our last report, the audit protocol was revised, past audits were completed on schedule, and all new audits are now scheduled. A new protocol is being written and will be discussed in our next report. It does involve a significant change to require completion of audits on a quarterly basis.
DPD continues in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U93
The DPD shall issue a report to the Chief of Police on the result of each audit and examine whether there is consistency throughout the DPD. The DPD shall also provide the reports to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD is also in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. As noted below, completed audits contained Corrective Action Notices and corresponding plans submitted and signed by the appropriate command staff. We review documentation of notification of audits forwarded to the Assistant Chiefs and Chief of Police on the expected schedule.

34 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 99 of 182 Pg ID 9861

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 98

January 16, 2014

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U94
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits, covering all DPD units and commands that investigate uses of force, prisoner injuries, and allegations of misconduct. The audits shall include reviewing a statistically valid sample of command, IAD, and Homicide Section investigations; evaluating whether the actions of the officer and the subject were captured correctly in the investigative report; and evaluating the preservation and analysis of the evidence and the appropriateness of the investigator’s conclusions.35
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. Audits on use of force, prisoner injuries, and allegation of misconduct were completed during this quarter for the period ending August 31, 2013 and were followed by corrective action reports and corrective action plans when necessary. As part of the audit protocol, new audits are scheduled.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U95
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits covering all precincts and specialized units that review a statistically valid sample of findings of probable cause, stop and frisk reports and witness identification and questioning documentation. The audits shall include evaluating the scope, duration, content, and voluntariness, if appropriate, of the police interaction. The audits shall include a comparison of the number of arrests to requests for warrants and a comparison of the number of arrests for which warrants were sought to judicial findings of probable cause.36
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

35 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004. 36 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 100 of 182 Pg ID 9862

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 99

January 16, 2014

There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. Stop and frisk audits were completed on schedule, and corrective action reports were completed. As noted above these audits identified significant problems requiring correction. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U96
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled annual audits covering all precincts and specialized units that examine custodial detention practices. The audits shall include reviewing the length of detention between arrest and arraignment and the time to adjudicate holds.37
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. Custodial detention audits of all relevant facilities were completed on schedule. As in the past, there have been areas recognized as needing improvement and subject to corrective action notices regarding detention practices. Improvement from the past is also noted in the audits. The audits contain Corrective Action Notices and corresponding corrective action plans signed by Commanders. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U97
The Chief Investigator of OCI shall designate an individual or entity to conduct regularly scheduled annual audits that examine external complaints and complaint investigations. The audit shall include reviewing a statistically valid sample of complaints that were resolved informally, reviewing a sample of OCI investigations of complaints, and contacting the complainants to evaluate whether the actions and views of the complainant were captured correctly in the complaint report and/or investigation. The Chief Investigator shall review all audit reports regarding officers under OCI command and, if appropriate, shall take nondisciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.38
37 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004. 38 Amended by Court Order dated October 4, 2004.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 101 of 182 Pg ID 9863

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 100

January 16, 2014

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. This audit was completed for the reporting period ending August 31, 2013. The report was completed on May 31, 2013 for review up the chain of command. Consistent with the other oversight-related requirements, the Department has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. Corrective action reports and plans were completed based on the audits. The Department remains in compliance with this requirement. New audits are scheduled the beginning of next year.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U98
The DPD shall conduct and document periodic random reviews of scout car camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes. In addition, the DPD shall require periodic random surveys of scout car video recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
While our past audits found DPD in compliance with U98, the random reviews that were conducted by DPD supervisors produced few substantive results for the DPD. To address the apparent weakness and improve the process, in February 2013, the Department instituted a new random selection process whereby the Office of Civil Rights identified the traffic stops to be reviewed and tasked the field operations units to review them. The new process was announced by message order that was effective beginning on February 2, 2013, that stated, “The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) shall notify individual commands specific traffic stop events that require a supervisory review of the in-car video/audio system.”
During our review of the second quarter of 2013, we found that DPD had selected 175 police/citizen contacts to be reviewed and that all in which cars had operational video systems in place were reviewed. As expected, the compliance rates reported by supervisors were much more realistic than those found in previous “random” reviews in which the reviewing supervisor simply selected the event to be reviewed. Further, we found a number of instances where supervisors commented on safety and tactical methods employed by the officers. We concluded that the random review process had been substantially improved.
DPD failed to conduct any random reviews during the third quarter of 2013. Prior to our October 2013 site visit, we requested data pertaining to the Department’s random reviews for the quarter. When we arrived onsite, we learned that the data had not been collected. Inasmuch as DPD erases video older than 90 days, it would be impossible to collect data for July. DPD subsequently conducted the random reviews for traffic stops in August and September 2013.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 102 of 182 Pg ID 9864

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 101

January 16, 2014

We examined 98 random reviews conducted by DPD supervisors in October 2013, of events that occurred in August and September 2013. Over 31% (30 of the 98 traffic stops) reflected instances where audio was not collected by one or both officers. Two of these failures were attributable to equipment malfunctions that were reported in a timely fashion for repair. Of the remaining 28 failures to record audio, supervisors and their commanders resolved them as shown on the following chart.

Number of
Reviews Resolution

17 Counseling, instruction or training

2

Pending - Further inquiry to determine if the failure was the first such instance for the

officer

4

ACR

5

No Action - In three cases, the supervisors and commanders implied that there was a

technical failure. In one case the supervisor noted “there is the issue as to (the officer’s)

body mic failing to activate when the overheads were activated.” No discipline was

suggested or imposed. We reviewed the repair logs and found no report for the car around

the date in question.

In another case where no action taken, the commander observed, “keep an eye out on future reviews regarding mics (sic).” We reviewed the repair log and found no entry for the car being repaired.

In another case, the Commander urged his subordinates to “keep an eye on mics (sic) that are not activating for tech issues.” Again, we found no report for the vehicle on the repair log.

In two remaining cases where no action was taken or noted for failure to record audio, the management chain seemed to ignore the failure altogether. In one, action was recommended to address an operational failure to make an arrest but none was recommended for the failure to record audio. In a second instance, the review concluded, “No policy violations for this traffic stop,” and the commander signed off on it.

After three years and 15 quarterly reviews in which we have monitored compliance with U98, DPD failed to conduct any random reviews for the quarter until reminded of its responsibility to do so. While we reviewed the random reviews conducted in October for two of the three months in the reporting period, we cannot find the Department in compliance when it failed to conduct any reviews during the quarter under review.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 103 of 182 Pg ID 9865

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 102

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement U99
The DPD shall ensure regular meetings with local prosecutors to identify issues in officer, shift or unit performance.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. To verify continued compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we reviewed the minutes of the August 14, 2113 quarterly meeting involving DPD and members of the Prosecutor’s Office. Consistent with previous meetings, a wide range of topics were discussed and reported in the meeting minutes including those relating recording of interrogations, case issues when officers fail to appear for court, practices regarding detainee time constraints, and various other crime issues. The next meeting is scheduled for November 13, 2013.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

D. Use of Video Cameras
CJ Requirement U100
The DPD shall repair or replace all non-functioning video cameras.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
MVS equipment, particularly older units, is subject to breaking down and requiring repair. As a result, the total number of operational units at any one time varies. In July 2012, DPD estimated that it had about 303 MVS units installed in its fleet. A total of 94 cars have been equipped with the new D911 video system. The complement of MVS equipment actually installed has remained the same, about 300 vehicles, since July 2011. At any one time, however, the equipment that is operational is less than 300. During this site visit, we found that a total of 184 different DPD cars were operational and uploaded video during July 2013; 184 in August 2013; and 174 in September 2013.
In October 2012, the IT Bureau (ITB) addressed a system-wide technical failure that occurred and was disrupting the system for uploading data to its central server. To correct the problem, the Department acquired and installed a new central server that was dedicated to handling all the data from the newly acquired Data 911 (D911) MVS units. The new central server initially resolved the uploading problem. DPD also acquired and installed two store and forward servers to hold video data and forward it to the central server. This system has functioned well since January 2013, and no major failures have been experienced in which significant amounts of data

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 104 of 182 Pg ID 9866

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 103

January 16, 2014

could not be uploaded. The challenge to the DPD now is to ensure its members record the events as required by DPD policies.
We reviewed the service log for the period of July 1, through September 30, 2013, and found that the ITB handled 190 MVS-related service actions during the quarter. Four were classified as “Active,” two as “Closed Unresolved,” one as “Pending (Vendor Issue)” and 183 (96%) as “Completed.” The average number of minutes spent to accomplish each repair was 68 minutes.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U101
The DPD policy on video cameras shall be revised and augmented to require:
a. activation of scout car video cameras at all times the officer is on patrol;
b. supervisors to review videotapes of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits and external complaints; and
c. that the DPD retain and preserve videotapes for at least 90 days, or as long as necessary for incidents to be fully investigated.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During past site visits, we found:
1. The DPD MVS cameras are set to operate 100% of the time on patrol. Full video is 2430 frames per second; MVS units are set to capture one frame of video per second at all non-emergency times. The equipment is set so that whenever the emergency lights are activated, the units switch to full-video mode and capture 28 frames per second. The Department now erases the one frame per second video recorded on the D911 MVS equipment after it has been stored for 24 hours.
2. DPD preserves and retains videos when it is able to upload them successfully in the central server, as required by U101c.
U101b requires that video be activated for each of the incidents specified and that supervisors conduct a review of the video where one is available.
Uses of Force: We requested reports for 82 use of force cases closed during the months of June, July and August 2013 for review. Twenty-three cases had no equipment or faulty equipment. Six others involved recordings made from fixed locations such as DPD detention facilities or business locations. Of the remaining 53 cases, 20 (38%) had video/audio recordings from scout cars. Use of force video and audio reviews are addressed in requirement U32.
Injuries: In past reporting periods, DPD has been unable to produce a report that identified a comprehensive list of incidents involving injuries to officers or subjects in which MVS should

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 105 of 182 Pg ID 9867

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 104

January 16, 2014

have been recorded by officers and reviewed by supervisors. Beginning in January 2013, the Department has tracked injuries to both officers and subjects. During the third quarter of 2013 (July 1, through September 30, 2013), the DPD identified 64 instances in which DPD officers suffered injuries during the third quarter of 2013. Most injuries occurred in circumstances in which MVS was not applicable. Only two instances produced video; both were audio but the injury occurred outside the field of vision. Both were reviewed by supervisors.
Pursuits: DPD officers engaged in 37 pursuits during the first quarter of 2013. Twelve cars that engaged in these pursuits were not equipped with operational MVS. Several cars with operational video equipment had participated in pursuits in early July 2013, but these recordings were erased. We were able to find data for these instances through review of the DPD 665 forms for all but one pursuit.39 Our review of the 24 remaining instances where video equipped cars engaged in pursuits during the reporting period revealed that 18 (75%) recorded video during the pursuit, and seven (29%) recorded audio. Audio is particularly important when officers leave their car to arrest or chase a subject on foot. We found six instances where the pursuits ended in foot chases or arrests but the officers failed to activate the audio. All six of these pursuits were reviewed by supervisors but none commented on the officers failures to activate their audio.
Supervisors reviewed 13 (75%) of the 18 pursuits involving MVS equipped cars. Seven of the remaining 12 pursuits where video was recorded involved supervisors who claimed that they had tried to review video but found it to be unavailable. In six of these instances we determined that the “broken” MVS was not brought in for repair around the time the technical failure was identified by the supervisor or we were able to find and review the video the supervisors said was unavailable. In these cases we did not credit the Department with conducting a supervisory review of the video/audio.
The following chart depicts these data.

Pursuits Q3 July – September, 2013

Supervisor Review

MVS Number Equipped Erased Surveyed Video % Audio % Number %

37

25

1

24

18

75%

7

29%

13

76%

External Complaints: We reviewed eight IAD investigations that were closed in the third quarter 2013 that should have had video. Six (75%) contained video and audio that was reviewed and used in the investigations.

39 DPD policy is to erase video recordings when they have been retained for 90 days. The Department failed to protect several the pursuit recordings collected in July 2013, and the ones that were over 90 days old at the time of our review in October had been automatically erased. We were able to verify that six had been reviewed through DPD form 665 compiled to record data pertaining to pursuits.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 106 of 182 Pg ID 9868

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 105

January 16, 2014

We also reviewed 11 OCI cases where it was appropriate to check video in the police facilities. Video and/or audio were found in seven (64%) cases, including six with both video and audio and one where only audio was found. In 43 cases where it was appropriate to check for video in scout cars, both video and audio were found in 13 (30%) cases; and in six additional cases, only video was found.
The Department is not in Phase 2 compliance with any section of U101.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U102
The DPD policy on video cameras shall require officers to record all motor vehicle stops, consents to search a vehicle, deployments of a drug-detection canine, or vehicle searches.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has never achieved Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. In October 2012, storage of video camera data was severely disrupted during the third quarter of 2012 due to a technical failure that prevented video from being uploaded successfully. In January 2013, we found that the MVS system had been stabilized in October 2012, through the acquisition of a new central server that was devoted to the new Data 911 (D911) MVS. Since most of the DPD’s deployed MVS equipped cars were loaded to capacity with data that could not be uploaded until the new server was installed, the system was not functioning smoothly again until mid-November 2012. We reviewed traffic stop data for December 2012, and found video and audio present in 83% and 47%, respectively, of the random sample records surveyed.
During our April 2013 site visit, we were able for the first time since 2012, to review a full set of random samples of traffic stops to determine if video and audio were collected. The January results (video 76% and audio 56%) were very much at the same level as we have found before, but February and March showed marked improvement; 92% and 94% of the records surveyed during these months had video, and 76% and 80% had audio. During our July 2013 site visit, we again sampled traffic stops for each month in the preceding quarter. We found continued improvement over the last Quarter 1; 94% had recorded video and 81% had audio.
The chart below depicts the first three quarters of 2013.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 107 of 182 Pg ID 9869

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 106

January 16, 2014

TRAFFIC STOPS 2013
Quarter/Month Quarter 1 - 2013 January February March Q1 Totals Quarter 2 - 2013 April May June Q2 Totals Quarter 3 - 2013 July August September Q3 Totals

#

Records Video %

Audio

%

50

38 76%

28

56%

50

46 92%

38

76%

50

47 94%

40

80%

150 131 87%

106

71%

50

46 88%

41

79%

46

43 93%

35

76%

46

44 96%

39

85%

142 133 94%

115

81%

53

46 87%

39

74%

71

66 93%

48

68%

71

62 87%

41

58%

195 174 89%

128

66%

During our October 2013 site visit, we sampled traffic stops for each month in the previous quarter. We found a decline in compliance over the previous quarter when video had been recorded at 945 and audio at 81%. During this reporting period, video declined to 89% and audio to 66%. Overall, compliance with U101 has declined to the levels we observed in the fifteenth reporting period. The following chart illustrates the results of the first three quarterly reviews in 1023.

 
     

& #& #& "& "& !& !& & &

"!& !&


#& "&







"#&
& 

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 108 of 182 Pg ID 9870

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 107

January 16, 2014

In addition, DPD advised that 12 vehicles were searched with canines during the period July 1, 2013, through September 30, 2013. In 11 of the 12, the car was equipped with an operational MVS in which both the video and microphones were working. Eight (73%) of the 11 deployments recorded video and seven (64%) recorded both video and audio. The following chart reflects these data.

Month July August September
Q3

# Searches
1 7 4 12

Video Working
1 6 4 11

Mic Working
1 6 4 11

Video 1 4 3 8

% Video 100% 67% 75% 73%

Audio 1 4 2 7

% Audio 100% 67% 50% 64%

The Department is not in compliance with this requirement. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: Not in Compliance

CJ Requirement U103
The City shall ensure that adequate resources are provided to eliminate the backlog of disciplinary cases and that all disciplinary matters are resolved as soon as reasonably possible.
Comments:
This requirement, and the two that follow, address the Department’s disciplinary process. When the City of Detroit signed the Use of Force Consent Judgment, the Department’s disciplinary process was almost completely dysfunctional. A backlog of cases numbered in the thousands and the system was neither effective at addressing improper actions or at maintaining due process for officers. Conditions are dramatically different now. The backlog was completely eliminated and the department now manages its processing of cases to assure it does not return, and the Department does so in a manner consistent with the rights of officers and the needs of the department. An established matrix of expected sanctions based on charges is followed and cases are completed according to an established and predictable timeline.
With regard to this specific requirement, DPD is in Phase 1 compliance. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 220 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. This is a substantial increase over the last quarter. There is no backlog of cases and case flow is being managed sufficiently. During the current reporting period, a total of 119 new disciplinary cases were opened. In our last report we noted a large number of newly opened cases. Information on this

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 109 of 182 Pg ID 9871

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 108

January 16, 2014

quarter’s case closing indicates that the disciplinary unit is successful in handling the temporary increase by closing a commensurate number of cases without compromising quality.
In our last report, we noted the personnel changes in the Disciplinary Administration Unit. The most recent transition in leadership overseeing the Unit has proceeded smoothly.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U104
The DPD shall schedule disciplinary hearings, trials, and appeals at appropriately frequent intervals, to prevent a disciplinary backlog from developing. As part of determining how often to schedule such hearings, the DPD shall establish guidelines dictating the maximum period of time that should elapse between each stage of the disciplinary process.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since the second reporting period. As noted above, for this reporting period, we reviewed all 220 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. All disciplinary proceedings met the established timelines and were consistent with this requirement. As of the end of September, there are six cases remaining open that form 2011. All involve the same officer. There are no earlier cases. Fifty-three cases remained open from 2012 and 100 from the current year. The status of all open cases is tracked by the disciplinary unit and reported quarterly. All open 2011 and 2012 cases reflect appropriate scheduling and steps toward closure. The earlier cases remain open due to extraordinary circumstance such as military leaves or extending sick time making officers unavailable.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U105 The DPD shall create a disciplinary matrix that:
a. establishes a presumptive range of discipline for each type of rule violation; b. increases the presumptive discipline based on both an officer’s prior violations of the
same rule as well as violations of other rules;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 110 of 182 Pg ID 9872

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 109

January 16, 2014

c. requires that any departure from the presumptive range of discipline must be justified in writing;
d. provides that the DPD shall not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix calls for the imposition of discipline; and
e. Provides that the DPD shall consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action also is appropriate in a case where discipline has been imposed.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
There are no changes in the compliance status of this requirement. The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement since our second quarterly report. For this reporting period, we reviewed all 220 disciplinary cases that were closed during the quarter. The disciplinary matrix is provided for use at disciplinary trial boards and other disciplinary processes. All decisions during this reporting period fell within the matrix and were consistent with this requirement. The matrix underwent minor revision earlier this month. DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 78 Comprehensive Risk Management Plan 79 Improve risk management system 80 Database requirements (a-z) 81 Database to include officer information 82 Data Input Plan (a-d) 83 Report Protocol for database (a-c) 84 Review Protocol for database (a-l) 85 Use modules to ensure work progress 86 Common control number required 87 Data retention 88 Database schedule (expired) 89 Interim database (rescinded) 90 Change process needs DOJ approval 91 Annual officer review criteria specified 92 Protocol for conducting audits

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 111 of 182 Pg ID 9873

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 110

January 16, 2014

¶ Requirements 93 Audit results to Chief and commanders 94 Annual audits-use of force 95 Annual audits-probable cause/stop-and-frisk 96 Annual audits-detention practices 97 Annual audits-external complaints 98 Random reviews of in-car camera videos 99 Regular meeting with local prosecutors 100 Replace/repair video cameras 101 Revision of video camera policy 102 Record all vehicle stops, searches, etc. 103 Elimination of disciplinary case backlog 104 Scheduling of disciplinary cases 105 Disciplinary matrix of responses/sanctions

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance Not in Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

IX. TRAINING
During our most recent site visit, we visited the Detroit Police Training Center and interviewed the new Training Commander and key members of the training staff. The DPD revises and updates its training courses annually and introduces the new material in July of each year. Last year, during our July 2012 site visit, we reviewed the lesson plans, training materials, and scenarios that guided training for the year that ended on June 30, 2013, and we found them to be adequate.
During our October 2013 site visit, we reviewed the memoranda, lesson plans, scenarios, and policy material for use during the 2014 Training Year (July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014). We found the materials adequate.
A. Oversight and Development CJ Requirement U106
The DPD shall coordinate and review all use of force and arrest and detention training to ensure quality, consistency and compliance with applicable law and DPD policy. The DPD shall conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually, and produce a report of such reviews to the Monitor and the DOJ.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 112 of 182 Pg ID 9874

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 111

January 16, 2014

The required review was conducted in the second quarter of 2013, and documented in a DPD report entitled, “Training Oversight and Development Report – Semi-Annual Review, June 2013.” We reviewed this report – the ninth such report to be issued – during our July 2013 site visit, and found that it contained the necessary evaluation of use of force, arrest, and detention training; and covered all elements of this requirement. The report is prepared twice each year, and the next such report will be produced in December 2013.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U107
The DPD, consistent with Michigan law and the Michigan Law Enforcement Officers Training Council standards, shall:
a. ensure the quality of all use of force and arrest and detention training;
b. develop use of force and arrest and detention training curricula;
c. select and train DPD officer trainers;
d. develop, implement, approve and oversee all training and curricula;
e. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
f. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that training governing use of force and arrest and detention are responsive to the knowledge, skills and abilities of the officers being trained.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
To assess compliance with this requirement for this reporting period, we met with the Training Director and staff and reviewed training records and materials. DPD training complies with the Michigan Law Enforcement Council’s standards and Michigan law. With regard to subparagraphs a-f, during the past year, we found as follows:
a. During our October 2013, site visit, we reviewed the lesson plans, scenarios and training materials that are being used in the 2014 Training Year (July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014) and found them to be adequate. We reviewed the report entitled, “Training Oversight and Development Report – Semi-Annual Review,” dated June 2013, which documents the DPD’s semi-annual review and evaluation of its training during the 2013 Training Year. The next such report will be completed in December 2013.
b. As we have observed in past reviews, DPD policy, curricula, and lesson plans prepared for the 2014 Training Year adequately addressed this requirement.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 113 of 182 Pg ID 9875

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 112

January 16, 2014

c. DPD selected no officer trainers during the reporting period.
d/e. As we have observed in past reviews, DPD policy, curricula, and lesson plans address these provisions. As noted above, we reviewed DPD training materials prepared for the 2014 Training Year and found them to be adequate.
f. Directive 304.5-3.4, revised July 10, 2012, places responsibility on the Commander of Training to conduct training needs assessments and Directive 304.5-6.2, requires that such assessments be conducted and documented every two years. As noted previously, in July and December 2012, the DPD conducted and documented training needs assessments. During our last site visit, we reviewed the new training needs assessment conducted in June 2013.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U108
The DPD shall create and maintain individual training records for all officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training completed for all training conducted on or after the effective date of this agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD captures data relating to its in-service training, and records it on a spreadsheet. Since the spreadsheet is used by the Department to determine if all of its officers have attended the required in-service training sessions, we have conducted audits of its accuracy during the current and past reporting periods. Inasmuch as the DPD has been in compliance with this requirement for two years, we reduced the sample to 25 officers.
We randomly selected 25 officers who were listed on the spreadsheet as having received and completed in-service training from July 1, through September 30, 2013. To complete their inservice training, these officers would have to attend and sign attendance sheets for three courses: Legal/Use of Force for sign-in sheets are combined since both are taught on the same day; PR24; and Firearms Qualification. In addition, if the officer selected on the random sample list was a supervisor or investigator, they would have attended the Leadership In-Service as well. DPD was able to locate all (100%) of the expected signatures.
During our previous reviews, we found that the Department committed to recording training data in the MITN System, a part of the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) data system. Training has now entered all DPD training records for years 2003 through the present. During this reporting period, the same training records for the 25 officers in our random sample relating to Use of Force, Legal, PR-24 and Firearms Qualification, were

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 114 of 182 Pg ID 9876

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 113

January 16, 2014

checked in the MITN system to see if they had been recorded. All (100%) were found to have been entered into MITN. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U109
The DPD shall ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors and that instructors engage students in meaningful dialogue regarding particular scenarios, preferably taken from actual incidents involving DPD officers, with the goal of educating students regarding the legal and tactical issues raised by the scenarios.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
We reviewed DPD training directives and lesson plans for the 2014 Training Year (July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014), and found that they appropriately direct and instruct on the relevant provisions of the Consent Judgment.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U110 The DPD shall meet with the City Law Department on a quarterly basis concerning the conclusion of civil lawsuits alleging officer misconduct, information gleaned from this process shall be distributed to DPD risk management and training staff. Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A. The DPD met with the City Law Department pursuant to this requirement on September 26, 2013. Meetings are held quarterly. The DPD remains in compliance with U110. Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 115 of 182 Pg ID 9877

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 114

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement U111
The City and the DPD shall distribute and explain this Agreement to all DPD and all relevant City employees The City and the DPD shall provide initial training on this Agreement to all City and DPD employees whose job responsibilities are affected by this Agreement within 120 days of each provision’s implementation. Thereafter, the DPD shall provide training on the policies contained in this Agreement during in-service training.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
This training is conducted by CRIB for both civilian and sworn personnel. The Department hired two new employees who were trained by CRIB during the reporting period. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

B. Use of Force Training CJ Requirement U112
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers, and supervisors with annual training on use of force. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. The DPD’s use of force continuum; proper use of force; decision making; and the DPD’s use of force reporting requirements;
b. The Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including recent legal developments;
c. Examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper use of force decision making, including the use of deadly force;
d. The circumstances in which officers may draw, display, or point a firearm, emphasizing:
i. Officers should not draw their firearm unless they reasonably believe there is a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or another person;
ii. The danger of engaging or pursuing a suspect with a firearm drawn; and
iii. That officers are generally not justified in drawing their firearm when pursuing a subject suspected of committing only a misdemeanor;
e. The proper use of all intermediate force weapons;
f. Threat assessment, alternative and de-escalation techniques that allow officers to effect arrests without using force and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 116 of 182 Pg ID 9878

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 115

January 16, 2014

units or even letting a subject temporarily evade arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation, even when the use of force would be legally justified;
g. Interacting with people with mental illnesses, including instruction by mental health practitioners and an emphasis on de-escalation strategies;
h. Factors to consider in initiating or continuing a pursuit;
i. The proper duration of a burst of chemical spray, the distance from which it should be applied, and emphasize that officers shall aim chemical spray only at the target’s face and upper torso, and
j. Consideration of the safety of civilians in the vicinity before engaging in police action.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
During this review, we assessed training policy directives, curricula, lesson plans, special orders, training needs assessment and teletypes, among other materials that were prepared to address the requirements of U112 during the 2014 Training Year (July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014). Our review showed that the course content requirements of U112 and its subparagraphs a, b, c, d, f, g, h, i and j were met for all in-service trainees in the Legal and Use of Force blocks of instruction. The requirements for subparagraph e were met in the PR-24 block of instruction.
We found that during the first quarter of the new Training Year (July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014), 476 (22%) of the 2,146 DPD officers available to train attended and completed the inservice blocks for Use of Force and Legal training in which the requirements for U112 are primarily fulfilled. In addition, 463 officers (22%) attended the PR-24 block of instruction.
The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

C. Firearms Training
CJ Requirement U113
The DPD shall develop a protocol regarding firearms training that:
a. Ensures that all officers and supervisors complete the bi-annual firearms training and qualification;
b. Incorporates professional night training, stress training (i.e., training in using a firearm after undergoing physical exertion) and proper use of force decision making training in the bi-annual in-service training program, with the goal of adequately preparing officers for real life situations;
c. Ensures that firearm instructors critically observe students and provide corrective instruction regarding deficient firearm techniques and failure to utilize safe gun handling

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 117 of 182 Pg ID 9879

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 116

January 16, 2014

procedures at all times; and undergoing physical exertion) and proper use of force decision making training in the bi-annual in-service training program, with the goal of adequately preparing officers for real life situations;
d. Incorporates evaluation criteria to determine satisfactory completion of recruit and inservice firearms training, including:
e. Maintains finger off trigger unless justified and ready to fire;
f. Maintains proper hold of firearm and proper stance; and
g. Uses proper use of force decision making.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The requirements specified in U113 are addressed in the Department’s firearms training, which officers are required to attend and qualify in every six months. During the previous six-month firearms qualification period (January 1, 2013 through July 30, 2013), 98% of the officers available to train attended firearms and qualified.
During this review, we found that at halfway through the firearms training period, 849 (40%) of the 2,146 officers available to train had attended firearms training and qualified.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

D. Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training
CJ Requirement U114
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on arrests and other police-citizen interaction. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. The DPD Arrest, Investigatory Stop and Frisk and Witness Identification and Questioning Policies;
b. The Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including:
c. Advising officers that the “possibility” that an individual committed a crime does not rise to the level of probable cause;
d. Advising officers that the duration and scope of the police-citizen interaction determines whether an arrest occurred, not the officer’s subjective, intent or belief that he or she affected an arrest; and

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 118 of 182 Pg ID 9880

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 117

January 16, 2014

e. Advising officers that every detention is a seizure, every seizure requires reasonable suspicion or probable cause and there is no legally authorized seizure apart from a “Terry stop” and an arrest; and
f. Examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper police-community interactions, including scenarios which distinguish an investigatory stop from an arrest by the scope and duration of the police interaction; between probable cause, reasonable suspicion and mere speculation; and voluntary consent from mere acquiescence to police authority.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The topics required by U114 were taught in the 2013 Training Year (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013) in the Legal and Use of Force blocks of training. During the 2013 Training Year, 99% of the DPD officers available to train completed the Legal and Use of Force blocks of instruction. In the current 2014 Training Year (July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014), these topics are all covered in the Legal block of instruction. At the first quarter mark of the current training year, 476 (22%) of its 2,146 officers available to train had completed the Legal block of instruction. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

E. Custodial Detention Training
CJ Requirement U115
The DPD shall provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on custodial detention. Such training shall include DPD policies regarding arrest, arraignment, holds, restrictions, material witness and detention records.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD developed appropriate policies and lesson plans to comply with this provision, as well as a protocol to train all recruits, sworn members, confinement officers, investigators, and supervisors. All officers who attend the Use of Force and Legal in-service receive training regarding arrest, arraignment, holds, restrictions, material witness and detention records specified by this requirement. Officers who serve in the detention cell areas were required to receive additional annual detention officer training, which is more specifically related to detention responsibilities. In spite of the fact that the Department is transferring the responsibility for detention to the State of Michigan, many of the topics will remain important for officers to understand. This training will be continued until the end of the current training cycle at which time it will be reassessed.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 119 of 182 Pg ID 9881

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 118

January 16, 2014

During the training year that ended on June 30, 2013, 99% of DPD members attended the Use of Force and Legal in-service training sessions and received this training. At the end of the first quarter of the current training year, 476 (22%) of DPD officers available to train have attended the Use of Force training and the Legal training.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U116
The DPD shall advise officers that the DPD arraignment policy shall not be delayed because of the assignment of the investigation to a specialized unit, the arrest charge(s), the availability of an investigator, the gathering of additional evidence or obtaining a confession.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
DPD has incorporated these training requirements into its Use of Force and Legal lesson plans. During the 2013 Training Year, the Department trained 99% of its officers in its Use of Force and in its Legal in-services.
At the end of the first quarter of the new 2014 Training Year, DPD remains in compliance, having trained 476 (22%) of its 2,146 officers available to train in these in-services. The Department remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U117
The DPD shall advise officers that whether an individual is a material witness and whether that material witness should be committed to custody is a judicial determination.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
Material witness training has been incorporated into the Use of Force and Legal lesson plans. At the conclusion of the 2013 Training Year, DPD was in compliance, having trained 99% of its officers available to train in these in-services. At end of the first quarter of the new 2014 Training Year, DPD has trained 476 (22%) of its 2,146 officers available to train in the Legal and Use of Force blocks of instruction.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 120 of 182 Pg ID 9882

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 119

January 16, 2014

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

F. Supervisory Training
CJ Requirement U118
The DPD shall provide supervisors with training in the appropriate evaluation of written reports, including what constitutes a fact based description, the identification of conclusory language not supported by specific facts and catch phrases, or language that so regularly appears in reports that its inclusion requires further explanation by the reporting officer.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD fulfills Consent Judgment requirements U118-122 through its annual Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training that is required for both supervisors and investigators. During the training year that ended on June 30, 2013, the Department trained 98% of its supervisors in its Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service.
During the first quarter of the current training year (July 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014), 90 (20%) of the Department’s 443 supervisors who were available to train attended the Leadership and Accountability in-service training.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U119
DPD supervisors shall receive leadership and command accountability training and learn techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training shall be provided to all DPD supervisors within 30 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities and shall be made part of annual in-service training.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix A.
The DPD fulfills Consent Judgment requirements U118-122 through its annual Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service training that is required for both supervisors and investigators. During the training year that ended on June 30, 2013, the Department trained 98% of its supervisors in its Supervisory Leadership and Accountability in-service.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 121 of 182 Pg ID 9883

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 120

January 16, 2014

During the first quarter of the current training year (July 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014), 90 (20%) of the Department’s 443 supervisors who were available to train attended the Leadership and Accountability in-service training.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement U120 The DPD shall provide training on risk assessment and risk management to all DPD supervisors, including the operation of the risk management database. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U121
The DPD shall provide training on appropriate burdens of proof, interview techniques and the factors to consider when evaluating officer, complainant or witness credibility to all officers who conduct investigations to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform and legally appropriate.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement U122
The DPD shall provide all supervisors charged with accepting external complaints with appropriate training on handling external complaints that emphasizes interpersonal skills. The DPD shall provide training on the DPD external complaint process, including the role of OCI and IAD in the process, to all new recruits and as part of annual in-service training.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 122 of 182 Pg ID 9884

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 121

January 16, 2014

H. Field Training CJ Requirement U123
The DPD shall develop, subject to DOJ approval, a protocol to enhance the FTO program within 120 days of the effective date of this Agreement. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting and removing the FTOs and for training and evaluating FTOs and trainees.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

¶ Requirements 106 Coordination and review of training 107 DPD will meet state training standards 108 Maintain individual training records 109 Train from approved objectives and plans 110 Quarterly meetings with Law Department 111 Distribute and training on the agreement 112 Annual use of force training required 113 Develop firearms training protocol 114 Annual arrest, citizen interaction training 115 Annual training on custodial detention 116 Prohibition of arraignment delays 117 Material witness custody 118 Supervisory training-report evaluation 119 Supervisory training-leadership 120 Supervisory training-risk management 121 Investigator training-procedures 122 Supervisory training-external complaints 123 Enhance the FTO program

Phase 1 - Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 123 of 182 Pg ID 9885

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 122

January 16, 2014

SECTION THREE:
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT
This Consent Judgment sets forth procedural and operational requirements relating to the confinement facilities maintained and operated by the Detroit Police Department. The Judgment requires the revision and implementation of policies and practices that are safe, respectful, and constitutional in the areas of fire safety, emergency preparedness, medical and mental health, prisoner safety, environmental health and safety, persons with disabilities, food service, and personal hygiene. In addition, the Judgment sets forth requirements relating to the use of force in detention facilities, as well as procedures for the investigation of the use of force and complaints relating to other events occurring in these facilities. The Judgment also establishes requirements for management and supervision, the auditing of internal practices, and the training of personnel who are assigned detention responsibilities.
During our first site visit in November 2009, we reviewed required directives, supporting logs, forms, and documentation relating to the operation of the detention facilities. Accompanied by key members of the DPD Office of Civil Rights personnel, we conducted our first tour of the Detroit Police Department’s five facilities with holding cells and the Detroit Receiving Hospital.40 We have repeated our tours and inspections of some or all of these facilities during each of our subsequent site visits, and have interacted with command and key detention staff at each facility.
In addition, we have met with key CRIB command staff, Audit Team personnel, and the designated health care professional to conduct a thorough review of all requirements, DPD directives, forms, logs, and documentation relating to and required by this Judgment. Our review disclosed the need for the DPD to revise various health-related directives and to have them reviewed and approved by a health care professional. This was accomplished. In addition, we met with DPD Training staff regarding training issues, which were promptly addressed.
During our visits to and inspections of the various facilities with holding cells, we are always accompanied by CRIB staff, and assisted by the cell block supervisors and compliance officers. These inspections included our entering and examining every holding cell, interviewing detention staff, and reviewing forms and logs. When we find errors, omissions or violations during the inspections we advise facility and CRIB staff immediately of our observations.
We have worked with DPD holding facilities staff to streamline reporting mechanisms and to offer alternatives to ensure that requirements are met and are consistent with policy.
Prior to forwarding documents requested for our quarterly reviews, CRIB personnel routinely review the documents before they are forwarded to us. During this review, CRIB typically identifies errors and/or omissions and forward corrective action notices to the various commands. Written responses are required. If appropriate supervisory review occurred and
40 Facilities with holding cells are located in the Northeastern, Eastern, and Southwestern Districts; Sixth and Twelfth Precincts.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 124 of 182 Pg ID 9886

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 123

January 16, 2014

errors/omissions were initially identified and corrected at the District/Precinct level, that action would have a positive bearing on compliance.
As a result of negotiations between DPD and MDOC (Michigan Department of Corrections), a contract was signed to have the State house all DPD detainees. Both parties signed the Interagency Agreement during the first week of April 2013, and the transfer of the Northeastern District’s detainees was completed on August 5, 2013; as of our October 2013 site visit, only one holding facility remains open, and that facility will be closed by the end of October 2013. The Independent Monitoring Team toured the MDOC facilities during the remodeling phase, and found the structure to be well suited for DPD’s needs. The facility is relatively new, and the physical plant is in much better condition than any of the five holding areas currently utilized by the Department. During our July 2013 site visit, we again toured the facility, along with representatives from the Justice Department and DPD. During our October 2013 site visit, the DDC was operational, and we were able to observe DPD detainees being processed into the facility.
The Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment is comprised of several different categories relating to the confinement facilities maintained and operated by DPD.

III. FIRE SAFETY POLICIES
CJ Requirement C14
The DPD shall ensure that all holding cells, and buildings that contain them, achieve and maintain compliance with the Life Safety Code within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. The City shall ensure that the Detroit Fire Marshal conducts regular and periodic inspections to evaluate whether the conditions in DPD holding cells, and buildings that contain them, are in compliance with the Life Safety Code.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The Fire Marshal Division of the Detroit Fire Department conducted its annual review and approved the Fire Safety Program (FSP) and the Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP) for all DPD buildings containing holding cells on July 18, 2013. The most recent semi-annual inspections and audits were conducted from May to July 2013, and completed by July 31, 2013. There were violations discovered at three of the five facilities. The violations were related to the Fire Alarm Control Panel and sprinkler equipment, general fire safety, address numbers on buildings, and an outstanding violation for repair to an elevator. Due to the outsourcing of all detention responsibilities to the Michigan Department of Corrections, the DPD will consider corrective action for each violation within the overall context of the transition to the DDC and plans for future operations.
Accordingly, DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 125 of 182 Pg ID 9887

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 124

January 16, 2014

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C15
The DPD shall develop and implement a comprehensive fire detection, suppression and evacuation program for the holding cells, and buildings that contain them, in accordance with the requirements of the Life Safety Code and in consultation with the Detroit Fire Department.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the second reporting period.
During this reporting period, we reviewed DPD 716, Fire Extinguisher Monthly Inspection/Inventory, and DPD 703, Fire Drill Documentation Forms, for all of the districts/precincts with holding cells in operation; and determined that all facilities are in compliance with these requirements. We also examined a sample of the fire extinguishers at the last operational holding facility, and found all of them to be fully charged.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C16
The fire safety program shall be developed in consultation with, and receive written approval by, the Detroit Fire Department. As part of developing the fire safety program, the Detroit Fire Department shall evaluate the need for and, if necessary, the DPD shall install: fire-rated separations, smoke detection systems, smoke control systems, sprinkler systems and/or emergency exits for the holding cells and buildings that contain them. The fire safety program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of the Agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Following the development of the Fire Safety Plan, the DPD made required structural changes to districts/precincts’ holding facilities, including the updating and/or installation of sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, and fire-rated doors. The Fire Marshal conducted the annual inspection and approved the Fire Safety program on July 18, 2013. During our inspection of the last operational district/precinct holding cell in October 2013, we found the presence of all three.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 126 of 182 Pg ID 9888

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 125

January 16, 2014

The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C17 The DPD shall implement the fire safety program within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the plan.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has developed and implemented the required Fire Safety Plan.
The most recent inspections were conducted during June and July and documented on July 18, 2013. The next Fire Marshal’s inspection is due in June 2014. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C18
The DPD shall take immediate interim fire safety measures in all buildings that contain holding cells. At a minimum, these interim measures shall:
a. Ensure that the activation of any individual smoke alarm sounds an alarm throughout the building;
b. ensure that prisoners in holding cells have an adequate means of reporting emergency conditions to DPD staff immediately;
c. ensure that automated back-up power systems exist for all buildings containing holding cells that are capable of providing immediate power for emergency lighting, exit signs, fire alarm and smoke detection systems in the event of an electrical power failure through batteries or an emergency generator; and
d. reduce the likely spread of smoke and fire throughout the buildings by means of stairwells, garages, hazardous rooms and exposed pipes, such as ensuring that fire doors in stairwells are closed.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 127 of 182 Pg ID 9889

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 126

January 16, 2014

The DPD has been in full Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the first reporting period.
Fire Systems of Michigan and the Fire Marshal conducted and documented inspections of suppression systems on July 18, 2013. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C19
The DPD shall ensure that fire safety equipment is routinely tested, inspected and maintained, including the sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, manual fire extinguishers, emergency lighting and exit signs, and self-contained breathing apparatuses.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the second reporting period.
The Fire Safety Plan places responsibility for ensuring the required testing, inspections, and maintenance of the various systems, fire extinguishers, emergency lighting and signs, and equipment with the DPD Office of Facilities Management. We reviewed DPD 715 - Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells forms for this reporting period. There was no indication that sprinkler systems were out of order during the CRIB monthly inspections.
Fire Systems of Michigan and the Fire Marshal conduct the required inspections, which were last conducted in June and July 2013.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C20
The DPD shall enforce immediately its no-smoking policy in the holding cells or provide ashtrays and ensure that all holding cell areas are constructed and supplied with fire-rated materials.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph since the first reporting period. During our most recent inspections, we did not observe any persons smoking in unauthorized

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 128 of 182 Pg ID 9890

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 127

January 16, 2014

areas. Also, during our review of all of the monthly inspections on DPD 715, Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells, we found no documentation that any smoking had been observed in the facilities.
DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C21 The DPD shall insure immediately that all flammable and combustible liquids in holding cell areas and the attached and nearby DPD buildings are stored properly. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Our inspections of the holding facilities have found that each district/precinct was equipped with at least one yellow storage cabinet, located in the garage area, for flammable and combustible liquids. We checked the cabinets, and found flammable materials and gas storage containers. DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C22 The DPD shall remove immediately all highly-combustible kane fiber ceiling tiles from buildings that contain holding cells. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. The DPD has been in continued compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph since 2005 when it closed some of the facilities where kane fiber ceiling tiles were in place, and it removed the tiles from the remaining facilities. DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 129 of 182 Pg ID 9891

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 128

January 16, 2014

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

14 Holding Cell Life Safety Code compliance In Compliance

15 Fire detection, suppression, and evacuation In Compliance

16 Fire Department consultation/evaluation

In Compliance

17 Implementation of fire safety program

In Compliance

18 Immediate interim fire safety measures

In Compliance

19 Routine testing of fire safety equipment

In Compliance

20 Enforce no smoking in holding cells

In Compliance

21 Proper storage of flammable liquids

In Compliance

22 Remove combustible cane fiber tiles

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

IV. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES CJ Requirement C23 The DPD shall ensure a reasonable level of safety and security of all staff and prisoners in the event of a fire or other emergency.
Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
As noted previously, Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of C24-25; DPD is in compliance with C24 and C25. Accordingly, we find this paragraph in compliance. Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C24
The DPD shall develop a comprehensive emergency preparedness program that is approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department. This program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the programs within three months of DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Detroit Fire Department at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the plan. At a minimum, the emergency preparedness program shall:
a. include an emergency response plan for each building that contains holding cells identifying staff responsibilities in the event of fire-related emergencies and other emergencies, including notification responsibilities, evacuation procedures and key control procedures (discussed below); and

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 130 of 182 Pg ID 9892

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 129

January 16, 2014

b. require performance and documentation of fire drills for all buildings containing holding cells on all shifts every six months (documentation shall include the start and stop times of each drill, the staff members who participated in the drill, a summary of the drill, and an evaluation of the success of the drill).
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CEPP identifies staff responsibilities in the event of a fire emergency to include notifications, evacuation, and key control procedures. (See C15.)
The DPD achieved full compliance in the second and subsequent reporting periods as it increased the frequency of fire drills to the 100% level required by policy. During this reporting period, we determined that the fire drills were again conducted according to policy at the 100% level.
The DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C25
The DPD shall develop and implement key control policies and procedures that will ensure that all staff is able to manually unlock all holding cell doors in the event of a fire or other emergency.
At a minimum, the key control policies and procedures shall:
a. provide for emergency identification of keys by touch;
b. and require routine inventory, testing and maintenance of keys and locks.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our first site visit, we recommended that each officer working in a cell block be issued a complete set of keys. Following this recommendation, we were informed that two extra sets of keys were distributed to each district/precinct with holding cells, bringing the total at each to five – three in the cell block, one with the sergeant assigned to the public lobby, and one in the emergency key box in the lieutenants’ and sergeants’ office.
During our three previous inspections, we found that each district/precinct had, at the minimum, five sets of keys – three in the cell block, one with the sergeant assigned to the public lobby, and one in the emergency key box in the lieutenants’ and sergeants’ office. Teletype 11-0989, Holding Cell Facility Keys – Required Documentation, regarding inventory and assignment of keys by the cell block supervisor, had been distributed. This policy directed the cell block supervisor to conduct an inventory of the keys at the commencement and the conclusion of

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 131 of 182 Pg ID 9893

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 130

January 16, 2014

his/her tour of duty and document same in the MAS Desk Blotter. Subsequently, CRIB distributed Department Teletype 11-01395, which thoroughly explained the procedure for documenting the inventory and security of keys. When interviewed, the detention supervisors and officers appeared to have an understanding of their responsibility for key control.
During our most recent site visit of the remaining district with a holding cell, we determined that the supervisors and officers that we interviewed appeared to understand the process for inventory and control of the keys. The MAS Desk Blotter indicated that key inventories were entered in a timely manner.
DPD continues to be in compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements

Phase 1 – Policy

23 Ensure reasonable safety in emergency

In Compliance

24

Develop

comprehensive

preparedness program

emergency In Compliance

25 Implementation of key control policies

In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

V. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES
CJ Requirement C26
The DPD shall ensure the appropriate identification of, and response to, prisoner’s medical and/or mental health conditions.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
DPD has previously had difficulties with this paragraph due to the requirements of C27-33. Those issues were addressed and subsequently this paragraph is now compliant.
During previous reporting periods, we reviewed all DPD’s Audit Team’s report of its findings of the Holding Cells and are in agreement with their findings as they have been similar to ours. The Audit Team’s analysis and reporting of the holding facilities condition has contributed significantly to DPD’s ability to reach and maintain compliance with this Section. The most recent audit we have reviewed of the holding cells was released on July 31, 2013 and the few deficiencies noted have been addressed. DPD released its Quarterly Status Report on March 31, 2013; we note that the Department’s internal inspections of C26 and C32g continue to show that it is in compliance with both paragraphs. We are in agreement with DPD’s assessment, as we have similar findings for the current reporting period. We have observed steady improvement during the past four reporting periods to address the deficiencies described in our reports.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 132 of 182 Pg ID 9894

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 131

January 16, 2014

DPD revised the Detainee Intake Form (DIS) with implementation on September 20, 2012. The document was approved by the Department’s consulting physician on August 31, 2012. The new form is completed (via hand) by the processing officer during intake screening, streamlined, and has resolved the most pressing issues with documentation from the previous form. New guidelines for the completion of the revised DIS were issued to assist processing officers conducting screening of detainees. As a result of the implementation of the revised Detainee Intake Form, it was disabled from Livescan.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed and inspected a random sample of 97 detainee file folders and observed personnel. We found that most DPD personnel are properly implementing these procedures in accordance with the DPD directives. In order to assess compliance with this paragraph, we reviewed those issues that had a direct impact on identification and response to a detainee’s medical or mental health conditions. Compliance with this paragraph is dependent upon compliance with C27-C33 (C27-C33 are all compliant).
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C27
The DPD shall develop a comprehensive medical and mental health screening program (CMMHSP) that shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals. This program shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the program within three months of DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least every year and prior to any revisions to the programs. At a minimum, the comprehensive medical and mental health screening program shall include prisoner screening procedures and medical protocols.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD Health Authority completed the annual review and approved the CMMHSP policies and directives. The DPD provided us with documentation indicating that the CMMHSP was approved on April 8, 2013, and the mental health portion was approved on March 13, 2013. DPD revised the Detainee Information Form with implementation on September 20, 2012 with written approval on August 31, 2012 by the Department’s consulting physician.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 133 of 182 Pg ID 9895

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 132

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement C28
The prisoner screening procedure, at a minimum, shall:
a. enable the DPD to identify individuals with medical or mental health conditions, including infectious diseases, chronic conditions, including disabilities, ambulatory impairments, mental health conditions, and drug/alcohol withdrawal;
b. identify persons who are at risk of committing suicide, persons who have been on heightened observation for suicide risk at any time during a past incarceration and persons who have any medical contraindications for the use of chemical sprays,
c. require that the DPD follow a standard intake procedure for each individual entering DPD custody;
d. require that intake screening be conducted within two hours of intake and through a verbal exchange between the DPD and prisoners; and
e. incorporate all health information pertaining to a prisoner acquired by the arresting or transporting officers.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our review of documentation and the October 2013 site visit, we found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this requirement. For this reporting period, we observed few deficiencies. There remain minor clerical errors and occasionally incomplete or incorrect completion of required forms. With few exceptions, personnel documented those instances where information was critical to the detainees’ healthcare. (See C29).
All five subsets of this paragraph exceeded the 94>% requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C29 The medical protocols, at a minimum, shall:
a. identify the specific actions the DPD shall take in response to the medical information acquired during prisoner screening or detention, including the need for emergency care, hospitalization, prescription medication and/or intensive monitoring; and
b. require prior supervisory review and written approval, absent exigent circumstances, of all decisions made in response to acquired medical information.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD was not in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph in previous reporting periods.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 134 of 182 Pg ID 9896

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 133

January 16, 2014

During this reporting period, we reviewed a sample of 97 detainee file folders, and inspected each of the districts/precincts that maintain holding cells. We found that staff did not follow policy in a few areas, including:
• Thirty-four referrals of detainees in need of medical or mental health care to DRH or another local hospital and all were within policy, with two exceptions.
• One case in which the intake screening was not conducted within the two-hour timeframe and where no operational delay was indicated.
• Detainees not receiving medications prescribed by the Detroit Receiving Hospital in a timely manner. Twenty detainees had medications disbursed (145 individual dosages); and in three instances, the dosages were not administered within a reasonable time according to the prescription schedule.
• There were 29 instances where detainee medical information was listed by the arresting officer on the Detainee Input Sheet; and in one case, the processing officer failed to transfer that information to the Detainee Information Form.
• Thirty-four detainees who were sent to the Detroit Receiving Hospital for treatment or medication; in all but one, discharge instructions were included in the detainee file folders. We found three instances among the remaining 33 detainees where one or more pages of the discharge instructions were missing. For all detainees who went to DRH for treatment or medication verification, we reviewed 191 individual pages of discharge instructions.
• The required Hospital Prisoner Form was included in all but one of the detainees who were sent to DRH.
• Of 97 classifications of detainees into the holding facilities after screening, 93 were correctly classified.
• There were four Detainee Custodial Transfer Logs (detainees transferred to other DPD holding facilities) completed in the sample and all contained the receiving Cell Block Supervisors signature.
• There were 14 crime partners correctly identified by the processing officer at the time of initial processing.
All individual requirements of this paragraph exceeded the 94>% requirement. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 135 of 182 Pg ID 9897

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 134

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement C30
The DPD shall develop and implement policy regarding infectious disease control (IDC) in consultation with medical health professionals. The policy shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical health professionals at least every year after implementation and prior to any revisions to the policy. At a minimum, the policy shall:
a. establish appropriate housing for prisoners believed to have infectious diseases; and
b. mandate measures the DPD shall take to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, including proper handling and disposal of bio-hazardous material.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our previous site visits, our inspections of the DPD facilities that maintain holding cells disclosed satisfactory levels of sanitation in similar degrees at all of the sites with a trend toward improvement. During our most recent site visit, we found the one open facility in compliance. At the conclusion of our October 2013 site visit, only one holding facility remained operational (Second Precinct). DPD revised Policy 403.2, Infectious Disease Control, on May 29, 2013.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C31
The DPD shall develop and implement a protocol for updating and exchanging prisoner health information. At a minimum, this protocol shall;
a. require that prisoner’s health information is recorded at intake and thereafter immediately readily available to all relevant medical and transporting personnel in a manner consistent with the relevant federal and state confidentiality statutes;
b. require that prisoner health information is continually updated to incorporate any additional relevant information acquired during his or her detention;
c. require that relevant prisoner health information is documented and communicated between consecutive shifts, such as whether a prisoner is taking medication or has a medical condition; and
d. require that prisoner health information travel with prisoners who transferred to another facility.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 136 of 182 Pg ID 9898

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 135

January 16, 2014

Our review of the available documentation and our October 2013 inspection indicates that DPD exceeds the 94>% compliance with all of the requirements of this paragraph. For additional information, see C28 and C36b.
DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C32
The DPD shall develop a prescription medication policy in consultation with qualified medical and mental health professionals that ensures prisoners are provided prescription medication as directed. The policy shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals and shall be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of this Agreement. The DPD shall implement the policy within three months of the DOJ’s review and approval. Thereafter, the policy shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least annually and prior to any revisions to the program. At a minimum, the policy shall:
a. indicate when the DPD shall convey prisoners taking prescription medication to the DRH or other treating hospital for evaluation;
b. require the DPD distribute to prisoners only medications that have been prescribed at the DRH or other treating hospitals;
c. require that the DPD distribute medications as prescribed and not rely on inmates to identify their need for medication;
d. require that all prisoner medications be stored in a secure location near the holding cells and travel with prisoners that are transferred;
e. require the DPD to record relevant information regarding the administration of prescription medication on an auditable form;
f. require that injected medications are administered as prescribed and in a safe and hygienic manner; and
g. require that unused mediations prescribed at the DRH or other treating hospitals are provided to prisoners upon their release.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During this reporting period, at the one remaining holding facility that remained open, we found all Medication Logs in proper order and accurately recorded. In prior reviews detainee dosages, dosing times, signatures, the names of the persons administering the medications, and

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 137 of 182 Pg ID 9899

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 136

January 16, 2014

prescription release information did not always appear on the logs. Those issues have now been addressed.
During the current reporting period, in our review of 97 detainee file folders, we found few instances where the DPD failed to record essential detainee and staff information.
During our most recent site visit, we checked all active detainee file folders for those detainees who were on medication or on a monitoring status and found all in order.
DPD has addressed the previous failures with the requirements of C32g, and had achieved compliance with this paragraph for the past four reporting periods. The Department must continue to focus on the concerns related to the documentation of medication disbursements and release of medications when a detainee is released or transferred; C32a through 32g all exceed the 94>% compliance requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C33 The DPD shall provide appropriate clothing, such as paper gowns or suicide smocks, to all prisoners placed under suicide precautions. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. During our most recent inspections, we found sufficient inventory of paper gowns and/or suicide smocks. The staff we interviewed was knowledgeable regarding the use of the clothing and where the appropriate clothing was stored. We find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C34 The DPD shall remove or make inaccessible all suicide hazards in holding cells including exposed pipes, radiators and overhead bars. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 138 of 182 Pg ID 9900

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 137

January 16, 2014

During all of our previous site visits, we conducted comprehensive inspections of each of the five districts/precincts that maintain holding cells, as well as the Detroit Receiving Hospital cells, and did not observe any hazards that could affect detainees or staff.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 26 Prisoners’ medical/mental health conditions 27 Medical/mental health screening program 28 Medical/mental health screening procedures 29 Medical protocols 30 Infectious disease policy required 31 Prisoner health information protocol required 32 Prescription medication policy required 33 Clothing-suicide prevention 34 Removal of suicide hazards

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VI. PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES CJ Requirement C35 The DPD shall ensure a reasonable level of safety of staff and prisoners through the use of appropriate security administration procedures. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of staff and inmate safety measures required by C36-38; accordingly, the DPD is in compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 139 of 182 Pg ID 9901

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 138

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement C36
The DPD shall develop and implement a prisoner security screening program for all buildings containing holding cells. At a minimum, the program shall:
a. establish protocols based upon objective, behavior-based criteria for identifying suspected crime partners, vulnerable, assaultive or special management prisoners who should be housed in observation cells or single-occupancy cells; and
b. require that security screening information is documented and communicated between consecutive shifts.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
DPD Form 659A (Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Log [PDDSL]), revised August 2011, is used to record information on detainees with medical conditions or special needs. During this reporting period, we reviewed logs that contained 2,518 entries. The Department’s compliance rate for this reporting period is 98%. All Districts exceeded the 94% accuracy requirement.
DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C37
The DPD shall develop and implement procedures for the performance, documentation and review of routine cell checks in all holding cells to ensure safe housing. At a minimum, the procedures should:
a. require that cell checks on the general population are performed at least twice per hour and that cell checks of prisoners in observation cells and DRH holding cells are performed every 15 minutes, unless constant supervision is required; and
b. require detention officers to document relevant information regarding the performance of cell checks in an auditable log.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
General population well-being checks are entered on the DPD 659 Form every 30 minutes at the districts/precincts. Detainees held in observation cells are monitored every 15 minutes on DPD Form 661, Detainee Medical/Mental Health Monitoring (DMMHM) logs. During the current reporting period, our review of 4,938 entries in the Detention Cell Check Logs (DPD 659) for the general detainee population from the districts with holding cell facilities reflected a 98.9% compliance rate.
DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 140 of 182 Pg ID 9902

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 139

January 16, 2014

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C38
The DPD shall record in a written policy and implement a procedure that requires detention officers to provide continual direct or on site remote observation of all observation cells while they are occupied.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
For the periods of July 12-17, August 4-9, and September 2-7, 2013, we reviewed logs for 16 detainees who required a 15-minute or constant observation watch, reported on Form DPD 661 (DMMHM Log). All districts met or exceeded the required ≥94% compliance standard for 15 minute cell checks.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 35 Security procedures to ensure safety 36 Prisoner security screening program 37 Procedures for cell checks required 38 On-site remote observation of cells

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES
CJ Requirement C39
The DPD shall ensure that all holding cells are cleaned immediately and thereafter are maintained in a clean and sanitary manner.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During this reporting period, we evaluated all districts/precincts that were still holding detainees for general cleanliness and sanitation. The cleanliness level in the holding areas was satisfactory. Because of the pending closure of DPD holding cells, lighting and corroded benches were not evaluated during this tour.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 141 of 182 Pg ID 9903

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 140

January 16, 2014

Documentation of holding cell cleaning continued to be satisfactory during this reporting period. All districts were above the required 94% compliance score for the reporting period. DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C40 The DPD shall design and implement a cleaning policy for all holding cells. The policy shall require routine cleaning and supervisory inspection of the holding cells and nearby areas. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. This requirement addresses the design and implementation of a cleaning policy for all holding cells. It also requires the routine cleaning and supervisory oversight of cleaning of the cells and nearby areas. The policy is in place and is adequate. DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C41
The DPD shall design and implement a maintenance policy for all holding cells that requires timely performance of routine maintenance and the documentation of all maintenance requests and responses in an auditable log.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
This section of the Consent Judgment requires “timely performance of routine maintenance.” Compliance with this requirement remains challenging due to the age of the facilities and furnishings and the lack of availability of replacement parts. However, we observed fewer than 10 holding cells closed in those districts still holding detainees. In each case, appropriate signage was placed on the front of the closed cells to inform staff that the cells were out of order. The closed cells did not negatively impact the districts’ ability to house detainees.
DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 142 of 182 Pg ID 9904

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 141

January 16, 2014

Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C42 The DPD shall provide adequate heating and ventilation for all buildings containing holding cells.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
No HVAC issues were identified during our most recent site visit. As we toured the holding cells of those facilities still housing detainees, we checked the temperatures in the cell areas and found the temperatures to be within the limits established by the Department (between 66°F and 85°F).
DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C43
The DPD shall repair all broken or malfunctioning lighting, toilets, sinks and windows in holding cells and observation cells.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our most recent inspection, we continued to find instances of malfunctioning lights, toilets, and sinks. As reported in C41, the General Services Division of the City of Detroit is grossly understaffed, and response times for maintenance requests can exceed 60 days. The facilities and the equipment are old and outdated. When these malfunctions occur in the holding cells, the cells are taken out of service and signage is posted on the front of the cell to prevent usage until repairs are completed.
DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 143 of 182 Pg ID 9905

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 142

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement C44 The DPD shall ensure that lighting in all cell block areas is maintained at an appropriate level for all tasks related to the housing of DPD detainees, including but not necessarily limited to, security, safety, cleaning and disinfection of housing areas.41 Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. As in past visits, during our most recent site visit, lighting levels were determined to be marginally sufficient in the cell areas. No changes have occurred in this area since the last visit. DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph at this time.
Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C45 The DPD shall provide all prisoners with reasonable access to toilets and potable water 24 hours-a-day. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. No issues were identified during our most recent site visit. All prisoners had access to toilets and potable water at all times. Cells with plumbing deficiencies were not being used and signage was posted accordingly. DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C46 The DPD shall ensure that all Hepa-Aire purifiers comply with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Agency standards. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.

41 Amended by Court Order dated April 23, 2012.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 144 of 182 Pg ID 9906

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 143

January 16, 2014

All Hepa-Aire purifiers have been permanently removed from the district/precinct holding cell areas. DPD is in full compliance with the requirements of this Consent Judgment paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 39 Clean and maintain holding cells 40 Holding cell cleaning policy required 41 Holding cell maintenance policy required 42 Provide adequate heating and ventilation 43 Repair broken/malfunctioning cell elements 44 Insure sufficient cell lighting 45 Provide reasonable access to toilets and water 46 Hepa-Aire purifiers comply with standards

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

VIII. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES CJ Requirement C47
The DPD shall ensure that persons with disabilities are provided with reasonable accommodations.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
No issues were identified during our most recent site visit. During our most recent site visit, we found that detention staff in the districts continue to demonstrate competency in the use of Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD). In addition, the TDD equipment was working properly in all sites still housing detainees. DPD detention staff are required, per policy, to conduct tests on a monthly basis to ensure the equipment is working properly. In each holding facility, detention staff were able to demonstrate the use of the equipment.
DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 145 of 182 Pg ID 9907

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 144

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement C48
The DPD shall develop and implement a policy concerning the detention of individuals with disabilities in consultation with qualified medical and mental health professionals. The policy shall be approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals. Thereafter, the program shall be reviewed and approved in writing by qualified medical and mental health professionals at least every year and prior to any revisions to the program.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The provisions of this requirement are covered in DPD 305.1, Detainee Intake, and DPD 305.5, Detainee Health Care. These policies were reviewed and approved by qualified medical and mental health professionals on April 8, and March 13, 2013 respectively.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 47 Reasonable accommodation for disabled 48 Detention of persons with disabilities

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

IX. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES CJ Requirement C49 The DPD shall ensure food is stored and served in a sanitary manner and in compliance with state and local health codes. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. Phase 2 compliance is related to and contingent upon the implementation of C50; accordingly, DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. See C50. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 146 of 182 Pg ID 9908

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 145

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement C50
The DPD shall develop and implement a food service policy that shall be approved in writing by a qualified sanitarian. At a minimum, the food service policy shall:
a. require that the meal plan is initially approved in writing by a qualified dietician and, hereafter, is reviewed and approved in writing by a qualified dietician at least every year, or prior to any revisions to the program;
b. require that all food is stored and handled in a sanitary manner;
c. ensure that all prisoners are provided with an alternative meal if they are unable to eat the standard meal for religious or dietary reasons; and
d. ensure that food service is provided to all prisoners who are held over six hours.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. DPD’s Detainee Food Service and Hygiene Items Policy 305.8, was revised by the Detroit Police Department, dated January 9, 2013.
During the current reporting period, we reviewed Desk Blotter logs for the periods of July 12-17, August 4-9, and September 2-7, 2013. Food service documentation continued as required. Our review of the districts’ Desk Blotter Logs for meal service documentation revealed that all districts exceeded the required 94% compliance standard. The Department’s overall compliance rate was 98% for this reporting period. All districts/precincts are in compliance with this paragraph.
The Detention Refrigeration Log, DPD form 655, is used to capture daily refrigerator temperatures and weekly cleaning and sanitization information on a monthly basis. This revised form was implemented on June 7, 2012, Department-wide. During this reporting period, we found documentation that the refrigerators had been cleaned weekly and refrigerator temperatures were satisfactory. Expiration dates on the food were up to standard. All districts were 100% compliant with the refrigeration logs.
DPD continues to be in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 49 Ensure sanitary food storage and service 50 Food service policies and practices

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 147 of 182 Pg ID 9909

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 146

January 16, 2014

X. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES
CJ Requirement C51
The DPD shall ensure that personal hygiene items should include; soap, toothbrushes, toothpaste, toilet paper, a comb, deodorant, and feminine hygiene products. The DPD shall implement this provision within one month of effective date of this Agreement.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
In the current reporting period, we inspected each area where the hygiene kits are stored to determine if the kits were readily available, and found that in all facilities still housing detainees, there were an adequate number of hygiene kits to distribute to detainees when needed. Feminine hygiene products were also available in all sites. Our interviews with the PDOs demonstrate an understanding of the importance of providing personal hygiene items to the detainees on a daily basis. Detainees indicated they had no problems obtaining personal hygiene items when needed.
The DPD’s compliance rate with this requirement is 100%. Accordingly, we find the Department in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 51 Make available personal hygiene items

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance

CJ Requirement C52
The DPD shall require that any use of force on prisoners in holding cells complies with the DPD’s use of force policies and procedures.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the previous reporting period, we examined four SIRs regarding incidents occurring at detention facilities. Two were detainee injuries (DIs) with no force involved. All of the cases were in compliance with DPD’s use of force policies and procedures. Two of the cases were attempted suicides. All four of the cases included video review. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
During this reporting period, we examined four SIRs regarding incidents occurring at detention facilities. One was a detainee injury (DI) with no force involved. One of the cases was in compliance with the DPD’s use of force policies and procedures. The third involved the entry into a cell to remove a cell phone from a detainee, who refused surrender it. The Cell Block Supervisor could not be located, and officers entered the cell to retrieve the cell phone, resulting

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 148 of 182 Pg ID 9910

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 147

January 16, 2014

in a use of force. A supervisor was not notified prior to the use of force, and no exigency was articulated to justify the immediate action. The Desk Supervisor could have been contacted but was not. The fourth case involved the removal of a juvenile from a locked detainee interview room (used as a lock-up for juveniles) where he was beating on the glass and was observed urinating on the floor. A sergeant and three officers responded, and force was utilized to remove the juvenile to the male bullpen area. We believe this incident should have been handled as a cell extraction.42 Overall, two of the four cases complied with DPD use of force policies and procedures (50%). All four of the cases included video review. Although this 50% finding is problematic, in accordance with our methodology, we are making no change on the present compliance finding at this time..
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C53
The DPD shall revise and augment its policies regarding prisoners to require that:
a. officers utilize appropriate precautions when interacting with a prisoner who has previously demonstrated he or she is recalcitrant or resistant, including: summoning additional officers; summoning a supervisor; and using appropriate restraints;
b. absent exigent circumstances, officers notify a supervisor before using force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell; and
c. the supervisor assesses the need to use force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell, direct any such use of force and ensure the incident is videotaped.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
All districts/precincts that maintain holding cells are equipped with some level of videotaping/digital recording equipment that is linked to a camera system that monitors hallways and common areas as well as most, but not all, cells. In addition to the mounted video equipment, the detention districts/precincts have been issued handheld cameras that can be used for planned extractions. Our visits to the various holding facilities found that supervisors were aware of the handheld cameras and had received some training in their use. All supervisors contacted during our most recent site visit were aware of the cameras’ location, and were aware of the need to check the recorders to ensure that the batteries were functional. In the previous reporting period, we found that there were four SIR investigations of incidents occurring in detention facilities cases; only one of these cases were cell extractions.

42 We believe they should have incorporated all of the cell extraction plan procedures.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 149 of 182 Pg ID 9911

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 148

January 16, 2014

During this reporting period, we reviewed four cases, three in June and one in July.43 One was a detainee injury with no force used. The detainees involved in the three uses of force all displayed resistant, recalcitrant behavior prior to the use of force. Another incident occurred in the processing area and a supervisor and sufficient personnel were present to effectively address the situation. The two remaining cases were not handled properly or in compliance with DPD policies. In one, the detainee had a cell phone in the cell and would not surrender it. The officers entered to remove it without notifying the Cell Block Supervisor or alternately, the Desk Supervisor. In the second, a juvenile was removed from a detainee interview room by three officers and a supervisor. As previously noted, we view it as a cell extraction and do not believe that the Department’s protocol for cell extractions was followed. Overall, two of the cases were handled appropriately, and two were not (50%). Although this 50% finding is problematic, in accordance with our methodology, we are making no change on the present compliance finding at this time.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C54 The DPD shall not handcuff prisoners to benches for longer periods of time than are necessary. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

¶ Requirements 52 Use of force policies 53 Revise policy re use of force with prisoners 54 Handcuffing of prisoners to benches

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

43 In June there were three cases, one at the Northeastern District and two at the Second Precinct. The Northeastern case was the removal of the cell phone from a detainee in which a supervisor was not contacted prior to the use of force and no exigency was articulated. One of the Second Precinct cases resulted in a DI; the second involved the removal of the juvenile from the detainee interview room. The July case involved an incident in the processing area, which was handled appropriately with sufficient personnel present and the handheld camera utilized.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 150 of 182 Pg ID 9912

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 149

January 16, 2014

XII. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW
CJ Requirement C55
The DPD shall require that all uses of force, injuries to prisoners and in-custody deaths occurring in the DPD holding cells are investigated in compliance with the DPD’s general incident investigation policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the last reporting period, we reviewed four cases, three of which were classified as detainee injuries. One of the three injuries involved a detainee who fell in his cell and struck his head on the bench; one involved an attempted suicide in which the individual complied with all instructions from the intervening officers; and the last involved an attempted suicide by an individual who failed to comply with the instructions given. In this last case, force was required to remove him from the cell he was flooding.
The fourth detainee injury involved a female prisoner who refused to leave the unit in the garage and had to be forcibly removed and escorted into the precinct.
The cases all had acceptable reviews (100%). All four cases (100%) met the 10- and 30-day requirements. There was one case in which the handheld camera was used. There were no incustody deaths in the cell block area.
During this reporting period we reviewed four cases, one of which was classified as a detainee injury. In this case, the detainee was found on the floor in his cell and had suffered some injury from a fall. He was not responsive to personnel and an EMS unit was requested to the Second Precinct. The case had acceptable reviews, and met the 10- and 30-day requirements. There was sufficient review of the video obtained from the fixed cameras.
There were no in-custody deaths in the cell block area.
DPD is Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C56
The DPD shall require that all uses of force occurring in the DPD holding cells are reported and investigated in compliance with the DPD’s use of force investigation policies. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. During the last reporting period, we found that all four reviewed cases had opportunities for video recordings and reviews. Four (100%) contained acceptable reviews;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 151 of 182 Pg ID 9913

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 150

January 16, 2014

During this reporting period, we found that all four reviewed cases had opportunities for video recordings and reviews. Four (100%) contained acceptable reviews; DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C57
The DPD shall require that all injuries to prisoners occurring in DPD holding cells are reported and investigated in compliance with the DPD’s prisoner injury investigation policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During the last reporting period, we reviewed two attempted suicides and one detainee injury. One of the attempted suicides required minimal force to remove the detainee from the cell. The attempted suicides and the detainee injury were investigated in conformity with the requirements in C57. One detainee involved in an attempted suicide was not transported to DRH for treatment; instead the decision was made to transport him to the Wayne County Jail, as scheduled. During this reporting period, we reviewed one detainee injury and found that it was handled appropriately. EMS was requested to the precinct and subsequently transported the detainee to DRH. DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

Critical Issues:
• The issues that impact the quality of use of force investigations as described in the Use of Force section of the Consent Judgment are applicable to the use of force investigations of incidents occurring in the cell block area. The remedies we have recommended in those areas remain constant for the Conditions of Confinement requirements. Timely and thorough investigations, coupled with critical command level reviews, are the keys to achieving compliance. We have noted improvements in video review and the use of the handheld portable cameras.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 152 of 182 Pg ID 9914

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 151

January 16, 2014

Next Steps:
During the next reporting period, we will:
• Continue to review all force, injury, and complaint incidents originating from detention facilities.
• Monitor the supervisory review of video captured in the detention areas, and, where appropriate, monitor the use of handheld cameras in each detention facility.
• Conduct field visits to various detention facilities to verify the Department’s adherence to policy requirements.

¶ Requirements 55 Use of force investigations 56 Use of force investigations 57 Injury to prisoner investigations

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

XIII. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS CJ Requirement C58 The DPD shall ensure that it accepts and processes all external complaints regarding incidents occurring in holding cells consistent with the DPD’s external complaint policies.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during all of the previous reporting periods.
During this reporting period, the Department closed seven complaints originating from detention facilities – two in August and five in September. All complaints were accepted and processed in accordance with DPD policy. All involved allegations of excessive force, and OCI retained investigation of all of the cases.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this Consent Judgment paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C59
The DPD shall ensure that all external complaints it receives regarding incidents occurring in holding cells are investigated and reviewed consistent with the DPD’s policies concerning external complaint investigations and review.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 153 of 182 Pg ID 9915

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 152

January 16, 2014

Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
We found the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph during the last first reporting period.
OCI closed seven complaints originating from detention facilities during the reporting period. All involved allegations of force, with five cases stemming from force allegedly used during the arrests of the complainants. All of these cases were timely and we believe the findings were appropriate. One case was administratively closed. It was also opened as a force case, but the “complainant” merely asked to be treated for a separated shoulder while he was in custody. During the investigation, he indicated that the injury was an old weightlifting injury that did not relate to his contact with DPD, and it was never his intention to file a complaint.
DPD is in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 58 Receipt of external complaints 59 Investigation of external complaints

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

XIV. GENERAL POLICIES CJ Requirement C60 In developing, revising, and augmenting the policies discussed in this Agreement, the DPD shall ensure that all terms are clearly defined. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. We found the DPD in Phase 2 compliance in all of the previous reporting periods. That status continues in this reporting period. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 154 of 182 Pg ID 9916

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 153

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement C61 The DPD shall continue to make available proposed policy revisions to the community, for review, comment and education. Such policy revisions shall also be published on the DPD’s website to allow comments to be provided directly to the DPD. Comments: The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B. See U71. The DPD is in continued Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 60 Clearly define all terms in policies 61 Policy changes available to community

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

XV. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION CJ Requirement C62
The DPD shall routinely evaluate the operation of the holding cells to minimize harm to staff and prisoners.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During this reporting period, CRIB staff inspected all of the facilities with holding cells and the DRH each month and documented their findings on Form 715 Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells. Upon review of the completed forms, we found that all forms contained critical findings – e.g., broken toilets and sprinkler heads, and inoperable video cameras. Requests for repairs had been made and were documented on the maintenance log. All 715 forms were complete with all of the required signatures.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 155 of 182 Pg ID 9917

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 154

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement C63
The DPD shall operate the holding cells in compliance with DPD’s comprehensive risk management plan including implementation of:
a) the risk management database;
b) the performance evaluation system;
c) the auditing protocol;
d) regular and periodic review of all DPD policies; and
e) regular meetings of the DPD management to share information and evaluate patterns of conduct by DPD that potentially increase the DPD’s liability.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
Phase 2 compliance with this requirement is unchanged since the last report. The components of this requirement incorporate compliance requirements detailed in the Use of Force Consent Judgment and are applicable across the Department’s patrol and holding cell personnel. These include U91 with regard to personnel evaluations; U92-U99, which address audit requirements, policy review, and monthly risk-related reviews; and U78-90, which establish requirements for the risk management database. Our findings of compliance with those requirements are reflected in the finding with regard to C63.
With the closing of DPD holding facilities and the changes in status of staff assigned to them, this is the last quarter for which any DPD staff will be covered by this requirement.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C64
The DPD policy on video cameras shall be revised and augmented to require:
a. the installation and continuous operations of video cameras in all prisoner processing areas of the DPD holding cells within one year of the effective date of this Agreement;44
b. supervisors to review videotapes of all incidents involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force and external complaints;
c. that the DPD retain and preserve videotapes for at least 90 days, or as long as necessary for incidents to be fully investigated; and

44 Amended by Court Order dated June 1, 2011.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 156 of 182 Pg ID 9918

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 155

January 16, 2014

d. that the DPD conduct and document periodic random reviews of prisoners processing area camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes and conduct periodic random surveys of prisoners processing area video recording equipment to confirm that it is in proper working order.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
During our previous inspections of holding cells, we observed the operation of video cameras in all processing areas and throughout the holding facilities. We noted that CRIB and/or detention staff conducts monthly random reviews of videos in processing areas as well as specific reviews when a use of force incident occurs.
During our January 2011 site visit, the Parties determined that video cameras were not required outside of the processing areas. During our previous site visits, the video cameras in all of the districts/precincts that maintain holding cells were operational in the processing areas.
During this reporting period we reviewed 24 Detainee Processing Area Video Review Forms (DPD-713, revised May 2012) from each of the five holding facilities and found only one instance where the video could not be accessed. DPD’s compliance rate for COC 64c remains at 96%.
DPD has purchased handheld video cameras to achieve compliance with C53, subparagraph c, which states: “The DPD shall revise and augment its policies regarding prisoners to require that: the supervisor assesses the need to use force on a prisoner who is confined to a cell, direct any such use of force and ensure the incident is videotaped.” Personnel in the one remaining facility were able to activate the handheld cameras. This equipment should be routinely checked to ensure its operability.
During this reporting period, we reviewed four cases, within or at the holding facilities that involved a use of force or a prisoner injury; in all four cases processing area video was captured or the use of the handheld video camera was utilized. Many of the issues of storing archived video should be resolved now that the Michigan Department of Corrections has transitioned to housing DPD detainees. DPD’s compliance rate for all subsets of C64 remains at 96%.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C65
The DPD shall conduct regularly scheduled semiannual audits, covering all DPD units and commands that investigate uses of force, injuries to prisoners and allegations of misconduct in holding cells, including;
a. reviewing a statistically valid sample of command, IAD, and Homicide Section investigations;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 157 of 182 Pg ID 9919

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 156

January 16, 2014

b. evaluating whether the actions of the officer and the subject were captured correctly in the investigative report;
c. evaluating the preservation and analysis of the evidence;
d. examining whether there is consistency in use of force and injured prisoner investigations throughout the DPD;
e. evaluating the appropriateness of the investigator’s conclusions; and f. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.45
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its Combined Use of Force and Allegations of Misconduct in Holding Cells Investigations Audit for the audit period ending July 31, 2013. We reviewed the audit for that reporting period; and found that the Audit Team conducted a comprehensive audit regarding uses of force, injuries to prisoners, and allegations of misconduct in holding cells. The respective command staff were notified of the deficiencies and responded to the Command Action Notices with non-disciplinary corrective action and/or training as appropriate. .
Accordingly, we continue to find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C66
The DPD shall create a Holding Cell Compliance Committee that is responsible for assuring compliance with requirements of this Agreement. The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate compliance with fire detection, suppression and evacuation program, including:
a. testing a sample of smoke detectors and sprinklers;
45Amended to reflect the below stipulated language contained in the Court order of April 15, 2009:
The audits required by paragraphs 65 to 71 in this Agreement shall be submitted on a semiannual basis with the first and second semiannual periods ending on January 31 and August 31, 2004. Subsequent semiannual periods shall end on January 31, 2005, and every six months thereafter. Each of these audits may be conducted on an annual rather than a semiannual basis when the Monitor concludes that the most recently submitted audit for the same topic is compliant, and the remaining requirements of this paragraph have been met for the prior audit of that topic. The DPD shall issue all audit reports to the Chief of Police and also provide copies to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take nondisciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 158 of 182 Pg ID 9920

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 157

January 16, 2014

b. testing the back-up power systems;
c. reviewing a sample of fire equipment testing and maintenance records; and
d. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that meets monthly and collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team conducted the semi-annual Fire Safety Practices and Policies Audit that was completed for July 31, 2013. The audit was comprehensive and indicated that deficiencies were discovered at three facilities relating to fire safety. Due to the transition of all detention responsibilities to the Michigan Department of Corrections, the DPD will consider corrective action for each violation within the overall context of the transition and plans for future operations of the buildings.
Accordingly, we continue to find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C67
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled audits in all buildings containing holdings cells to evaluate emergency preparedness, including;
a. reviewing a sample of key and fire equipment maintenance and inventory records; interviewing selected detention officers about their participation in fire drills and on their responsibilities under emergency preparedness program and testing their ability to identify keys necessary to unlock all holding cell doors; and
b. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit team completed the Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program audit for the period ending July 31, 2013. We confirmed that the DPD met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The Audit Team examined documents and conducted tabletop exercises during unannounced visits in April and May to determine the knowledge and skills of the personnel working in the Detention areas. The percentage of total correct answers was 99%, Department-wide. The Fire Marshal conducted the required annual inspection of the Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program and the Fire

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 159 of 182 Pg ID 9921

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 158

January 16, 2014

Safety Program and approved both on July 18, 2013. Accordingly, we continue to find the DPD in Phase 2 compliance with these requirements of this paragraph. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C68
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate the medical/mental health programs and policies, including:
a. reviewing a sampling of hospitals referral forms in comparison to prisoner intake forms to evaluate the accuracy of the intake screening and whether appropriate action was taken;
b. observing intake screening interviews to assess thoroughness;
c. reviewing a sampling of the prescription medication log to ensure that medications were administered as prescribed and that their distribution was accurately recorded; and
d. issuing a written report regarding the finding of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The most recent semi-annual audit was conducted in April and May and completed for July 31, 2013. The audit is comprehensive and addresses the deficiencies by issuing Command Action Notices to the appropriate command staff. Included in the audit are the responses from the commanders, indicating training or issuance of non-disciplinary or disciplinary notices. .
We conclude that the DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C69
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate detainee safety programs and policies, including;

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 160 of 182 Pg ID 9922

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 159

January 16, 2014

a. reviewing a sampling of security screening records, including written supervisory approvals, to ensure that prisoners are being properly screened and housed;
b. reviewing a sampling of the cell checks logs to ensure that checks are being accurately and regularly performed and that cell checks logs are receiving supervisory review and written approval; and
c. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team conducted the semi-annual audits during April and May and completed and issued its audit results for the Detainee Safety Program on July 31, 2013.
We conclude that the DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of the requirements of this paragraph. Accordingly, we find DPD in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C70
The Holding Cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits in all buildings containing holding cells to evaluate the environmental health and safety programs, including:
a. inspecting holding cells and surrounding areas to ensure that they are clean and clear of debris and that the lighting, sinks, and toilets are operable;
b. reviewing a sampling of cleanings and maintenance logs to ensure they are properly maintained and reflected the scheduled performance of the requisite cleaning and maintenance tasks;
c. reviewing the systems in place for assuring that all prisoners have reasonable access to potable water and toilets 24 hours a day;
d. observing whether holding cells are free of any potential suicide hazards; and
e. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 161 of 182 Pg ID 9923

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 160

January 16, 2014

The CRIB Audit Team completed its first combined semi-annual audit of the Environmental Health and Safety Program, Detainee Food Services and Personal Hygiene Policies and issued their findings on January 31, 2012. The audits were combined for efficiency reasons. They cover C70-71 and focus on Paragraphs C34, C39-45, and C49-51. Additionally, CRIB staff conducts monthly audits of the elements of this paragraph and documents the results on DPD Form 715 Evaluation of the Operation of Holding Cells. The Audit Team conducted inspections in April and May and completed the current Audit Report on July 31, 2013. We reviewed the current Audit Team Report and found it to be comprehensive.
DPD has met the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this paragraph. The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C71
The Holding cell Compliance Committee shall conduct regularly scheduled semiannual audits of all building containing holding cells to evaluate the food service program, including:
a. reviewing a statistically valid sample of food service documentation to evaluate whether prisoners who are held over six hours receive regular and adequate meals;
b. assuring that food is handled in a sanitary manner; and
c. issuing a written report regarding the findings of the audit.
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The DPD established an active Holding Cell Compliance Committee that collaborates with the CRIB Audit Team to conduct the audits required by this paragraph.
The CRIB Audit Team completed and issued its command-specific audit on the DPD food service program and hygiene practices on January 31, 2012. This was the first combined audit that also included Personal Hygiene Policies and Environmental Health and Safety Policies. We found the audit to be comprehensive and meeting the requirements for performance and documentation of requirements of this and the previous paragraph, C70. We reviewed the results of the audit that was conducted for July 31, 2013, and as stated in the previous paragraph, found it to also be comprehensive.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 162 of 182 Pg ID 9924

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 161

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement C72 The audits required by paragraphs 65 to 71 in this disciplinary action.46 Agreement shall be submitted on a semiannual basis with the first and second semiannual periods ending on January 31 and August 31, 2004. Subsequent semiannual periods shall end on January 31, 2005, and every six months thereafter. Each of these audits may be conducted on an annual rather than a semiannual basis when the Monitor concludes that the most recently submitted audit for the same topic is compliant and the remaining requirements of this paragraph have been met for the prior audit of that topic. The DPD shall issue all audit reports to the Chief of Police and also provide copies to each precinct or specialized unit commander. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit shall review all audit reports regarding employees under their command and, if appropriate, shall take non-disciplinary corrective action or disc
Comments:
The DPD is in Phase 1 compliance with this paragraph. See Appendix B.
The CRIB is mandated under this Consent Judgment paragraph to provide written reports for the Chief of Police and specified commanders. In previous reporting periods, we found that the various reports and field responses were unacceptable, in that these reports were specific to the district/precinct and did not receive sufficient attention. The CRIB conducted a review of the audit process, and subsequently changed the audit process to focus on individual commands. These command-specific audits were anticipated to result in clearer command accountability and increased awareness to issues that are identified through the audit process.
For the last reporting period, we received and reviewed the command-specific audits for the period ending July 31, 2013. The audits included are Medical and Mental Health Program and Policies; Combined Environmental Health and Safety; Detainee Food Service and Personal Hygiene Practices; Fire Safety Practices and Policies; Allegations of Misconduct in Holding Cells and Uses of Force in Holding Cells Combined; and Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program. We also reviewed the Corrective Action Notices from the commands that were submitted prior to August 15, 2013.
The DPD remains in Phase 2 compliance with this paragraph.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

¶ Requirements 62 Evaluation of holding cell operation 63 Operate cells in compliance with risk plan

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

46 Amended by Court Order, dated April 15, 2009.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 163 of 182 Pg ID 9925

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 162

January 16, 2014

¶ Requirements 64 Augment policy regarding video cameras 65 Quarterly audits required 66 Fire safety audits required 67 Emergency preparedness audits required 68 Medical/mental health program audit 69 Detainee safety audits required 70 Environmental health/safety audits 71 Food service program audits required 72 Audit results to Chief and Commanders

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 – Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

XVI. TRAINING
CJ Requirement C73 The DPD shall provide comprehensive pre-service and in-service training to all detention officers. Comments: Inasmuch as DPD has reached an agreement with Michigan and is transferring detention responsibilities to the State’s Department of Corrections, we have suspended monitoring the requirements that relate to training DPD officers for service in PD cellblocks. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C74
The DPD shall create and maintain individual training records for all detention officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training, completed for all training completed on or after the effective date of this agreement.
Comments:
Inasmuch as DPD has reached an agreement with Michigan and is transferring detention responsibilities to the State’s Department of Corrections, we have suspended monitoring the requirements that relate to training DPD officers for service in PD cellblocks.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 164 of 182 Pg ID 9926

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 163

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement C75 The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors of detention officer and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in emergency preparedness. Such training shall include drills and substantive training in the following topics:
a. Emergency response plans and notification responsibilities; b. Fire drills and use of fire extinguishers and other fire suppression equipment; c. Key control drills and key control policies and procedures; and d. Responding to emergency situations, including scenarios detention officers likely will
experience. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

CJ Requirement C76
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in the medical/mental health screening programs and policies. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. prisoner intake procedures and medical and mental health protocols, including protocols for transferring or housing prisoners with infectious diseases, disabilities and/or requiring increased monitoring;
b. recording, updating and transferring prisoner health information and medications
c. the prescription medication policy, including instructions on the storage, recording and administration of medications; and
d. examples of scenarios faced by detention officers illustrating proper intake screening and action in response to information regarding medical and mental health conditions.
Comments:
Inasmuch as DPD has reached an agreement with Michigan and is transferring detention responsibilities to the State’s Department of Corrections, we have suspended monitoring the requirements that relate to training DPD officers for service in PD cellblocks.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 165 of 182 Pg ID 9927

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 164

January 16, 2014

CJ Requirement C77
The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in detainee safety programs and policies. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. the security screening program, including protocols for identifying and promptly and properly housing suspected crime partners, vulnerable, assaultive or special management prisoners;
b. protocols for performing, documenting and obtaining supervisory review of holding cell checks;
c. protocols concerning prisoners in observation cells, including protocols for direct and continual supervision, for spotting potential suicide hazards and providing appropriate clothing; and
d. examples of scenarios faced by detention officers illustrating appropriate security screening, segregation and monitoring techniques.
Comments:
Inasmuch as DPD has reached an agreement with Michigan and is transferring detention responsibilities to the State’s Department of Corrections, we have suspended monitoring the requirements that relate to training DPD officers for service in PD cellblocks.
Compliance Status:
Phase 1: In Compliance
Phase 2: In Compliance

CJ Requirement C78 The DPD shall provide all detention officers, supervisors and members of the Holding Cell Compliance Committee with annual training in environmental health and safety and hygiene. Such training shall include and address the following topics:
a. cell block cleaning and maintenance protocols; and b. sanitary food preparation and delivery protocols. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In Compliance Phase 2: In Compliance – Sustained (See Executive Summary)

¶ Requirements 73 Pre-service and in-service training 74 Maintain records training

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 166 of 182 Pg ID 9928

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 165

January 16, 2014

¶ Requirements 75 Emergency preparedness training 76 Medical/mental health training 77 Detainee safety programs training 78 Environmental, safety, and hygiene training

Phase 1 – Policy In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

Phase 2 - Implementation In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 167 of 182 Pg ID 9929

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 166

January 16, 2014

APPENDIX A: Use of Force – Directives/Policies

USE OF FORCE POLICY

14

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012 (revised August 27,

2013).

15

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012 (revised August 27, 2013); and

Training Directive 04-3, Use of Force Continuum, effective May 9, 2005.

16

See paragraph #15 above.

17

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012 (revised August 27,

2013).

18

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, approved by DOJ April 14, 2005, effective March 19, 2012; and

DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30,

2012 (revised August 27, 2013).

19

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of

Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012 (revised August 27,

2013) .

20

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective September 27, 2012, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective August 4, 2011 which replaced DPD Directive 304.1, effective November 2010;

and Directive 304.5, Training, effective July 10, 2012, which replaced Directive 304.5, Training,

effective May 13, 2011.

21

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective September 27, 2012, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective August 4, 2011, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1, effective November 2010,

and in Directive 304.5, Training, effective July 10, 2012, which replaced Directive 304.5, Training,

effective May 13, 2011.

22

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective September 27, 2012, which replaced DPD Directive 304.1,

Firearms, effective May 2, 2005 (revised November 1, 2010, and August 4, 2011).

23

See paragraph #22 above. Also, Directive 304.5, Training, effective July 10, 2012, which replaced

Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011.

24

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 304.4, PR 24

Collapsible Baton, effective July 1,2008 (revised November 1, 2010 and May 15, 2013); DPD

Directive 201.11, Use of Force & Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012

(revised August 27, 2013); and Training Directive 04-3, Use of Force Continuum, effective May 9,

2005.

25

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 304.3, Chemical Spray

Device, effective July 2, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010); and DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012 (revised August 27, 2013).

26

See paragraph #25 above.

INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW

27

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012 (revised August 27, 2013);

102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; DPD Directive 102.6 Citizens

Complaints, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 2010) (revised April 13, 2011) (revised

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 168 of 182 Pg ID 9930

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 167

January 16, 2014

December 29 2012); Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009); Office of the Chief Investigator, Standard Operating Procedure (August 29, 2013); and Internal Affairs Standard Operating Procedure, January 2011.

28

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012 (revised August 27, 2013);

DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012.

29

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012; DPD Directive 102.4,

Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; DPD Directive 203.3, Notifications,

effective February 22, 2012; Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006

(revised October 24, 2009); Internal Affairs Standard Operating Procedure, (January 2011); and

Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedure (August 29, 2013).

30

See paragraph #29 above.

31

Training Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, dated February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009).

32

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012 (revised August 27, 2013);

DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective May 2, 2012; Training

Directive 04-4, Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006 (revised October 24, 2009); Internal

Affairs Standard Operating Procedure (January 2011); and Office of the Chief Investigator Standard

Operating Procedure (August 29, 2013).

33

See paragraph #32 above.

34

DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force

& Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012 (revised August 27, 2013);

DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective May 2, 2005 and revised August 4, 2011 (revised

September 27, 2012); and Training Directive 11-01, Reporting/Documenting The “Acquiring of a

Target” effective August 4, 2011, Training Directive 11-01a, Reporting/Documenting The

“Acquiring of a Target” Audio/Video Review of the Incident, effective April 11, 2012.

35

See paragraph #34 above and DPD Directive 203.3, Notifications, effective February 22, 2012.

36

See paragraph #34 above.

37

See paragraph #34 above. Also DPD Joint Incident Shooting Team Standard Operating Procedures

and DPD Training Directive 04-07, Use of Force/Detainee Injuries or Allegations of Injuries

Reporting and Investigating, effective November 21, 2005.

38

See paragraph #37 above.

39

DPD Special Order 09-13, Command Level Force Review Team (CLFRT) dated March 2, 2009,

replaced with DPD Special Order 11-02, effective January 1, 2011; and DPD Directive 101.9, Special

Purposes Committees, effective February 22, 2012 (revised September 27, 2012).

40

See paragraph #39 above.

41

See paragraph #39 above.

ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES

42

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 2010 (revised December

6, 2012 and March 7, 2013).

43

See paragraph #42 above.

44

See paragraph #42 above (202.1); 202.2, Search and Seizure, effective May 2, 2005; revised

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 169 of 182 Pg ID 9931

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 168

January 16, 2014

November 2010; 203.9, Custodial Questioning, effective November 20, 2010 (revised February 6, 2013); and 404.1, Definitions, effective November 20, 2010.

45

See paragraph #42 above.

46

DPD Directive 203.9, Custodial Questioning, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 20, 2010

(revised November 17, 2011 and February 6, 2013).

47

See paragraph #46 above.

48

See paragraph #46 above.

49

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008, and revised November 20, 2010 (revised

December 6, 2012 and March 7, 2013).

50

See paragraph #49 above.

51

See paragraph #49 above.

52

DPD Directive 305.2, Detainee Registration, and effective September 12, 2005 (revised July 26,

2012).

53

See paragraph #52 above.

54

See paragraph #52 above.

55

See paragraph #52 above.

56

DPD Directives 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 20, 2010) (revised

December 6, 2012 and March 7, 2013) and 305.2, Detainee Registration, effective September 12,

2005 (revised July 26, 2012). Also Training Directive #04-01, Confinement of Material Witness,

effective March 1, 2005.

57

See paragraph #56 above.

58

See paragraph #56 above.

59

See paragraph #56 above.

60

DPD Directive 202.1, Arrests, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 20, 2010) (revised

December 6, 2012 and March 7, 2013); and DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May

9, 2005 (revised March 3, 2010 and January 9, 2013).

EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS

61

DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 2010) (revised

December 29, 2012); IAD Standard Operating Procedures, Sections 1 and 3 (January 2011); and OCI

Standard Operating Procedure, effective July 24, 2003 (revised April 29, 2004; July 1, 2010; and

August 29, 2013).

62

Office of the Chief Investigator Standard Operating Procedures, effective July 24, 2003 (revised April

29, 2004; July 1, 2010; and August 29, 2013).

63

DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 2010) (revised

April 13, 2011) (revised December 29, 2012).

64

See paragraph #61 above. Also see DPD Directive 102.6 (revised December 29, 2012).

65

See paragraph #63 above.

66

See paragraph #61 above.

67

See paragraph #61 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 170 of 182 Pg ID 9932

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 169

January 16, 2014

68

See paragraph #65 above.

69

See paragraph #61 above. Also DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations,

effective July 1, 2008; and Training Directive 04-4 Garrity Protocol, effective February 9, 2006

(revised October 24, 2009).

GENERAL POLICIES

70

DPD Directives 101.1, Directive System, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) (revised

May 2, 2012) and 404.1, Definitions, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010).

71

DPD Directive 101.1, Directive System, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) (revised

May 2, 2012). The DPD also utilizes a Protocol for Proposed Policy Revisions; an SOP outlining

procedures for posting proposed policies to the website; and a flow chart (Visio-DPD Policy Flow

Chart) that tracks the movements of proposed policy revisions through the Department and public

review.

72

DPD Directive 102.3, Code of Conduct, effective November 1, 2009 (revised November 1, 2010)

(revised July 24, 2012) (revised December 6, 2012).

73

On November 6, 2007, the DPD agreed to a 1:10 ratio of supervisors to officers in patrol and

specialized units.47 Also Directive 101.10, Organization and Management, effective March 30, 2011.

74

DPD Directive 102.3, Code of Conduct, effective November 1, 2009 (revised November 1, 2010)

(revised July 24, 2012) (revised December 6, 2012).

75

See paragraph #74 above. Also DPD Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective May 2. 2005 (revised

November 1, 2010 and August 4, 2011) (revised September 27, 2012).

76

Directives 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised effective March 1 2010)

(revised July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013) and 305.7, Transportation of Detainees, effective February

29, 2012.

77

DPD Directive 202.7, Foot Pursuits, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010) (revised May

26, 2011).

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

78

DPD Directive 401.13, Management Awareness System, effective November 6, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010).

79

See paragraph #78 above.

80

See paragraph #78 above.

81

See paragraph #78 above. Also see the DPD Data Input Plan, approved by the Department of Justice,

June 9, 2011.

82

See paragraph #81 above.

83

See paragraph #78 above.

84

See paragraph #78 above.

85

See paragraph #78 above.

86

See paragraph #81 above.

47Section I, Paragraph of the UOF CJ defines a supervisor as a sworn DPD employee at the rank of sergeant or above and non-sworn employees with oversight responsibility for DPD employees.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 171 of 182 Pg ID 9933

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 170

January 16, 2014

87

See paragraph #78 above.

88

See paragraph #78 above.

89

See paragraph #78 above.

90

See paragraph #81 above.

91

DPD Directive 401.2, Performance Evaluation Ratings, effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1,

2010 and June 20, 2013).

92

DPD Audit Protocol, effective September 30, 2011. Annual revision required.

93

See paragraph #92 above.

94

See paragraph #92 above.

95

See paragraph #92 above.

96

See paragraph #92 above.

97

See paragraph #92 above.

98

DPD Directive 303.3, In-Car Video, effective March 8, 2012 (revised September 4, 2012 and March

7, 2013).

99

DPD Directive 304.5 Training, effective May 13, 2011 (revised July 10, 2012).

100

DPD Directive 303.3, In-Car Video, effective March 8, 2012 revised September 4, 2012 and March 7,

2013).

101

See paragraph #100 above. Also, Teletype #11-1468, Roll Call Informational Bulletin, Use of

Department Issued In-Car Video Equipment and Body Microphones.

102

See paragraph #100 above.

103

DPD Directive 102.4, Discipline/Misconduct Investigations, effective July 1, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010) (revised May 2, 2012) and the related DPD Discipline Matrix (DPD22a).

104

See paragraph #103 above.

105

See paragraph #103 above.

TRAINING

106

DPD Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011 (revised July 10, 2012).

107

See paragraph #106 above.

108

See paragraph #106 above.

109

See paragraph #106 above.

110

See paragraph #106 above.

111

See paragraph #106 above.

112

See paragraph #106 above.

113

See paragraph #106 above. Also Directive 304.1, Firearms, effective August 4, 2011 (revised

September 27, 2012).

114

See paragraph #106 above.

115

See paragraph #106 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 172 of 182 Pg ID 9934

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 171

January 16, 2014

116

See paragraph #106 above.

117

See paragraph #106 above.

118

See paragraph #106 above.

119

See paragraph #106 above.

120

See paragraph #106 above.

121

See paragraph #106 above.

122

See paragraph #106 above.

123

See paragraph #106 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 173 of 182 Pg ID 9935

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 172

January 16, 2014

APPENDIX B: Conditions of Confinement – Directives/Policies

FIRE SAFETY POLICIES

14

DPD Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan (CEPP), which includes a Fire Safety Plan (FSP)

requiring compliance with the Life Safety Code and inspections. The FSP was approved by DOJ on

May 23, 2006. The Fire Marshal reviews the FSP annually; the last review was conducted on June 7,

2012. Also, DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective July 6, 2012 (revised January 9,

2013).

15

See paragraph #14 above.

16

See paragraph #14 above.

17

See paragraph #14 above.

18

See paragraph #14 above.

19

See paragraph #14 above.

20

See paragraph #14 above.

21

See paragraph #14 above.

22

See paragraph #14 above.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES

23

DPD Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Plan (CEPP), effective May 2011 and DPD Directive

305.4, effective April 21, 2011 (revised July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013).

24

See paragraph #23 above.

25

See paragraph #23 above.

MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES

26

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake Assessment; effective May 2, 2012; 305.5, Detainee Health

Care and; effective February 22, 2012; 403.2, Infectious Disease Control Plan, effective February 29,

2012, reviewed and updated by a qualified health care professional on February 17, 2012 and

February 29, 2012 as required (revised May 29, 2013). DPD Directive 305.5 cited above along with

forms and logs, comprises the Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening program

(CMMHSP).

27

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

28

See paragraphs #26.

29

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.1).

30

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 403.2).

31

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

32

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.5).

33

See paragraph #26 above (DPD 305.1)

34

See paragraph #26 above.

PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES

35

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake, effective May 2, 2012; Directive 305.2, Detainee

Registration (revised July 26, 2012); Directive 305.3, Detainee Personal Property, effective May 20,

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 174 of 182 Pg ID 9936

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 173

January 16, 2014

2010 (revised November 3, 2011); DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective February 1, 2008 (revised July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013); Directive 305.5, Detainee Health Care, effective February 22, 2012;Directive 305.7, Transportation of Detainees; effective February 29, 2012 and Directive 305.8, Detainee Food Service and Hygiene, effective May 2, 2012 (revised July 19, 2012 and January 9, 2013 and July 9, 2013).

36

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.1)

37

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.4).

38

See paragraph #34 above (DPD 305.1 and 305.4).

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES

39

DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective February 1, 2008 (revised July 6, 2012 and

January 9, 2013). Annual review and revision required.

40

See paragraph #39 above.

41

See paragraph #39 above.

42

See paragraph #39 above.

43

See paragraph #39 above.

44

See paragraph #39 above.

45

See paragraph #39 above.

46

See paragraph #39 above.

POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

47

DPD Directives 305.1, Detainee Intake and Assessment, effective May 2, 2012 (revised February 29,

2012); and 305.5, Detainee Health Care, effective February 22, 2012, approved and updated by a

qualified medical and mental health professional on February 17, 2012 and February 29, 2012. Also

the Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening Program (CMMHSP), reviewed by the

Consulting Department Physician, April 8, 2013.

48

See paragraph #47 above (DPD Directive 305.1).

FOOD SERVICE POLICIES

49

DPD Directive 305.8, Detainee Food Service, effective May 2, 2012 (revised July 19, 2012 and

January 9, 2013 and July 9, 2013).

50

See paragraph #49 above.

PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES

51

See paragraph #49 above.

USE OF FORCE AND RESTRAINTS POLICIES

52

DPD Directives 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 1, 2010) (revised

July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013) and 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; DPD Directive

201.11, Use of Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30, 2012 (revised

August 27, 2013).

53

See paragraph #52 above.

54

See paragraph #52 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 175 of 182 Pg ID 9937

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 174

January 16, 2014

INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW

55

DPD Directives 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012; and 305.4, Holding Cell Areas,

effective May 9, 2005 (revised March 1, 2010) (revised July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013) and DPD

Directive 201.11, Use of Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August 30,

2012 (revised August 27, 2013).

56

See paragraph 55 above. Also DPD Directive 304.2, Use of Force, effective March 19, 2012 and

DPD Directive 201.11, Use of Force and Detainee Injury Reporting/Investigation, effective August

30, 2012 (revised August 27, 2013).

57

See paragraph #55 above.

EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS

58

See paragraph #55 above. Also see DPD Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, effective July 1, 2008

(revised November 2010) (revised April 13, 2011) (revised December 6, 2012).

59

See paragraph #58 above.

GENERAL POLICIES

60

DPD Directive 404.1, Definitions, effective November 2010.

61

DPD Directive 101.1, Written Directive System, effective November 2010 (revised May 2, 2012).

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

62

DPD Directive 305.4, Holding Cell Areas, effective May 9, 2005 (revised April 21, 2011) (revised

July 6, 2012 and January 9, 2013).

63

DPD Directive 401.13, Management Awareness System, effective November 6, 2008 (revised

November 1, 2010 and August 27, 2013); DPD Directive 401.2, Performance Evaluation Ratings,

effective July 1, 2008 (revised November 1, 2010 and June 20, 2013); and DPD Audit Protocol,

effective September 30, 2011.

64

See paragraph #62 above.

65

DPD Audit Protocol meeting generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS), effective

August 31, 2008 (revised October 31, 2010 and September 11, 2011).

66

See paragraph #65 above.

67

See paragraph #65 above.

68

See paragraph #65 above.

69

See paragraph #65 above.

70

See paragraph #65 above.

71

See paragraph #65 above.

72

See paragraph #65 above.

TRAINING

73

Directive 304.5, Training, effective May 13, 2011(revised July 10, 2012).

74

See paragraph #73 above.

75

See paragraph #73 above.

76

See paragraph #73 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 176 of 182 Pg ID 9938

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 175

January 16, 2014

77

See paragraph #73 above.

78

See paragraph #73 above.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 177 of 182 Pg ID 9939

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 176

January 16, 2014

APPENDIX C: Acronyms
The following is a listing of acronyms frequently used in our quarterly reports.

ACRONYM AT BOPC CAM CBS CCR CDDT CEPP CFD CI City CJ CLBR CLFRT CLO CLI CME CMMHSP CO COC CJ CRIB DCCL DDHWP DDMHIL DFD DFF DFO/PDO DDHWP

DEFINITION Audit Team Board of Police Commissioners Command Accountability Meeting Cell Block Supervisor Citizen Complaint Report Curriculum Design and Development Team Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness Program Critical Firearm Discharge Chief Investigator City of Detroit Consent Judgment Command Level Board of Review Command Level Force Review Team Compliance Liaison Officer Command Level Investigation Confidential Medical Envelope Comprehensive Medical and Mental Health Screening Program Commanding Officer Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment Civil Rights Integrity Bureau Detention Cell Check Log Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Program Daily Detainee Meal and Hygiene Items Log Detroit Fire Department Detainee File Folders Detention Facility Officer Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Promotion

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 178 of 182 Pg ID 9940

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 177

January 16, 2014

DIF DOJ DPD DRH EMS EPP ERP FI FIS FSP FSPP FY GAS HCCC IA IAD IMAS ITS JIST MAS MCOLES MITN OCI OCR OIC PDDSL PDO PEERS PFC PI PSA

Detainee Intake Form Department of Justice Detroit Police Department Detroit Receiving Hospital Emergency Medical Services Emergency Preparedness Program Emergency Response Plan Force Investigations (interchangeable with FIS) Force Investigation Section Fire Safety Program Fire Safety Practices and Policies Fiscal Year Government Auditing Standards Holding Cell Compliance Committee Internal Affairs Internal Affairs Division Interim Management Awareness System Information Technology Services Joint Incident Shooting Team Management Awareness System Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards MCCOLES Information and Tracking System Office of the Chief Investigator Office of Civil Rights Officer in Charge Platoon Daily Detainee Summary Log Police Detention Officer Performance Evaluation and Enhancement Review Session Policy Focus Committee Performance Indicator Public Service Announcement

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 179 of 182 Pg ID 9941

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 178

January 16, 2014

RFP RMB SIR SME SMT SOP TA UOF CJ UOF USAO WCPO WCJ

Request for Proposals Risk Management Bureau Supervisor’s Investigation Report Subject Matter Expert Senior Management Team Standard Operating Procedure(s) Technical Assistance Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention Consent Judgment Use(s) of Force United States Attorney’s Office Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office Wayne County Jail

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 180 of 182 Pg ID 9942

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 179

January 16, 2014

APPENDIX D: Monitoring Team
Robert S. Warshaw, Monitor Chief (Ret.) Charles D. Reynolds, Deputy Monitor

Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) J. Rick Brown
Evaluates compliance with U16-17 and U19, General Use of Force Policy; U22, Use of Firearms Policy; U24, Intermediate Force Device Policy; U25-26, Chemical Spray Policy; U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34-36, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; and U37-41, Review of Critical Firearm Discharges and In-Custody Deaths.

Division Chief (Ret.) Rachel M. Burgess
Evaluates compliance with U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; U61-63, External Complaints; U64-66, Intake and Tracking; and U67-69, External Complaint Investigations; C14-22, Fire Safety Policies; C23-25, Emergency Preparedness Policies; C60-61, General Policies; and C65-72, Management and Supervision.

Commander (Ret.) John M. Girvin
Evaluates compliance with U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U61-63, External Complaints; U64-66, Intake and Tracking; U67-69, External Complaint Investigations; and C5859, External Complaints.

Chief (Ret.) Eduardo Gonzalez
Evaluates compliance with U14-19, General Use of Force Policy; U22, Use of Firearms Policy; U24, Intermediate Force Device Policy; U25-26, Chemical Spray Policy; U27-33, General Investigations of Police Action; U34-36, Use of Force and Prisoner Injury Investigations; and U70-72 and U74-77, General Policies.

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 181 of 182 Pg ID 9943

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 180

January 16, 2014

John M. Klofas, Ph.D.
Evaluates compliance with U78-90, Risk Management Database; U91, Performance Evaluation System; U92-97, Oversight; and U103-105, Discipline.

Leonard F. Rice, M.E.S., R.S.
Evaluates compliance with C35-38, Prisoner Safety Policies; C39-46, Environmental Health and Safety Policies; C47-48, Policies Concerning Persons with Disabilities; C49-50, Food Service Policies; and C51, Personal Hygiene Policies.

Chief (Ret.) Billy R. Riggs
Evaluates compliance with U42-43, Arrest Policies; U44-45, Investigatory Stop Policies; U4648, Witness Identification and Questioning Policies; U49-51, Prompt Judicial Review Policies; U52-53, Hold Policies; U54-55, Restriction Policies; U56-57, Material Witness Policies; U58, Documentation of Custodial Detention; U59-60, Command Notification; C26-34, Medical and Mental Health Care Policies; and C64, Management and Supervision Policies.

Asst. Director (Ret.) Joseph R. Wolfinger
Evaluates compliance with U20-21 and U23, Use of Firearms Policy; U73, Pre-Service and InService Training for all Detention Officers; U98-99, Oversight; U100-102, Use of Video Cameras; U106-111, Oversight and Development; U112, Use of Force Training; U113, Firearms Training; U114, Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training; U115-117, Custodial Detention Training; U118-120, Supervisory Training; U121-122, Investigator Training; U123, Field Training; C73, Pre-Service and In-Service Detention Training; C74, Retention of Detention Officer Training Records; C75, Detention Officer Emergency Preparedness Training; C76, Detention Officer Medical/Mental Health Training; C77, Detainee Safety Programs and Policies; and Environmental Health and Safety and Hygiene Training.

Robin Busch-Wheaton Editor

APPENDIX E: Detroit Police Department Management Dashboard Data
The table below presents data on measures relevant to the requirements set forth in the Consent Judgments. The data were compiled by the Detroit Police Department, and are displayed for presentation by the Monitoring Team. These data are presented here with the consent of the Police Department and serve simply as a means to provide information relevant to issues raised in the Consent Judgments.

January 16, 2014

SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 181

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 677-1 Filed 01/16/14 Pg 182 of 182 Pg ID 9944

Dashboard Data: Detroit Police Department 7/12-6/13

# !!"#"
""  ! !!" "! #'  #" ! !"" % ##  "" " !& # " #
!!"#" ! ""$#  ##!&   
 ""# ! "#!$# !!"#"
"!!& $# !!"#" #!! !!"#" # "# $# # !!"#" *% 2+

#)/0 %



( 0./1 


!

! 
&

$

$&

$$"#  #

/0 # ! 

/26/ /3.6 /201 /164 /022 /5.1 /361 /54. /272 /605

/506

/24.

Number of Events per 1000 Arrests

25(72 3(2. 52(05 5(21 4(.6 5(21 /(13

50(72 0(43 17(/0 1(76 3(75 5(07 .(..

06(6/ .(.. 32(6/ 7(62 5(51 3(40 .(5.

27(56 /(22 44(16 4(27 /(22 1(4/ 03(03

4/(7. 2(.0 06(72 6(62 /(4/ 0(2/ 6(62

14(77 /(/5 07(14 5(41 .(.. 5(.3 .(..

24(// 1(57 35(27 0(31 6(0/ 2(20 4(10

32(33 .(35 2/(26 4(60 4(60 1(76 7(.7

31(33 0(46 35(34 4(.0 /(12 0(./ /6(.5

27(04 1(06 45(65 1(61 /.(73 0(52 3(25

41(.6 1(25 32(2. 1(25 /1(1/ 2(.3 /2(25

24(36 0(.3 24(36 /.(05 1(20 4(/4 2(//

/2(/6 /4(0/ 0(.1 0(5. 13(//

02(32 11(60 3(75 1(76 46(1.

5(51 /6(75 2(70 .(5. 10(11

/3(/3 /7(26 .(50 .(50 14(.6

/6(27 /7(07 6(62 .(.. 24(40

1(30 03(03 .(.. /(/5 .(..

4(73 00(52 .(.. /(7. 1/(37

4(60 06(76 4(60 /(5. 22(10

/2(.4 00(.7 .(45 2(47 2/(3.

/.(2. 0/(13 1(06 1(61 16(64

/.(20 07(3/ 3(0/ 0(67 26(.1

/.(05 02(44 2(// .(.. 17(.2

 2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 679 Filed 01/27/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 9946

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Hon. Julian A. Cook, Jr.

United States District Judge

v.

CITY OF DETROIT,

Case No. 03-cv-72258 DT

Defendant.
---------------------------~'

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT

On October 28, 2013, the Detroit Police Department transferred custody of all of its pre-arraignment detainees to the Michigan Department of Corrections, Detroit Detention Facility. Prior to that date, the Detroit Police Department had achieved 100% compliance with all paragraphs of the Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment, which had a termination date of July 18, 2013. For these reasons, the parties agree that the Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment should be dismissed, and the Independent Monitor has

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 679 Filed 01/27/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 9947

submitted a report indicating his concurrence. See Attachment A (December 11, 2013 "Tour of MDOC Detention Facilities).
SO ORDERED.

Agreed as to form and substance:
For the United States:
BARBARAL.McQUADE United States Attorney

nited States District 'Judge
JOCELYN SAMUELS Acting Assist. Attorney General

By: s/Judith E. Levv JUDITH E. LEVY (P55882) Assistant U.S. Attorney 211 W. Fort St., Suite 2001 Detroit, Michigan 48226-3211 Phone: (313) 226-9727 Email: Judith.Levy@usdoj.gov
For the City of Detroit:
By: s/Allan M. Charlton ALLAN M. CHARLTON (P11805) 2 Woodward Avenue, Suite 500 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Phone: 313-530-4650 Email: charltona@detroitmi.gov

By: s/Jeffrey R. Murray JEFFREY R. MURRAY Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section - PHB 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202) 353-9269 Email: J eff.Murray@usdoj.gov

 2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 703 Filed 05/14/14 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 10122

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, v.
CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,

Case No. 03‐CV‐72258 Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

Defendant.

/

ORDER RE: DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE

Due to my impending inactive status to begin in September 2014, I hereby DISQUALIFY

myself from the above‐styled case.

IT IS ORDERED that this case shall be reassigned by blind draw to another judge of this

court. Magistrate Judge Grand shall remain the assigned Magistrate Judge.

Date: May 14, 2014

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR. United States District Judge

Pursuant to this order, this case is reassigned to Judge John Corbett O'Meara Case assignment credit will be given to the appropriate Judicial Officers.

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this date a copy of the foregoing Order was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail.

Date: May 14, 2014

s/ S Schoenherr Deputy Clerk

 2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 735 Filed 09/04/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 10427

0

~ c_·_
l# -_-.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

i ..
i .;

I
~

.....~/I

CLERK'S OFFIC~.:

U.S. DISTRICT COUr:;-·,-

EASTERN MiCHI~iAN

Plaintiff, -vs-

HON AVERN COHN Case No. 03-72258

CITY OF DETROIT,

Defendant.
------------------------------~'
COMMENTS OF COURT (REVISED) ON ORDER TERMINATING CONSENT JUDGMENT AND ENTERING TRANSITION
AGREEMENT (Doc. 731)1

Judges have a constitutional habit of the last word; I want to add a coda to the

comments of the Department of Justice and City of Detroit, on closing down federal

oversight of the Detroit Police Department.

When I became a federal judge in 1979, I had just resigned as Chairperson of

the Detroit Board of Police Commissioners. Also, I was born and raised in Detroit.

have a long-time familiarity with the affairs of the City, and particularly of the

Department. Until 1972, the governance structure of the Department called for civilian

oversight by a single commissioner appointed by the mayor. This structure had been in

effect from the beginning of home rule by the City in 1918. Before that, under state law

the Department, from its beginning in 1861 until 1901, civilian oversight took the form of

four (4) commissioners appointed by the governor. That changed in 1901 to a single

commissioner appointed by the Common Council. Under the first charter adopted in

1This is a revision and extension of the Court's comments from the bench at the hearing on August 25, 2014.
1

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 735 Filed 09/04/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 10428
1918 until1972, there was civilian oversight by a single commissioner appointed by the mayor.
In 1972, governance changed; the board had five (5) commissioners appointed by the mayor. The board had responsibility for civilian oversight as well as civilian review of complaints. The mayor, however, appointed the chief of police.
The five (5) member commission continued until 2012. It changed under a new charter adopted that year. The new charter called for a nine (9) member commission, four (4) of whom are appointed by the mayor, and five (5) of whom are elected from districts. According to the charter's study group, this arrangement "increased public participation and accountability." Given an elected mayor and elected city council, it appears that this arrangement is likely to complicate rather than enhance civilian oversight.
Now to be more particular. The papers submitted to the Court for approval contain the signatures of the Mayor and the Emergency Manager. This suggests that the Emergency Manager currently plays a major role in the governance of the Department. To the Court this suggests the first order of business is to give the control of the Department back to the Mayor, much like he now has control of the Water and Sewerage Department and the Homeland Security and Emergency Management Department.
My second suggestion is for the Mayor to look at the charter provisions relating to the Board of Commissioners. The Charter states, as it did when the consent judgments were entered into, "The Board of Police Commissioners has supervisory control and oversight of the Police Department." A look back at the history of this case, and why the
2

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 735 Filed 09/04/14 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 10429
then-mayor in 2000 called on the Department of Justice to examine and look into what he saw as the gross deficiencies of police operations in Detroit was the consequence of a Board of Police Commissioners who had fallen down on the job of supervision and control. This breakdown is well described in a series of articles in the Detroit Free Press in May, 2002, available on the website of the Police Policy Studies Council, as well as follow-up stories in the Free Press which describe a malfunctioning Board of Police Commissioners.
Civilian oversight of the operations of the Department are essential to maintaining the current level of operations. Civilian oversight is different than civilian review. In my view, what is needed today and for the future is a civilian head of the Department appointed by the mayor, and a chief of police who reports to the civilian head much like it was prior to 1972. The Board of Police Commissioners should continue as a civilian review body dealing with complaints.

Dated: September 04, 2014 Detroit, Michigan

AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

 2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 1 of 106 Pg ID 2787
REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR
FOR THE
DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 2 of 106 Pg ID 2788

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 12, 2003, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the City of Detroit (City) (collectively, the parties) filed two Consent Judgments with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Court).1 The Consent Judgments were negotiated and agreed to by the parties. On the same date, the parties filed a motion indicating the joint selection of an Independent Monitor, subject to the Court’s approval, to “review and report on the City and the DPD’s [Detroit Police Department’s] implementation”2 of the Consent Judgments. On July 18, 2003,3 the Court entered both Consent Judgments. On July 23, 2003, after hearing testimony concerning qualifications, the Honorable Julian A. Cook, Jr., U.S. District Court Judge, appointed Sheryl Robinson Wood, with the assistance of Kroll, Inc., as the Independent Monitor in this matter. This is the thirteenth quarterly report of the Independent Monitor.4
The two Consent Judgments contain a total of 177 substantive paragraphs with which the City and the DPD must substantially comply. The City and the DPD have achieved compliance with the policy components of numerous paragraphs in both Consent Judgments, a significant accomplishment.5 These paragraphs are identified in the comments column of the Report Card attached as Appendix B to this report. There are a number of paragraphs that are “policy only” paragraphs with which the City and the DPD will remain in compliance (unless a revision is made that does not meet the terms of the Consent Judgments).6 These 13 compliant “policy only” paragraphs are: U14-17 and U19, U20, U42, U44, U46-47, U52, U54, and U56. There are also several paragraphs that require the City and the DPD to take a specific action and, once compliant, these paragraphs will generally remain in compliance; the DPD has complied with 8 such paragraphs: U82-84, U88a, b and d, C22 and C34.
Each quarter, the Monitor examines a certain number of substantive paragraphs. During the thirteenth quarter, which ended on November 30, 2006, the Monitor examined a total of 81 paragraphs or subparagraphs (59 paragraphs or subparagraphs of the UOF CJ and 22 paragraphs or subparagraphs of the COC CJ). Of these, the City and the DPD complied with 14 and failed to achieve compliance with 58; the Monitor has not yet completed its evaluation of 6 paragraphs

1 The two judgments are the Use of Force and Arrest and Witness Detention Consent Judgment (UOF CJ) and the Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment (COC CJ). 2 UOF CJ at paragraph U124 (hereinafter UOF CJ paragraphs will be referenced by “U”). COC CJ at paragraph C79 (hereinafter COC CJ paragraphs will be referenced by “C”). 3 The “effective date” of the Consent Judgments. 4 The Monitor’s quarterly reports may be found on the Internet at www.kroll.com/detroit. 5 Pursuant to paragraphs U133 and C88 and various other paragraphs, these paragraphs also require implementation, which must also be in compliance for the DPD to achieve overall substantial compliance. 6 For these “policy only” paragraphs, implementation is separately evaluated under another substantive paragraph.
i

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 3 of 106 Pg ID 2789

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

or subparagraphs7 and withheld its determination of the DPD’s compliance with 3 paragraphs.8 In addition to these, there are 7 paragraphs or subparagraphs for which the Monitor’s previous findings of compliance carried forward to the current quarter.

Overall, the City and the DPD are in compliance with 40 paragraphs out of 177 to date.

As described fully in this report, the City and the DPD continued to make progress in the following areas during the quarter:
• For the second time, the review of arrests in the assessment of paragraph U43 revealed that the DPD had sufficient probable cause to effect all of the arrests in the Monitor’s sample. A further accomplishment is that supervisory reviews of these arrests occurred and were documented in a timely manner for 90.5% of the time. The DPD is to be commended for these accomplishments.
• In connection with paragraph U73, a review of a sample of time and attendance records showed an improvement in the overall compliance rate for the ratio of officers per supervisor.
• After the end of the quarter, in December 2006, the City and the DPD announced an agreement with the Wayne County Community College under which, beginning in January 2007, the WCCC will become responsible for DPD Recruit Training. This will reduce some of the burden on the DPD's Training Academy and allow the DPD to focus on in-service training.
Major areas of concern identified during the quarter ending November 30, 2006 include the following:
• Although most of the DPD’s audit reports submitted to date have not been well-written,9 the reports have identified a number of problem areas within the DPD and have made recommendations for improvement. The majority of the recommendations, including those dealing with record keeping, have not been acted upon. In order to comply with the

7 The paragraphs for which the Monitor has not yet completed its evaluation are generally “implementation” paragraphs, for which the DPD has now complied with the related policy requirements. In these instances, the Monitor’s testing of implementation is currently taking place and has not yet been completed. There are varying reasons why the assessments have not yet been completed, including the dates documents were requested and/or submitted and the availability of information relevant to making the assessment.
8 For each of these paragraphs, the Monitor’s review and findings as of the end of the quarter are included in this report. The Monitor is mindful that this report is issued some 45 days after the end of the quarter. Therefore, for paragraphs assessed during the current quarter, the Monitor will make every effort to mention significant developments that occurred after the end of the quarter in footnotes throughout the report. For those paragraphs that were not assessed during the current quarter, developments that occurred during the current quarter or after the quarter’s end will generally be fully reported on in the next quarter in which the applicable paragraph is under review.
9 Their report writing skills are improving, and are expected to further improve as a result of the Report Writing TA provided by the Monitor in late November 2006.
ii

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 4 of 106 Pg ID 2790

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

requirements of the Consent Judgments, the Monitor recommends that the DPD develop a suitable process to deal effectively with its audit recommendations.10
• A review of critical firearm incidents revealed that the Joint Investigative Shooting Team is not investigating all critical firearm discharges as required by the UOF CJ. The review also revealed that similarly the DPD’s Board of Review is not evaluating all critical firearm discharges.11
• The Monitor is concerned with the low number of documented frisks in comparison to the much higher number of documented stops.12

10 The Monitor notes that the DPD’s Audit Protocol (paragraph U92) also requires that the DPD develop a system to evaluate, track and follow-up on all audit recommendations. 11 Refer to the Current Assessments of Compliance for paragraphs U37-40. 12 Refer to the Current Assessments of Compliance for paragraph U45 and subparagraph U95b.
iii

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 5 of 106 Pg ID 2791

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

REPORT CONTENTS:

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................1

I.

BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................1

II. MONITOR’S ROLE....................................................................................................2

III. EFFORTS TOWARD COMPLIANCE.....................................................................2

IV. METHODOLOGIES...................................................................................................3

V. REPORT CARD ..........................................................................................................4

VI. MONITOR’S PLEDGE...............................................................................................5

SECTION TWO: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT .......................................6
I. USE OF FORCE POLICY..........................................................................................6 A. General Use of Force Policies..................................................................................6 B. Use of Firearms Policy.............................................................................................6 C. Intermediate Force Device Policy............................................................................6 D. Chemical Spray Policy.............................................................................................6
II. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW...............7 A. General Investigations of Police Action ..................................................................7 B. UOF and Prisoner Injury Investigations ..................................................................7 C. Review of Critical Firearms Discharges and In-Custody Deaths ..........................10
III. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES.............................14 A. Arrest Policies........................................................................................................14 B. Investigatory Stop Policies ....................................................................................16 C. Witness Identification and Questioning Policies ...................................................18 D. Prompt Judicial Review Policies ...........................................................................19 E. Hold Policies..........................................................................................................19 F. Restriction Policies ................................................................................................20 G. Material Witness Policies ......................................................................................20

i

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 6 of 106 Pg ID 2792

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

H. Documentation of Custodial Detention .................................................................20 I. Command Notification...........................................................................................21 IV. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS ...................................................................................23 A. Intake and Tracking ...............................................................................................28 B. External Complaint Investigations.........................................................................30 V. GENERAL POLICIES..............................................................................................37 VI. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION .................................................................41 A. Risk Management Database...................................................................................41 B. Performance Evaluation System ............................................................................45 C. OVERSIGHT .........................................................................................................46 D. Use of Video Cameras ...........................................................................................55 E. Discipline ...............................................................................................................56 VII. TRAINING .................................................................................................................57 A. OVERSIGHT AND DEVELOPMENT..................................................................57 B. USE OF FORCE TRAINING .................................................................................62 C. FIREARMS TRAINING ........................................................................................64 D. ARREST AND POLICE-CITIZEN INTERACTION TRAINING........................66 E. Custodial Detention Training.................................................................................67 F. Supervisory Training .............................................................................................67 G. Investigator Training..............................................................................................67 H. Field Training.........................................................................................................67 VIII. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND IMPLEMENTATION..............................68

SECTION THREE: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT.............................................................................69

I.

FIRE SAFETY POLICIES .......................................................................................69

II. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POLICIES ......................................................76

III. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE POLICIES ...................................78

V. PRISONER SAFETY POLICIES ............................................................................79

ii

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 7 of 106 Pg ID 2793

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

V. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES ................................82 VI. POLICIES CONCERNING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES..........................82 VII. FOOD SERVICE POLICIES ...................................................................................83 VIII. PERSONAL HYGIENE POLICIES........................................................................83 IX. USE OF FORCE AND RESTRAINTS POLICIES................................................83 X. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW..............84 XI. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS ...................................................................................84 XII. GENERAL POLICIES..............................................................................................86 XIII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION .................................................................88 XIV. TRAINING .................................................................................................................91 XV. MONITORING AND REPORTING .......................................................................92 CORRECTIONS TO PRIOR QUARTERLY REPORTS..................................................93 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................94

APPENDICES:
A. Acronyms Frequently Utilized in Quarterly Reports Issued by the Independent Monitor
B. “Report Card” Summarizing the Monitor’s Evaluation of Compliance with the Consent Judgments as of the Quarter Ending November 30, 2006

iii

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 8 of 106 Pg ID 2794

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION
I. BACKGROUND
On June 12, 2003, the DOJ and the City filed two Consent Judgments with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The Consent Judgments were negotiated and agreed to by the parties. On the same date, the parties filed a motion indicating the joint selection of an Independent Monitor, subject to the Court’s approval, to “review and report on the City and the DPD’s implementation” of the Consent Judgments. On July 18, 2003, the Court entered both Consent Judgments. On July 23, 2003, after hearing testimony concerning qualifications, the Honorable Julian A. Cook, Jr., U.S. District Court Judge, appointed Sheryl Robinson Wood, with the assistance of Kroll, Inc.,13 as the Independent Monitor in this matter. This is the thirteenth report of the Independent Monitor.
In the first quarterly report, for the quarter ending November 30, 2003, the Monitor14 outlined the history of the DOJ investigation, the Technical Assistance (TA) letters and the DPD’s reform efforts. The Monitor also summarized the complaint filed against the City and the DPD and the overall content of the Consent Judgments.15 The Monitor’s duties and reporting requirements were also described.
As the Consent Judgments require that the DPD achieve and maintain substantial compliance for a specified period of time,16 the Monitor will review the paragraphs on a periodic schedule over

13 The primary members of the Monitoring Team are Joseph Buczek, Jerry Clayton, Penny Cookson, Hazel de Burgh, Ronald Filak, Thomas Frazier, Marshall Johnson, Denise Lewis, Terry Penney, and Sherry Woods.
14 The word “Monitor” will be used to describe both the Monitor and the Monitoring Team throughout this report.
15 Complaint, Case no. 03-72258. The complaint, Consent Judgments and TA letters are publicly available at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/dpd/detroit_cover_2.html.
16 Non-compliance with mere technicalities, or temporary failure to comply during a period of otherwise sustained compliance, shall not constitute failure to maintain substantial compliance. At the same time, temporary compliance during a period of otherwise sustained noncompliance shall not constitute substantial compliance. Paragraphs U149 and C106.

1

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 9 of 106 Pg ID 2795

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

the life of the Consent Judgments.17 The paragraphs that were scheduled for review during the thirteenth quarter, which ended on November 30, 2006, are assessed in this report.18

II. MONITOR’S ROLE
The Monitor’s role is to conduct compliance assessments,19 make recommendations, provide TA and report on the DPD’s progress toward substantial compliance with the Consent Judgments on a quarterly basis. The Monitor carries out this role with a healthy respect for the critical role the Department plays in enforcing the law and the significant risks taken by DPD officers each day. The Consent Judgments, which are orders of the Court, are meant to improve the overall policing in the City of Detroit by remedying the unconstitutional conduct alleged by the DOJ in its complaint filed against the City and the DPD. The Consent Judgments can only be modified by court order.

III. EFFORTS TOWARD COMPLIANCE
During the thirteenth quarter, the Monitor continued to test the DPD’s implementation of the policies that it has successfully disseminated. Under the UOF CJ, the DPD’s compliance rates are improving in many areas. For example, in the review of arrests under paragraph U43 supervisors are now documenting their reviews over 90% of the time, whereas in a previous quarter these reviews were not documented. The DPD also continues to make significant improvements in its implementation of paragraph U73 (field deployment of supervisors),20 among other requirements. However, the DPD still faces challenges in the implementation of various areas, including the investigation and evaluation of critical firearm discharges21 and the documentation of stops and frisks.22

17 The initial duration of the COC CJ was eight quarters. As previously reported, on December 27, 2004, the Court issued an order granting the City’s motion for a two-year extension of the COC CJ; however, the Court did not extend the internal deadlines required under the COC CJ. The Monitor has developed a review schedule for the COC CJ paragraphs under the two-year extension; the schedule is incorporated into the Report Card accompanying this report. The minimum duration of the UOF CJ is twenty quarters. The Monitor’s review schedule does not affect the due dates mandated by the Consent Judgments for the City and the DPD. 18 As previously mentioned, for the paragraphs under review for this quarter, the Monitor makes every effort to report on significant matters that have taken place after the end of the quarter, although this is not possible in every instance. These occurrences appear in footnotes throughout the report. 19 Paragraphs U138 and C93 require that the Monitor regularly conduct compliance reviews to ensure that the City and the DPD implement and continue to implement all measures required by the Consent Judgments. The Monitor shall, where appropriate, employ sampling techniques to measure compliance. 20 See Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraph U73. 21 See Current Assessments of Compliance for paragraphs U37-41. 22 See Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraph U45.
2

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 10 of 106 Pg ID 2796

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Under the COC CJ, the DPD is working toward the implementation of the DOJ-approved Fire Safety Plan (FSP) and Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP). The City and the DPD are working on retrofitting the holding cells in the districts on a rolling basis. Furthermore, the City and DPD have begun transferring some female detainees to the Wayne County Sheriff’s Department (WCSD) with the intention of expanding to the program to male detainees.23 One of the challenges faced by the DPD is finalizing and/or fully implementing the various forms and logs required by the policies.
During the current quarter, the parties met regarding the development of the DPD’s Management Awareness System (MAS) and the Monitor worked closely with the DPD by providing TA on audit report writing and providing information and engaging in various discussions regarding training.
IV. METHODOLOGIES
The Methodologies to Aid in Determination of Compliance with the Consent Judgments (the Methodologies) generally outline the methods that will be employed by the Monitor to determine compliance by the City and the DPD with each substantive provision of the Consent Judgments. The Monitor has submitted final copies of the Methodologies for both Consent Judgments to the parties. Any future modifications to the methodologies will generally be made on a paragraphby-paragraph basis.
Under the Methodologies, the DPD will generally be assessed as compliant when either a reliable audit has been submitted that concludes compliance or at least 94% compliance is achieved for a statistically valid random sample24 of incidents from as recent a period as is practicable.
In the course of conducting compliance assessments, among various other activities, the Monitor conducts interviews of various City and DPD personnel and other individuals. It is the Monitor’s general practice, unless otherwise noted, to use matrices to ensure that the same general questions and subject matter are covered in interviews and document reviews.
Under certain circumstances, the Monitor may elect to rely on audits submitted by the DPD in assessing compliance with substantive paragraphs of the Consent Judgments. In doing so, the Monitor evaluates an audit to determine if it is compliant with the applicable audit requirements

23 On December 1, 2006, it was reported that the Wayne County Commission approved $2.1 million for a feasibility study for the proposed regional criminal justice complex. According to information provided by the DPD, a decision on whether to pursue the project will be made by Wayne County by May 2007. The Monitor has been informed that the City of Detroit has not made a final decision as to whether it will attempt to locate jail facilities at this proposed facility. 24 If the total population of incidents is so small that the process of selecting a statistically valid random sample would take longer to perform than to evaluate 100% of the incidents in the population, 100% testing will be performed.
3

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 11 of 106 Pg ID 2797

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

of the Consent Judgments. If the Monitor determines that the audit is compliant, the Monitor may rely on the audit and adopt all of the audit’s findings.
If the Monitor determines that an audit is not compliant with the applicable audit requirements of the Consent Judgments, the Monitor may still rely on some or all of the audit’s findings if it is determined that the specific findings are reliable.25 In addition, the Monitor reserves the right to adopt audit findings of non-compliance in instances in which the Monitor has not determined whether the audit’s findings are reliable; however, the Monitor will supplement the audit’s assessment with additional testing where possible.26
V. REPORT CARD
As a tool to assist the reader of this report, the Monitor is attaching as Appendix B a “Report Card,” which provides a “snapshot” of the DPD’s compliance with each of the substantive provisions of the Consent Judgments. It also serves as a tool to summarize the DPD’s progress in complying with those provisions. Specifically, the Report Card summarizes the overall grade of compliance with each paragraph and subparagraph27 of the Consent Judgments for the five most recent quarters, including the current quarter, in which compliance has been assessed.28 The quarter in which the most recent evaluation was made is also indicated, as is the quarter in which the Monitor anticipates conducting the next evaluation of compliance for each paragraph. The next evaluation is estimated based on available information at the date of issuance of this Quarterly Report and accompanying Report Card. These estimated dates are subject to change as information develops and circumstances change.

25 In these instances, the overall non-compliance finding of the audit would necessarily be based on deficiencies unrelated to the specific findings that the Monitor elects to rely upon. As an example, if the audit report and fieldwork were considered adequate related to the substantive paragraphs under review but the audit was considered non-compliant because it failed to address a specific issue unrelated to the substantive paragraph or was submitted late, the Monitor may use all of the audits findings regarding the substantive provisions of the paragraph(s) even though the audit was considered non-compliant.
26 Where an audit concludes that the DPD was in non-compliance, the likelihood that the DPD would incorrectly find itself in non-compliance is relatively low. Consequently, the Monitor may adopt those findings even though they have not been completely substantiated.
27 Although subparagraphs are often specifically identified in the Consent Judgments, the Monitor has split certain paragraphs that include more than one topic. The purpose of this is to facilitate the future evaluation of and reporting on each sub-topic.
28 The Monitor emphasizes that the Report Card provides summary information and should be read in conjunction with this report so that the reader may obtain a thorough understanding of the level and nature of the DPD’s compliance with the provisions of the Consent Judgments.
4

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 12 of 106 Pg ID 2798

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

VI. MONITOR’S PLEDGE
The Monitor continues to be dedicated to making this process a transparent one, and continues to share the interest of all parties in having the City and DPD achieve substantial compliance with the Consent Judgments in a timely manner.
To that end, we have provided the parties with interim assessments of compliance throughout each quarter, including the quarter ending November 30, 2006. During this quarter, the Monitor has also made numerous recommendations and provided TA to the DPD in the areas of lesson plan development and audit report writing as part of its ongoing efforts to assist the DPD in achieving compliance with the Consent Judgments. The Monitor continues to be available to offer to provide or to respond to requests for TA from the DPD.
A draft copy of this report was made available to the parties at least 10 days prior to final publication in order to provide the parties with an opportunity to identify any factual errors,29 and to provide the parties with an opportunity to seek clarification on any aspect of compliance articulated in this report.

29 As required by paragraphs U142 and C97.
5

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 13 of 106 Pg ID 2799

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

SECTION TWO: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE USE OF FORCE AND ARREST AND WITNESS DETENTION CONSENT JUDGMENT
This section contains the Monitor’s compliance assessments of the UOF CJ paragraphs scheduled for review during the quarter ending November 30, 2006.
I. USE OF FORCE POLICY
This section of the UOF CJ (paragraphs U14-26) requires the DPD to make revisions to its Use of Force (UOF) policies. Specifically, the DPD must revise its general UOF policy, use of firearms policy and chemical spray policy. The DPD must choose an intermediate force device, develop policy for the device, incorporate the device into the UOF continuum, and provide annual training on the use of the device.
A. GENERAL USE OF FORCE POLICIES
This section comprises paragraphs U14-19. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess compliance with paragraphs U14-19 during the quarter ending May 31, 2007.
B. USE OF FIREARMS POLICY
This section comprises paragraphs U20-23. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U21-23 during the quarter ending August 31, 2007.
C. INTERMEDIATE FORCE DEVICE POLICY
This section comprises paragraph U24. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U24 during the quarter ending August 31, 2007.
D. CHEMICAL SPRAY POLICY
This section comprises paragraphs U25-26. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U25-26 during the quarter ending August 31, 2007.
6

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 14 of 106 Pg ID 2800

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

II. INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW
This section of the UOF CJ (paragraphs U27-41) requires the DPD to make significant changes to its policies related to general investigations of police action and to investigations of UOF, prisoner injury, critical firearms discharges and in-custody deaths. In addition to various changes in general investigatory procedures, reports and evaluations, the UOF CJ requires that the DPD develop a protocol for compelled statements and develop an auditable form30 to document any prisoner injury, UOF, allegation of UOF and instance where an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target. The DPD Shooting Team must respond to and investigate all critical firearms discharges and in-custody deaths, and the DPD must develop a protocol for conducting investigations of critical firearms discharges. The DPD’s Internal Controls Division (ICD) must investigate a variety of incidents, pursuant to the requirements of the UOF CJ, including all serious UOF (which includes all critical firearm discharges), UOF that cause serious bodily injury, and all in-custody deaths. Finally, the UOF CJ requires the DPD to create a command level force review team that is charged with critically evaluating and reporting on critical firearms discharges and in-custody deaths.
A. GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICE ACTION
This section comprises paragraphs U27-33. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U27-33 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.
B. UOF AND PRISONER INJURY INVESTIGATIONS
This section comprises paragraphs U34-36. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the current quarter.31 The results of our current assessments follow.

30 The UOF CJ defines an auditable form as a discrete record of the relevant information maintained separate and independent of blotters or other forms maintained by the DPD. 31 Throughout this report, for those paragraphs assessed and reported on during the current reporting period (“current quarter”), information regarding the Monitor’s most recent compliance assessments, and the basis for those assessments, can be found in the “Background” sections of the respective paragraphs.
7

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 15 of 106 Pg ID 2801

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Paragraphs U34-36 – Documentation of UOF and Prisoner Injury; Notification Requirements; Command Investigation Time Limits
Paragraph U34 requires the DPD to revise its reporting policies to require officers to document on a single auditable form any prisoner injury, UOF, allegation of UOF, and instance in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target.
Paragraph U35 requires the DPD to revise its policies regarding UOF and prisoner injury notifications to require:
a. officers to notify their supervisors following any UOF or prisoner injury;
b. that upon such notice, a supervisor must respond to the scene of all UOF that involve a firearm discharge, a visible injury or a complaint of injury. A supervisor must respond to all other UOF on a priority basis. Upon arrival at the scene, the supervisor must interview the subject(s), examine the subject(s) for injury, and ensure that the subject(s) receive needed medical attention;
c. the supervisor responding to the scene to notify the Internal Affairs Division (IAD)32 of all serious UOF, UOF that result in visible injury, UOF that a reasonable officer should have known were likely to result in injury, UOF where there is evidence of possible criminal misconduct by an officer or prisoner injury; and
d. IAD to respond to the scene of, and investigate, all incidents where there is evidence of possible criminal misconduct by an officer, a prisoner dies, suffers serious bodily injury or requires hospital admission, or involves a serious UOF, and to permit IAD to delegate all other UOF or prisoner injury investigations to the supervisor for a command investigation.
Paragraph U36 requires the DPD to revise its UOF and prisoner injury investigation policies to require:
a. command UOF preliminary and final investigations to be completed within 10 and 30 days of the incident, respectively; such investigations must include a synopsis of the incident, photographs of any injuries, witness statements, a canvas of the area, a profile of the officer’s prior UOF and allegations of misconduct, and a first-line supervisory evaluation;
b. IAD investigations to be completed within 60 days of the incident; and
c. copies of all reports and command investigations to be sent to IAD within 7 days of completion of the investigation.

32 The DPD refers to this entity as the Internal Affairs Section (IAS).
8

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 16 of 106 Pg ID 2802

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U34-36 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in compliance with the policy requirements of the paragraphs. The Monitor had not yet assessed the DPD’s compliance with the implementation requirements of paragraphs U34-36. As a result, the Monitor did not yet evaluate the DPD’s overall compliance with paragraphs U34-36.
Current Assessment of Compliance
Paragraph U34
In order to assess the DPD’s compliance with the implementation requirements of paragraph U34 during the current quarter, the Monitor selected a sample of 43 arrests33 that involved a UOF and reviewed them to determine whether auditable forms (UOF-002) and Supervisor’s Investigation Reports (SIRs) were completed appropriately for these incidents. Of the 43 incidents, five UOF-002 forms and four SIRs were not submitted in response to the Monitor’s request.34 In addition, 7 of the 43 incidents had no documentation at all, and 1 incident had an incorrect investigation number. As a result, the level of compliance, based solely on whether the forms were submitted, and not their content, was 70% for the UOF-002 forms and 72% for SIRs.
Paragraphs U35-36
It was the Monitor’s intention to use the DPD’s audit to assess compliance with the requirements of this paragraph during the current quarter. However, the DPD did not submit a Use of Force Audit pursuant to paragraph U94a.35 The Monitor will evaluate implementation of paragraphs U35-36 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007, in conjunction with its assessment of related paragraphs.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds that the DPD remains in compliance with the policy requirements of paragraphs U34-36; the Monitor also finds the DPD in non-compliance with the implementation requirements of paragraph U34, but has not yet assessed the DPD’s compliance with the implementation requirements of paragraphs U35-36. As a result, the Monitor finds the DPD in overall non-compliance with paragraph U34, but has not yet evaluated the DPD’s overall compliance with paragraphs U35-36.

33 As required, a random, statistical sample of 43 arrests was selected out of a population of 110 arrests that involved a UOF from May 20, 2006 through June 20, 2006. 34 The Monitor notes that other documentation for these incidents was submitted; however, these documents were missing. 35 The DPD submitted a Holding Cells Use of Force Investigations Audit on July 31, 2006 pursuant to C65a. See the Monitor’s Report for the Quarter Ending August 31, 2006 for the assessment of compliance.
9

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 17 of 106 Pg ID 2803

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

C. REVIEW OF CRITICAL FIREARMS DISCHARGES AND IN-CUSTODY DEATHS
This section comprises paragraphs U37-41. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the current quarter. The results of our current assessments follow.
Paragraphs U37-41 – Creation of Shooting Team; Protocol for Investigations of Critical Firearms Discharges; Command Level Force Review Team; Time Limits for Command Level Force Review Team; Aggregate Review
Paragraph U37 requires the DPD’s Shooting Team, which is composed of officers from the Homicide Section and IAD, to respond to the scene and investigate all critical firearms discharges and in-custody deaths.
Paragraph U38 requires the DPD to develop a protocol for conducting investigations of critical firearms discharges that, in addition to the requirements of paragraphs U27-36, requires:
a. the investigation to account for all shots fired, all shell casings, and the locations of all officers at the time the officer discharged the firearm;
b. the investigator to conduct and preserve in the investigative file all appropriate ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests; and
c. the investigation to be completed within 30 days of the incident. If a Garrity statement is necessary, then that portion of the investigation may be deferred until 30 days from the declination or conclusion of the criminal prosecution.
Paragraph U39 mandates that the DPD require a Command Level Force Review Team (CLFRT) to evaluate all critical firearms discharges and in-custody deaths. The team must be chaired by the Deputy Chief who directly supervises IAD. The DPD must establish criteria for selecting the other members of the team.
Paragraph U40 mandates that the DPD policy that defines the CLFRT’s role must require the team to:
a. complete its review of critical firearms discharges that result in injury and in-custody deaths within 90 days of the resolution of any criminal review and/or proceedings and all other critical firearms discharges within 60 days and require the Chief of Police to complete his or her review of the team’s report within 14 days;
b. comply with the revised review of investigations policies and procedures;
c. interview the principal investigators; and

10

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 18 of 106 Pg ID 2804

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

d. prepare a report to the Chief of Police in compliance with the revised investigatory report and evaluation protocol.
Paragraph U41 requires the Chair of the CLFRT to annually review critical firearms discharges and in-custody deaths in aggregate to detect patterns and/or problems and report his or her findings and recommendations, including additional investigative protocols and standards for all critical firearms discharge and in-custody death investigations, to the Chief of Police.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U37-41 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor previously found the DPD in compliance with the policy requirements of these paragraphs. However, given that the policy had only recently been made effective, the Monitor did not test the implementation of the policy to allow sufficient time for the DPD’s investigative and internal review process to be fully implemented. As a result, the Monitor did not evaluate the DPD’s overall compliance with paragraphs U37-40. With regard to paragraph U41, the Monitor found the DPD in overall non-compliance. The Monitor requested additional information regarding the majority of the investigations listed in the Force Investigation Section (FIS) 2004 Annual Critical Incident Report on November 22, 2005; information provided by the DPD pursuant to this request did not adequately detail the current status of those investigations.36 In addition, the Monitor requested a copy of the paragraph U41 annual report for 2005 but had not received a response to this request as of the end of that quarter.37
Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD submitted the Joint Incident Shooting Team (JIST) Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) on July 26, 2006 to comply with the requirements of paragraphs U37-38. During this quarter, the Monitor reviewed the JIST SOP and submitted questions regarding the protocol to the DPD. The Monitor’s primary question concerned whether Internal Affairs (IA) is a separate entity from Force Investigation (FI). The Monitor learned that IA and FI were recently reorganized and each investigative entity reports directly to the Chief of Police. The Monitor is concerned because the JIST SOP states that the shooting team will consist of the Homicide Section and FI; whereas paragraph U37 states that the shooting team should be composed of officers from Homicide and IA.38 The Monitor has advised the parties that they need to discuss whether the composition of the shooting team meets the requirements of the consent judgment.

36 Information received from the DPD pursuant to a document request indicated that the DPD was not completing investigations of critical firearm discharges within the time periods outlined in paragraph U38. 37 On May 5, 2006, the Monitor requested a copy of the DPD’s paragraph U41 Annual Report for 2005. 38 On October 19, 2006, the Monitor submitted a document request asking for the names and badge number of the DPD members assigned to the JIST. As of the end of the quarter, the Monitor had not received this information.
11

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 19 of 106 Pg ID 2805

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

In order to assess compliance with the implementation requirements of paragraphs U37-40, the
Monitor requested a listing of all critical firearm discharges (CFDs) for incidents occurring between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2006.39 The DPD submission identified twelve CFDs
that occurred during the time period requested. The CFDs were grouped into the following
categories:

Type of Incident
Unintentional Discharge Shots Fired/No Effect Shots Fired/Non-Fatal Fatal Shooting

Number of
Incidents
1 7 2 2

Incidents Investigated by
JIST
0 0 2 2

Incidents Evaluated by
Board of Review40
0 0 0 2

Upon review, the Monitor determined that the JIST is not investigating all CFDs as required by
paragraph U37. The JIST only investigated instances classified as “shots fired/non-fatal” and “fatal shootings.”41 The Monitor also determined that a BOR was only being conducted for incidents classified as “fatal shootings.”42

The Monitor also reviewed the timing of the investigations:

Type of Incident
Shots Fired/NonFatal Shots Fired/NonFatal Fatal Shooting Fatal Shooting

Date of Incident
01.08.06
02.27.06 02.15.06 03.30.06

Date JIST Date JIST Date BOR Date BOR Started Closed Started Closed

01.10.06 06.13.06

N/A

N/A

02.28.06 02.21.06 04.03.06

PENDING 04.06.06 PENDING

N/A 02.16.06 03.31.06

N/A PENDING PENDING

Of the four investigations conducted by the JIST, none were completed within thirty days required by paragraph U38, the BOR Policy and the DPD’s JIST Protocol. It should also be noted that according to information provided by the DPD, of the investigations that were conducted, none of them were initiated on the date of the incident. Paragraph U37 requires the DPD’s Shooting Team to respond to the scene in order to begin investigating all CFDs.

39 The Monitor used this period of time in order to give the DPD time to complete the JIST investigation and Board of Review (BOR) even if there was a criminal investigation. 40 The BOR is the CLFRT required by paragraphs U39-40. 41 Out of twelve shootings, only four were investigated by JIST. 42 Out of twelve shootings, only two were evaluated by the BOR.
12

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 20 of 106 Pg ID 2806

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Paragraph U39 requires that the BOR evaluate all critical firearm discharges. As noted above, the BOR did not evaluate all of the CFDs during this time period. Both of the BOR evaluations that were started are still pending. As a result, they were not completed within the time periods required by paragraph U40 and Directive 304.5, Board of Review.
With regard to paragraph U41, as previously reported, the Monitor requested the 2005 Force Investigation Section Annual Critical Incident Report on May 5, 2006. As of the end of the quarter, the Monitor has not received this information.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds that the DPD remains in compliance with the policy requirements of paragraphs U37-41.43 However, and the Monitor finds the DPD in noncompliance with the implementation requirements of the paragraphs. As a result, the Monitor finds the DPD in overall non-compliance with paragraphs U37-41.

43 The Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with the policy component despite the potential issue with the JIST SOP, as other policy/procedure documents contain the required information.
13

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 21 of 106 Pg ID 2807

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

III. ARREST AND DETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES
This section of the UOF CJ (paragraphs U42-60) requires the DPD to make significant changes to its policies, practices and procedures related to arrests, investigatory stops and frisks, witness identification and questioning, the detention of material witnesses, arrestee restrictions, custodial detention, prompt judicial review, holds and command notification regarding arrests and witness detention issues. For many of these areas, the DPD must develop auditable forms to document officer violations of the UOF CJ requirements or to capture certain events.
This section also requires DPD supervisors to conduct reviews of all reported violations and take corrective or non-disciplinary action. Precinct commanders and, if applicable, specialized unit commanders, are required to review within seven days all reported violations of DPD arrest, investigatory stop and frisk, witness identification and questioning policies and all reports of arrests in which an arraignment warrant was not sought, and to review on a daily basis all reported violations of DPD prompt judicial review, holds, restrictions and material witness policies. The Commanders’ reviews must include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
A. ARREST POLICIES
This section comprises paragraphs U42-43. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor found the DPD in compliance with paragraph U42, which is a “policy only” paragraph.44 The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U43 during the current quarter. The results of our current assessments follow.
Paragraph U43 – Review of Arrests
Paragraph U43 requires the DPD to review the merits of each arrest and opine as to whether or not adequate probable cause existed to support the arrest. The supervisory review must be made at the time an arrestee is presented at the precinct or specialized unit and memorialized within 12 hours of the arrest. For those arrests in which adequate probable cause does not exist, or for which the DPD does not request a warrant, the DPD is required to generate an auditable form memorializing such circumstances within 12 hours of the event.

44 The DPD will remain in compliance with paragraph U42 until such time as the policy directly responsive to the paragraph is revised. Revisions to policy will trigger an additional assessment by the Monitor. Implementation of policy is tested under paragraph U43.
14

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 22 of 106 Pg ID 2808

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U43 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, at which time the Monitor found the DPD in non-compliance. The Monitor reviewed 56 randomly selected arrests and determined that probable cause was present for all 56 arrests. However, supervisory review of arrests was not adequately documented, preventing the Monitor from assessing compliance with supervisory review requirements. Also, for certain arrests in which a warrant was not sought, the DPD did not generate the required auditable form.
Current Assessment of Compliance
In order to assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U43 during the current quarter, the Monitor selected a sample45 of 94 arrests and requested that the DPD provide the Monitor with access to the arrest documentation (Preliminary Complaint Reports, or PCRs, and any related auditable forms). The Monitor reviewed documentation for all 94 arrests, noting the following:
• For all 94 arrests reviewed, sufficient probable cause existed to effect all of the arrests. The DPD also achieved this commendable result during the last period that the Monitor assessed this paragraph.
• An arrest warrant was not sought for 14 of the 94 arrests reviewed which triggered the requirement for an auditable form to be generated within 12 hours of the event.
– For eight arrests for which a warrant was not sought, although an auditable form documenting the circumstances was generated, it was not generated within the mandated 12-hour period.46
– For four arrests for which a warrant was not sought, although an auditable form documenting the circumstances was generated, it was not complete. The time and date of release and/or the time and date of supervisor review were not documented, preventing an assessment of completion within the mandated 12-hour period.47
• For 85 of 94 (90.5%) arrests reviewed, supervisory review occurred and was documented as having occurred within the mandated 12-hour period. The DPD is to be commended for this

45 As required, a random, statistical sample of 94 arrests was selected out of a population of approximately 4,154 arrests that occurred during the period August 1, 2006 through August 31, 2006, utilizing a confidence level of 95% with an acceptable error rate of +/- 4. 46 The completion times for the forms ranged from 24 hours to 66 days. The Eastern District was responsible for four of the eight instances of non-compliance. The Northeast District was responsible for two instances of noncompliance. The Western and Southwest Districts were each responsible for one instance of non-compliance. 47 Again, the completion times for the forms ranged from 24 hours to 66 days. The Southwest District was responsible for two instances of non-compliance. The Northwest and Central Districts each were responsible for one instance of non-compliance.
15

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 23 of 106 Pg ID 2809

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

improvement since during the last assessment the supervisory reviews were not being adequately documented.
– For two of the arrests, the Monitor was unable to determine whether the supervisory review was documented within the mandated 12-hour period.48
– For seven of the arrests, although supervisory review occurred, it was documented in excess of 12 hours from the documented arrest time.49
Although not determinative of compliance, the Monitor took the additional step of interviewing three supervisors assigned to the Eastern District. During the course of the interviews it was apparent that one supervisor was not familiar with the requirements of paragraph U43. Through discussion with Office of Civil Rights (OCR) personnel, the Monitor also determined that the Eastern District’s Compliance Liaison Officer (CLO) had yet to attend monthly meetings wherein OCR personnel provide training on the requirements of the Consent Judgments.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U43.
B. INVESTIGATORY STOP POLICIES
This section comprises paragraphs U44-45. As described in the Report for the Quarter Ending May 31, 2006, the DPD has been in compliance with paragraph U44, which is a “policy only” paragraph, since the quarter ending May 31, 2005.50 The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U45 during the quarter ending February 28, 2006. The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U45 during the current quarter. The results of our current assessment follow.
Paragraph U45 – Stop and Frisk Documentation Requirements
Paragraph U45 mandates written documentation of all investigatory stops and frisks by the end of the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD must review all investigatory stops and frisks and document on an auditable form those unsupported by reasonable suspicion within 24 hours of receiving the officer’s report.

48 One arrest was effected by the Eastern District and one by the Narcotics Section. 49 Three arrests were effected by the Northwestern District, two by the Southwestern District and one each by the Northeast District and the Narcotics Section. 50 The DPD will remain in compliance with the paragraph until such time as the policy directly responsive to the paragraph is revised. Revisions to policy will trigger an additional assessment by the Monitor. Implementation of policy is tested under paragraph U45.
16

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 24 of 106 Pg ID 2810

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U45 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006 finding the DPD in non-compliance. In order to assess compliance with the implementation requirements of the paragraphs, the Monitor reviewed a sampling of officers’ daily activity logs and determined that the officers did not adequately articulate reasonable suspicion for stops and/or frisks conducted.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD’s Audit Team (AT) submitted the Investigatory Stop and Frisk Practices Audit required by subparagraph U95b by the required due date of August 31, 2006. The audit concluded that the DPD was in non-compliance with the requirements of paragraph U45. In order to assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U45 during the current quarter, the Monitor reviewed the audit report, work plan, and related audit working papers. Although the Monitor identified qualitative deficiencies within the audit and found the audit in noncompliance with the applicable Consent Judgment requirement (subparagraph U95b),51 the Monitor determined that it was able to rely upon the audit’s findings with respect to paragraph U45.52
The AT’s audit sampled stops and frisks during the period February 19, 2006 through February 25, 2006. The audit noted the following:
• There were no auditable forms generated for the period selected for review. The DPD expanded the audit period, noting that for the period January 1, 2006 through July 31, 2006 only 2 auditable forms were generated by the Department.
• The AT requested documentation of all stops and frisks documented in Activity Logs and Daily Reports over a one-week period, February 19-25, 2006. The logs and reports indicated that 3,015 stops and 68 frisks were documented during this time period. The low number of frisks reported indicates an average of approximately 1.6 frisks in each District per 24-hour period. This potential issue should have been identified by the AT for DPD management to determine whether there are any risk management issues concerning officer safety, training, a lack of knowledge of the requirements related to reporting frisks, and/or a failure by officers to document frisks that are in fact being conducted.

51 Please refer the Current Assessment of Compliance for subparagraph U95b for further details regarding the Monitor’s assessment of this audit. 52 As described in section IV. Methodologies in the Introduction section of this report, if the Monitor determines that an audit is not compliant with the applicable audit requirements of the Consent Judgments, the Monitor may still rely on some or all of the audit’s findings if it is determined that the specific findings are reliable.
17

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 25 of 106 Pg ID 2811

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

• The time of supervisory review was not documented for 80 of the 111 stops and 21 of the 68 stops and frisks randomly selected for review. The AT was unable to assess whether supervisory review occurred within the mandated 24 hour period for those stops and frisks that lacked documentation of the time of supervisory review.53
• For 10 of the 111 stops selected for review, supervisors failed to identify that the stops lacked articulation of reasonable suspicion.
• For the 68 stops also involving a frisk, 9 lacked articulation of reasonable suspicion for the stop and 35 lacked articulation of reasonable suspicion for the frisk.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U45.
C. WITNESS IDENTIFICATION AND QUESTIONING POLICIES
This section comprises paragraphs U46-48. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor found the DPD in compliance with paragraphs U46 and U47, which are “policy-only” paragraphs.54 The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U48 during the current quarter. The results of our current assessment follow.
Paragraph U48 – Documentation of Interviews and Interrogations
Paragraph U48 requires the DPD to memorialize the content and circumstances of all interviews, interrogations and conveyances during the shift in which the police action occurred. The DPD is also required to review all interviews, interrogations and conveyances and document, on a separate auditable form, any interrogation, interview or conveyance in violation of DPD policy within 12 hours of the event.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U48 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in non-compliance. The Monitor was unable to review the minimum sample size of officers to determine compliance with paragraph U48, as the roster

53 The AT reached a similar conclusion during its prior audit submitted to the Monitor on February 18, 2005. The Monitor, in its quarterly report ending February 28, 2006 identified this same issue. Per Teletypes 04-06054, 0406055, 04-06056 and 04-06057 issued October 14, 2004, supervisors were instructed to “indicate the date and time that the activity log, investigator’s activity log, and /or sergeant’s daily report, is received by documenting the date and time along with the receiving supervisor’s signature at the end of the report.” 54 The DPD will remain in compliance with paragraphs U46 and U47 until the policy directly responsive to these paragraphs is revised. Revisions to policy will trigger additional compliance assessments by the Monitor.
18

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 26 of 106 Pg ID 2812

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

submitted by the DPD and used by the Monitor for random testing was outdated, did not accurately reflect officer employment status and thus did not permit an appropriate sample.55
Current Assessment of Compliance
In order to assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U48 during the current quarter, the Monitor requested and received photocopies of officer daily activity logs for the period August 24 – 31, 2006. The Monitor selected certain entries indicative of an interview, interrogation and/or conveyance and on November 20, 2006 requested that the DPD provide the relevant supporting documentation, including any completed auditable forms.56 As of the end of the quarter, the Monitor had not received the requested information.57
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U48.
D. PROMPT JUDICIAL REVIEW POLICIES
This section comprises paragraphs U49-51. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U49-51 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.
E. HOLD POLICIES
This section comprises paragraphs U52-53. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U53 during the quarter ending August 31, 2006.The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U53 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.58

55 As described in the Monitor’s Report for the Quarter Ending November 30, 2005, under the Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraphs U46 and U48, the Monitor will continue to conclude non-compliance until such information is provided to the Monitor and testing can be accomplished. 56 The Monitor’s selection was accumulated after reviewing daily activity logs for the Homicide, Sex Crimes and Domestic Violence specialized units. 57 During early December 2006, the Monitor received an email communication from the DPD after having queried the status of the request. The email communication indicated that upon an internal review of the supporting documentation requested, the DPD acknowledged it was not in compliance with the implementation requirements of paragraph U48. 58 The Monitor found the DPD in compliance with paragraph U52, which is a “policy only” paragraph, during the quarter ending February 28, 2006. The DPD will remain in compliance with paragraph U52 until such time as the policy directly responsive to the paragraph is revised. Revisions to policy will trigger an additional assessment by the Monitor. Implementation of policy is tested under paragraph U53.
19

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 27 of 106 Pg ID 2813

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

F. RESTRICTION POLICIES
This section comprises paragraphs U54-55. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U55 during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U55 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.59
G. MATERIAL WITNESS POLICIES
This section comprises paragraphs U56-57. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U57 during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U57 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.60
H. DOCUMENTATION OF CUSTODIAL DETENTION
This section comprises paragraph U58. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the current quarter. The results of our current assessment follow.
Paragraph U58 – Arrest and Detention Documentation
Paragraph U58 mandates the DPD to revise its arrest and detention (A&D) documentation to require, for all arrests, a record or file to contain accurate and auditable documentation of: a. The individual’s personal information; b. Crime(s) charged; c. Date and time of arrest and release; d. Date and time the arraignment warrant was submitted; e. Name and badge number of the officer who submitted the arraignment warrant;

59 The Monitor found the DPD in compliance with paragraph U54, which is a “policy only” paragraph, during the quarter ending February 28, 2006. The DPD will remain in compliance with paragraph U54 until such time as the policy directly responsive to the paragraph is revised. Revisions to policy will trigger an additional assessment by the Monitor. Implementation of policy is tested under paragraph U55. 60 The Monitor found the DPD in compliance with paragraph U56, which is a “policy only” paragraph, during the quarter ending February 28, 2006. The DPD will remain in compliance with paragraph U56 until such time as the policy directly responsive to the paragraph is revised. Revisions to policy will trigger an additional assessment by the Monitor. Implementation of policy is tested under paragraph U57.
20

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 28 of 106 Pg ID 2814

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

f. Date and time of arraignment;
g. Date and time each warrant was lodged and cleared, if applicable; and,
h. Custodial status e.g. new arrest, material witness or extradition
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, at which time the Monitor found the DPD in non-compliance. Although the DPD decided to incorporate paragraph U58’s requirements into the new version of Live Scan, the Live Scan system had not yet been modified to include all elements required by the paragraph.
Current Assessment of Compliance
During the current quarter, the Monitor again discussed with DPD personnel the progress of the Live Scan system and the incorporation of the information required by paragraph U58. The DPD indicated that the required modifications to the Live Scan system are slated for December 2006. As a result, the DPD had not completely addressed the requirements of paragraphs U58 as of the end of the current quarter.61
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U58.
I. COMMAND NOTIFICATION
This section comprises paragraphs U59-60. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U60 during the quarter ending August 31, 2006 The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U60 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U59 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the current quarter. The results of our current assessment follow.
Paragraph U59 – Commanding Officer Review
Paragraph U59 requires all DPD Commanders of a precinct and, if applicable, of the specialized unit to review in writing all reported violations of DPD arrest, investigatory stop and frisk,

61 This information is inconsistent with the City and the DPD’s Thirteenth Quarter Status Report, which states, “Currently, all relative information required within this paragraph is being captured within the Live Scan system, in which all of is retrievable for the Monitor’s implementation testing.” The status report does not comport with statements that have been made to the Monitor.
21

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 29 of 106 Pg ID 2815

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

witness identification and questioning policies and all reports of arrests in which an arraignment warrant was not sought. The commander’s review must be completed within 7 days of receiving the document reporting the event, and must include an evaluation of the actions taken to correct the violation and whether any corrective or non-disciplinary action was taken.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U59 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in non-compliance. The Monitor noted that for two of four arrests in which a warrant was not sought, although the auditable form was completed, the reviewing Commander did not document the date and time of review. As a result, the Monitor was unable to determine whether the review occurred within the mandated seven-day period. Also, auditable forms were not provided for stops and frisks or witness interviews.
Current Assessment of Compliance
In order to assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U59 during the current quarter, the Monitor reviewed the arrest documentation and related auditable forms utilized in connection with the testing of compliance with paragraph U43. The Monitor noted the following:
• The CO review section was not completed on eight of the 14 auditable forms completed for arrests in which a warrant was not sought.
• The CO’s evaluation was documented on the auditable form in excess of the mandated seven-day period on one of the 14 auditable forms completed for arrests in which a warrant was not sought.62
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U59.

62 The evaluation was documented 86 days after receipt of the form.
22

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 30 of 106 Pg ID 2816

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

IV. EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS
This section of the UOF CJ (paragraphs U61-69) requires the DPD to revise its policies and procedures regarding the intake, tracking, investigation and review of external complaints. There are specific requirements relative to the roles and responsibilities of the Office of the Chief Investigator (OCI) and the DPD, including the development and implementation of an informational campaign and the review and evaluation of each allegation in an external complaint investigation.63
Section IV’s introductory section comprises paragraphs U61-63. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the current quarter. The results of our current assessments follow.
Paragraph U61 – Revision of External Complaints Policy
Paragraph U61 requires the DPD and City to revise their external complaint policy to clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of OCI and the DPD regarding the receipt, investigation and review of external complaints. At a minimum, the plan shall specify each agency’s responsibility for receiving, recording, investigating and tracking complaints; each agency’s responsibility for conducting community outreach and education regarding complaints; how, when and in what fashion the agencies shall exchange information, including complaint referrals and information about sustained complaints.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U61 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in compliance with the policy requirements of the paragraph. The Monitor had not yet evaluated the DPD’s compliance with the implementation requirement of the paragraph. The DPD was scheduled to submit an audit of external complaint investigations, which was to include the requirements of these paragraphs, by August 31, 2006.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD’s AT timely submitted its External Complaint and Complaint Investigations Audit required by paragraph U97 by the required due date of August 31, 2006. This audit covered the requirements of paragraph U61, among others. The Monitor reviewed the audit report, work
63 The OCI reports to the Board of Police Commissioners (BOPC) and is responsible for conducting external complaint investigations.
23

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 31 of 106 Pg ID 2817

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

plan, and related audit working papers. Although the Monitor identified qualitative deficiencies within the audit and found the audit in non-compliance with the applicable Consent Judgment requirement (subparagraph U97),64 the Monitor determined that it was able to rely upon the audit’s findings with respect to paragraph U61.65
In its audit, the AT found 39 citizen complaints that were documented in a blotter at a DPD section were not referred to OCI as required by this paragraph, the DPD’s Citizen Complaints Policy and subparagraph U67a. As a result, the audit found the DPD non-compliant with the requirements of paragraph U61 for informally resolved complaints. Additionally the AT found the Department out of compliance for formally resolved complaints as they were not referred to the appropriate agency within 5 business days.
During the current quarter, on November 8-9, the Monitor conducted inspections of DPD districts. During these inspections, the Monitor conducted a review of the Citizen Complaint Reports (CCRs) in each district to determine whether the complaints were being received and tracked in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph. The Monitor found that in three of the six districts all CCR numbers were being recorded in a log book in accordance with the Citizen Complaints Policy and were in sequential order. The Monitor identified the following in one or more of the remaining three districts:
• CCR forms not kept in sequential order;
• Missing CCR forms within the sequence of numbered forms issued to the district;
• Two CCR form logbooks being used in one district without the knowledge of supervisory staff;
• Incomplete information and lack of coordination between the DPD and OCI regarding a complaint referral (due to its criminal nature);
• A voided CCR form inserted in logbook and not forwarded to OCI; and
• No mechanism for tracking of CCR forms by districts or OCI.
The Monitor brought these issues to the attention of supervisors in each district and to the OCI. The DPD and OCI agreed to take immediate action to correct these deficiencies.66

64 Please refer the Current Assessment of Compliance for subparagraph U97 for further details regarding the Monitor’s assessment of this audit. 65 As described in section IV. Methodologies in the Introduction section of this report, where an audit concludes that the DPD was in non-compliance, the likelihood that the DPD would incorrectly find itself in non-compliance is relatively low. Consequently, the Monitor may adopt those findings even though they have not been completely substantiated. 66 Five months prior to the Monitor’s review, the OCR conducted an inspection of the requirements of paragraph U64 and found similar problems to those described here.
24

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 32 of 106 Pg ID 2818

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with the policy requirements of paragraph U61. The Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with the implementation requirements of this paragraph. As a result, the DPD is in overall non-compliance with paragraph U61.
Recommendations
The Monitor recommends that the DPD put a mechanism in place at the districts to track CCR forms that have been issued to the DPD by OCI. The Monitor recommends that one logbook be kept for each district and that the CCR numbers for forms issued to each district be listed in the logbook in sequential order at the time of issuance. Then as each complaint form is used, the information next to the CCR number should be filled in. With this method, it will be simple to ascertain whether any CCR forms are unaccounted for within a district.
Furthermore, OCI should institute a tracking procedure so that each CCR form that has been issued to an entity is accounted for. OCI should periodically investigate the status of CCR forms that were issued but have not been turned back into the OCI.67
Paragraph U62 – Informational Campaign
Paragraph U62 requires the DPD and the City to develop and implement an informational campaign regarding external complaints including:
a. informing persons they may file complaints regarding the performance of any DPD employee;
b. distributing complaint forms, fact sheets and informational posters at City Hall, OCI, all DPD precincts, libraries, on the internet and, upon request, to community groups and community centers;
c. broadcasting public service announcements (PSA) that describe the complaint process; and
d. posting permanently a placard describing the complaint process, with relevant phone numbers, in the lobby of each DPD precinct.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U62 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in compliance with subparagraphs U62c and d. However, the Monitor found the DPD in non-compliance with subparagraph U62b, regarding distribution of complaint forms, fact sheets and informational posters. Inspections revealed that several

67 The OCR made similar recommendations after inspections of the requirements of paragraph U64 conducted in June 2006.
25

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 33 of 106 Pg ID 2819

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

libraries and neighborhood city halls did not have all the materials required by the subparagraph. Although OCR did replenish the materials for some of the libraries and Neighborhood City Halls, many of the relevant personnel were unaware of the system that is supposed to be in place for reordering or refilling depleted stock of the materials.
Current Assessment of Compliance
Subparagraph U62a Informing persons that they may file complaints
The methods by which the DPD will inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any DPD employee are included under subparagraphs U62b-d. The Monitor will not be conducting a separate assessment of compliance with this subparagraph.
Subparagraph U62b Distribution of complaint forms, fact sheets and informational posters
As described in the Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraph U61, the Monitor conducted inspections of DPD districts on November 8-9, 2006. These inspections revealed that all of the district stations had all the materials required by paragraph U62b.
OCR conducted inspections of libraries and Neighborhood City Halls during the period of November 15-30, 2006. Of the 24 libraries inspected, 21 had all the required materials. OCR replenished the materials as needed and also supplied other libraries with extra materials per their request.
OCR conducted inspections at six Neighborhood City Hall locations. All six locations had all of the required materials. OCR supplied the Neighborhood City Hall’s with extra materials per their request.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with subparagraph U62b.
Subparagraph U62c Complaint Process Broadcasts
The DPD submitted a copy of the PSA that is broadcast on Comcast Cable. According to the DPD, the broadcast is aired continuously in a daily loop. As previously reported, the PSA meets the minimum requirements of describing the complaint process.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with subparagraph U62c.
Subparagraph U62d Informational Campaign Placards
As described in the Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraph U61, on November 8-9, 2006, the Monitor conducted inspections of all districts. During these inspections, the Monitor found that the DPD continues to have permanent placards posted in the lobby of each of district.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with subparagraph U62d.

26

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 34 of 106 Pg ID 2820

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Paragraph U63 – Informational Brochures and Contact Forms
Paragraph U63 requires all officers to carry informational brochures and contact forms in their vehicles at all times while on-duty. The DPD must develop a contact form within 60 days of the effective date of the UOF CJ and submit it for review and approval of the DOJ. This contact form must be implemented within 60 days of the review and approval of DOJ. The DPD must require all officers to inform an individual of his or her right to make a complaint, if an individual objects to an officer’s conduct. The DPD must prohibit officers from discouraging any person from making a complaint or refusing to take a complaint.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U63 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in compliance. The Monitor determined that Directive 102.6, Citizen Complaints, had been adequately disseminated by the end of the quarter. The Monitor assessed the DPD’s compliance with the implementation requirements of the paragraph by conducting spot checks and found that officers were carrying their Citizen Complaint Brochure/Contact Forms in their vehicles. The OCR also conducted inspections, finding that officers were carrying the required materials in their vehicles.
Current Assessment of Compliance
As described in the Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraph U61, on November 8-9, 2006, the Monitor conducted inspections of all districts. During these inspections, the Monitor conducted random spot checks of officers to determine if officers were carrying their Citizen Complaint Brochures/Contact Forms while on duty. The spot checks revealed that all officers who were questioned were carrying the required materials on their person or in their patrol cars.68
OCR conducted inspections of the DPD Districts during the period of November 15, 2006 through December 1, 2006 to determine if officers were carrying their Citizen Complaint Brochures/Contact Forms. OCR randomly checked units from each district and determined that all officers interviewed did have the required materials in their vehicles.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with paragraph U63.

68 There was no one available at the Southwestern District of the Monitor to determine if the officers were carrying the required materials.
27

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 35 of 106 Pg ID 2821

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

A. INTAKE AND TRACKING
This section comprises paragraphs U64-66. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the current quarter. The results of our current assessments follow.
Paragraphs U64-66 – Policies Regarding Intake and Tracking; Factual Account by Intake Officer; Unique Identifier
Paragraph U64 requires the DPD and City to revise their policies regarding the intake and tracking of external complaints to define complaint and misconduct as those terms are defined in this Agreement and require all officers and OCI employees to accept and document all complaints filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (TDD), facsimile or electronic mail.
Paragraph U65 requires the DPD and the City to permit the intake officer or employee to include a factual account and/or description of a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition but not an opinion regarding the complainant’s mental competency or veracity.
Paragraph U66 requires the DPD and the City to assign all complaints a unique identifier, which shall be provided to the complainant, and a description of the basis for the complaint.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U64-65 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, at which time the Monitor reported the DPD in compliance with the policy requirements of the paragraphs. However, because the AT was scheduled to submit an audit of external complaint investigations, which was to include the requirements of these paragraphs, by August 31, 2006, the Monitor deferred its assessment of the DPD’s compliance with the implementation requirements of paragraphs U64-66 so that it could be conducted in conjunction with the Monitor’s evaluation of the audit.
Current Assessment of Compliance
As described in the Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraph U61, above, during the current quarter, the Monitor reviewed the AT’s External Complaints and Complaint Investigations Audit, which covered the requirements of paragraphs U64-66, among others. Although the Monitor identified qualitative deficiencies within the audit and found the audit in

28

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 36 of 106 Pg ID 2822

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

non-compliance with the applicable Consent Judgment requirement (subparagraph U97),69 the Monitor determined that it was able to rely upon the audit’s findings with respect to paragraphs U64 and U66.70 It was also the Monitor’s intention to use the DPD’s audit to assess compliance with the requirements of paragraph U65. However, the audit’s finding in connection with paragraph U65 could not be substantiated.
With regard to paragraph U64, the AT identified 39 citizen complaints that were documented in a blotter at a DPD section that were not referred to OCI. Accordingly, the DPD is not properly accepting and documenting all complaints as required by this paragraph. The Monitor also identified issues regarding the documentation of complaints during its review of district logbooks.71
Regarding paragraph U65, the External Complaints and Complaint Investigations Audit concluded that the requirements are being met for formally resolved complaints and for informally resolved complaints. In order to supplement the audit’s findings, the Monitor selected a random sample of 50 complaint investigations from the 102 investigations that were closed by OCI during the month of June 2006.72 The Monitor conducted an initial review of 14 of the 50; these first 14 investigations met the requirements of this paragraph for formally resolved complaints. However, in order for a statistically valid conclusion to be drawn, the Monitor is required to continue reviewing additional investigations from the sample of 50. The Monitor will continue this review and report a final compliance assessment for paragraph U65 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.
For paragraph U66, the AT found that formally resolved complaints are assigned a unique identifier (CCR number) but informally resolved complaints are not.73 The Monitor also determined that the DPD is meeting the requirements of this paragraph for formally resolved complaints. While all of the formally resolved complaints in the population of 102 investigations had unique identifiers (CCR numbers), the Monitor did not review if all informal

69 Please refer the Current Assessment of Compliance for subparagraph U97 for further details regarding the Monitor’s assessment of this audit. 70 As described in section IV. Methodologies in the Introduction section of this report, where an audit concludes that the DPD was in non-compliance, the likelihood that the DPD would incorrectly find itself in non-compliance is relatively low. Consequently, the Monitor may adopt those findings even though they have not been completely substantiated. 71 Refer to Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraph U61. 72 The Monitor’s sample size of 50 investigations was determined using a one tailed test with an error rate of +/- 4% and a 95% confidence interval. 73 In the audit’s population, there were only 7 of 46 non-holding cell complaints that were resolved informally between October 1, 2005 and March 31, 2006 that received a unique identifier. The Monitor recommends that the City and the DPD develop a mechanism for meeting the requirements of paragraph U66 with regard to informally resolved complaints.
29

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 37 of 106 Pg ID 2823

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

complaints received unique identifiers. The Monitor will continue this review and report a final compliance assessment for paragraph U65 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with the policy requirements of paragraphs U64-66. The Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with the implementation requirements of paragraph U64 but has not yet completed its evaluation of compliance with the implementation requirements of paragraphs U65 and U66. As a result, the DPD is in overall non-compliance with paragraph U64 and the Monitor has not yet completed its evaluation of the DPD’s overall compliance with paragraph U65 and U66.
B. EXTERNAL COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS
This section comprises paragraphs U67-69. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the current quarter. The results of our current assessments follow.
Paragraph U67 – Revision of External Complaint Investigations Policy
Paragraph U67 requires the DPD and the City to revise its policies regarding external complaint investigations to:
a. provide that all complaints be referred for investigation and resolution by OCI or, if the complaint alleges potentially criminal conduct by an officer, by IAD;
b. permit informal resolution of complaints alleging only inadequate service or the complainant’s innocence of a charge and require the investigation and resolution of all other complaints;
c. refer all complaints to appropriate agency within five business days;
d. require complainant be periodically kept informed of complaint status;
e. develop written criteria for IAD and OCI investigator applicants;
f. implement mandatory pre-service and in-service training for all IAD and OCI investigators;
g. require IAD and OCI to complete all investigations within 60 days of receiving the complaint; and
h. upon completion of investigation, the complainant shall be notified of its outcome.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U67 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, at which time the Monitor reported that the DPD was in compliance with the

30

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 38 of 106 Pg ID 2824

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

policy requirements of the paragraph. However, because the AT was scheduled to conduct an audit of external complaint investigations, which was to include the requirements of paragraphs U67a-e, g-h by August 31, 2006, the Monitor deferred its assessments of the DPD’s compliance with the implementation requirements of these subparagraphs so that the assessments could be conducted in conjunction with the Monitor’s evaluation of the audit. The Monitor found the DPD in non-compliance with subparagraph U67f, as the mandatory pre-service and in-service training for all IAD and OCI investigators had not occurred as of the end of that quarter.
Current Assessment of Compliance
As described in the Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraph U61, above, during the current quarter, the Monitor reviewed the AT’s External Complaints and Complaint Investigations Audit, which covered the requirements of paragraph U67, among others. Although the Monitor identified qualitative deficiencies within the audit and found the audit in non-compliance with the applicable Consent Judgment requirement (subparagraph U97),74 the Monitor determined that it was able to rely upon the audit’s findings with respect to paragraph U67.75
Subparagraphs U67a-c
In the External Complaints and Complaint Investigations Audit, the AT identified 39 citizen complaints that were documented in a blotter at a DPD section and were not referred to OCI or another agency as required by subparagraphs U67a and c. Furthermore, all of these complaints were informally resolved even though only 20 of them alleged inadequate service or complainant’s innocence of a charge.76 The AT also concluded the Department was not in compliance with U67c for formally resolved complaints as they were not referred to the appropriate agency within 5 business days. As described in the Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraph U61, the Monitor conducted a review of the CCRs in each district. Similar to the AT’s findings, the Monitor identified complaints that were not properly referred and CCRs that were missing.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with the policy requirements of subparagraphs U67a-c but in non-compliance with the implementation requirements of the subparagraphs. As a result, the DPD is in overall non-compliance with subparagraphs U67a-c.

74 Please refer the Current Assessment of Compliance for subparagraph U97 for further details regarding the Monitor’s assessment of this audit. 75 As described in section IV. Methodologies in the Introduction section of this report, where an audit concludes that the DPD was in non-compliance, the likelihood that the DPD would incorrectly find itself in non-compliance is relatively low. Consequently, the Monitor may adopt those findings even though they have not been completely substantiated. 76 Informal resolution is only permitted for complaints involving inadequate service and innocence of charge, pursuant to subparagraph U67b.
31

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 39 of 106 Pg ID 2825

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Subparagraph U67d
Both the AT, in its External Complaints and Complaint Investigations Audit, and the Monitor, in its review of investigative files, found that the OCI is not keeping complainants periodically informed of the status of the complaint investigation while pending.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with the policy requirements of subparagraph U67d but in non-compliance with the implementation requirements of the subparagraph. As a result, the DPD is in overall non-compliance with subparagraph U67d.
Subparagraph U67e
In order to test implementation of subparagraph U67e, on October 31, 2006, the Monitor requested any applications submitted by individuals seeking to become IAD or OCI investigators from January 1, 2006 to the date of the request to determine whether the applicant criteria are being utilized. As of the end of the quarter, the DPD had not responded to this request.77
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with the policy requirements of subparagraph U67e but in non-compliance with the implementation requirements of the subparagraph. As a result, the DPD is in overall non-compliance with subparagraph U67e.
Subparagraph U67f
In order to test implementation of subparagraph U67f, on October 31, 2006, the Monitor requested a listing of the most recent dates of and lesson plans for any pre-service and in-service training for IA and OCI investigators. As of the end of the quarter, the DPD had not responded to this request.78
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with subparagraph U67f.
Subparagraph U67g
Based on the data included in the AT’s External Complaints and Complaint Investigations Audit working papers, the Monitor determined that external complaints were taking an average of 240 days to close, well beyond the 60 day deadline required by this subparagraph.79 In its review of a

77 After the end of the quarter, on December 11, 2006, the DPD responded stating that neither IA nor OCI received any applications to become investigators between January 1, 2006 and October 31, 2006. The Monitor will make additional attempts to determine whether the OCI and the DPD are screening applicants or transfers using the criteria developed under this paragraph. 78 On December 11, 2006, after the end of the quarter, the DPD responded, providing the Monitor with a list of training classes that took place for OCI and IA investigators. Although the DPD did provide the names and dates of the training courses, the lesson plans that were used for these courses were not provided, as requested. 79 Eleven of 64 complaints selected for review by the AT took in excess of 400 days to resolve.
32

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 40 of 106 Pg ID 2826

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

more recent sample of complaint investigations,80 the Monitor similarly found that none of the investigations were completed with a 60-day time period.81
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with the policy requirements of subparagraph U67g but in non-compliance with the implementation requirements of the subparagraph. As a result, the DPD is in overall non-compliance with subparagraph U67g.
Subparagraph U67h
The DPD’s External Complaints Policy requires that within 15 days of completion of the investigation, the appropriate investigating entity (IA or OCI) notify the complainant of the disposition of their complaint. According to the policy, this notification must include an appropriate statement regarding whether any disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action was taken. In its External Complaints and Complaint Investigations Audit, AT determined that the City and the DPD were notifying complainants within 15 days. However, AT did not fully test compliance with this requirement, as it reviewed only 15 investigations in connection with the requirement; the Monitor identified one instance in which more than a month lapsed before complainants were informed.
During its review of more recent external complaint investigations,82 the Monitor determined that although the OCI is notifying all complainants, in the vast majority of cases it is not doing so within 15 days. The Monitor also determined that the OCI is not meeting the requirement of providing an appropriate statement regarding whether corrective action or discipline was imposed. This is consistent with what the AT found during its review of 15 investigations. However, IA and the OCI cannot provide such information within 15 days of the completion of the investigation, since the action will not have taken place at that point and it is not known at that time what action will be taken. The Monitor recommends that the parties discuss this requirement.83
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with the policy requirements of subparagraph U67h but in non-compliance with the implementation requirements of the subparagraph. As a result, the DPD is in overall non-compliance with subparagraph U67h.

80 Refer to the Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraphs U64-66, (paragraph U65, specifically) for information regarding this review. 81 The Monitor reviewed 14 of 50 investigations selected and then discontinued its review of the remaining investigations due to an early determination of non-compliance. 82 Refer to the Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraphs U64-66, (paragraph U65, specifically) for information regarding this review. Again, the Monitor discontinued its review after reviewing 14 of the 50 investigations due to an early determination of non-compliance. 83 In the meantime, the OCI has notified the Monitor that it is including a statement that non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action will be taken (once the BOPC has reviewed and approved the investigation and it has been sent to the Chief of Police for review and action).
33

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 41 of 106 Pg ID 2827

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Paragraph U68 –External Complaint Review Process Time Limits
Paragraph U68 requires the DPD and the City to review and evaluate the external complaint process to require:
a. the Chief Investigator to complete review of OCI investigations within seven days of supervisor’s review;
b. the Board of Police Commissioners to complete review of OCI investigations within fortyfive days of Chief Investigator’s review; and
c. the Chief of Police to complete review of external complaints within seven days of Board of Police Commissioner’s review.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U68 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, at which time the Monitor reported that the DPD was in compliance with the policy requirements of the paragraph. However, because the AT was scheduled to conduct an audit of external complaint investigations, which was to include the requirements of paragraph U68, by August 31, 2006, the Monitor deferred its assessment of the DPD’s compliance with the implementation requirements of the paragraph so that the assessment could be conducted in conjunction with the Monitor’s evaluation of the audit.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The AT’s External Complaints and Complaint Investigations Audit did not include an evaluation of paragraph U68. The audit report referred to, but did not include an evaluation of the OCR’s inspection of the requirements of this paragraph.
In order to assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U68, the Monitor reviewed the most recently received OCR inspection of the requirements of this paragraph. According to the inspection memorandum, the OCR reviewed 12 external complaint investigations that were closed at the end of January or beginning of February 2006.84 The memorandum does not indicate which dates the inspection took place.85 The memorandum also does not articulate how the twelve investigations were selected for review except to say that this was a “random surprise” inspection at the OCI. The inspection found that the BOPC and OCI do not always

84 The investigations reviewed during the inspection were closed 6 months or more before the submission of this inspection to the Monitor on August 31 2006. It is unclear why the inspectors did not select a more recent sample, so as to provided management with more current information. 85 The second page of the document has the date of July 13, 2006 at the top. This may refer to the date the memorandum was written as opposed to the dates of the inspection.
34

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 42 of 106 Pg ID 2828

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

immediately forward investigations to the Chief of Police so that her review could be completed within seven days of the BOPC’s review. With regard to the requirements of subparagraphs a and b, the inspection found that these reviews were being conducted in a timely manner.
As described in the Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraph U65, the Monitor conducted its own review of more recent OCI investigations. In the initial review, the Monitor found that the Chief Investigator’s reviews were completed in a timely manner for 11 of 14 investigations. The Monitor determined that the BOPC’s review was completed in a timely manner for all 14 investigations.
The Monitor was unable to determine how long the Chief of Police’s review took, since the OCI investigative files indicate the date the file was sent to the Chief of Police but do not indicate when this review was completed.86
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with the policy requirements of paragraph U68 but finds the DPD in non-compliance with the implementation requirements of the paragraph. As a result, the Monitor finds the DPD in overall non-compliance with paragraph U68.
Paragraph U69 –External Complaint Dispositions
Paragraph U69 requires that each allegation in an administrative external complaint investigation be resolved by making one of the following dispositions:
a. “unfounded,” where the investigation revealed no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred;
b. “sustained,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur and the actions of the officer violated DPD policies, procedures or training;
c. “not sustained,” where there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and
d. “exonerated,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate DPD policies, procedures or training.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U69 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, at which time the Monitor reported that the DPD was in compliance with the policy requirements of the paragraph. However, because the AT was scheduled to conduct an audit of external complaint investigations, which was to include the requirements of paragraph

86 The Monitor has asked OCR how they made this determination.
35

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 43 of 106 Pg ID 2829

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

U69, by August 31, 2006, the Monitor deferred its assessment of the DPD’s compliance with the implementation requirements of the paragraph so that the assessment could be conducted in conjunction with the Monitor’s evaluation of the audit.
Current Assessment of Compliance
As described in the Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraph U61, above, during the current quarter, the Monitor reviewed the AT’s External Complaints and Complaint Investigations Audit, which covered the requirements of paragraph U69, among others. The Monitor identified qualitative deficiencies within the audit and found the audit in noncompliance with the applicable Consent Judgment requirement (subparagraph U97).87 It was the Monitor’s intention to use the DPD’s audit to assess compliance with the requirements of paragraph U69. However, the audit’s finding of compliance could not be substantiated.
In the External Complaints and Complaint Investigations Audit, the AT found that the external complaint investigations reviewed reached one of the required dispositions and that the disposition was warranted. As described in the Current Assessment of Compliance for paragraph U65, the Monitor conducted its own review of more recent OCI investigations. In its review of more recent OCI investigations, the Monitor reached the same conclusion as the AT for the 14 investigations reviewed. However, in order for a statistically valid conclusion to be drawn, the Monitor is required to continue reviewing additional investigations from the sample of 50. The Monitor will continue this review and report a final compliance assessment for paragraph U69 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with the policy requirements of paragraph U69 but has not yet completed its evaluation of the DPD’s compliance with the implementation requirements of the paragraph. As a result, the Monitor has not yet evaluated the DPD’s overall compliance with paragraph U69.

87 Please refer the Current Assessment of Compliance for subparagraph U97 for further details regarding the Monitor’s assessment of this audit.
36

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 44 of 106 Pg ID 2830

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

V. GENERAL POLICIES
This section of the UOF CJ (paragraphs U70-77) requires the DPD to develop, revise, and/or enforce a variety of general policies. The DPD is required to ensure that all terms are clearly defined in policies that it develops, revises, and augments, and to make proposed policy revisions available to the community.
This section also requires the DPD to advise its personnel that taking police action in violation of DPD policy will subject them to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability. In addition, the DPD must enforce its policies requiring all DPD officers to report misconduct committed by another DPD officer.
The DPD must also revise its policies regarding off-duty officers taking police action, revise its policies regarding prisoners and develop a foot pursuit policy. Finally, the DPD and the City are required to develop a plan for adequate deployment of supervisors in the field.
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U72-77 during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U70 and U71 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs, and completed its assessment of paragraph U73, during the current quarter. The results of our current assessments follow.
Paragraph U70 – General Policies
Paragraph U70 requires the DPD, in developing, revising and augmenting policies, to ensure all terms contained within the UOF CJ are clearly defined.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U70 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, at which time the Monitor found the DPD in compliance with the policy requirements but in non-compliance with the implementation requirements of the paragraph. In order to comply with the implementation requirement of paragraph U70, the DPD must establish procedures to identify terms requiring clear definitions and institute a process to prepare definitions for review and inclusion in manuals and other documents. Although the DPD established a Policy Focus Committee whose responsibilities include reviewing newly established policy or policy revisions to ensure that all required terms are clearly and consistently defined, the protocol to be used by the committee was not finalized as of the end of that quarter.
37

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 45 of 106 Pg ID 2831

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Current Assessment of Compliance
As previously reported, in order to comply with the implementation requirement of paragraph U70, the DPD must establish procedures to identify terms requiring clear definitions and institute a process to prepare definitions for review and inclusion in manuals and other documents. As of the end of the quarter, the DPD had not submitted information that such a procedure had been established.88 Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with the policy requirements but in non-compliance with the implementation requirements of paragraph U70. As a result, the Monitor finds the DPD in overall non-compliance with paragraph U70.
Paragraph U71 – Proposed Policy for Community Review and Comment
Paragraph U71 requires that the DPD continue to make available proposed policy revisions to the community for review, comment and education. The DPD must also publish proposed policy on its website to allow for comment directly to the DPD.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U71 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in non-compliance. The Monitor requested additional information from the DPD concerning its protocol for making available proposed policy revisions to the community for review, comment and education. Neither the protocol nor the requested information was submitted by the DPD as of the end of that quarter. On June 12, 2006, after the end of that quarter, the DPD provided the additional information requested.
Current Assessment of Compliance
During the current quarter, the Monitor requested and received a revised Protocol for Proposed Policy Revisions. The Monitor reviewed the protocol and determined that it adequately addresses the following:
• Procedures on posting proposed policies to and removing proposed policies from the DPD’s website.
• Procedures for providing proposed policies at the BOPC regularly scheduled public meetings.

88 After the end of the quarter, on December 4, 2006, the DPD submitted a draft protocol to be utilized by its previously established Policy Focus Committee. The DPD indicated that a schedule delineating the month and year that each policy will be reviewed will also be submitted. The Monitor will review and assess the final version of these documents once they are submitted.
38

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 46 of 106 Pg ID 2832

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

• Procedures for providing proposed policies at each of the DPD’s six districts.
• Procedures for reviewing comments on proposed policies posted to the DPD website.
The Monitor also conducted unannounced visits at all six districts in an attempt to identify whether designated CLOs were familiar with their responsibilities for making available proposed policy to the public upon request. Five of the six district CLOs demonstrated sufficient knowledge and the same five districts prominently displayed the procedures for requesting and commenting on proposed policy.89
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with paragraph U71.
Paragraph U73 – Sergeants in the Field
Paragraph 73 requires the DPD and the City to develop a plan to ensure regular field deployment of an adequate number of supervisors90 of patrol units and specialized units that deploy in the field to implement the provisions of this agreement.
Background
The Monitor assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U73 during the quarter ending February 28, 2006, finding the DPD in non-compliance. The Monitor reviewed daily attendance records for a limited production of District station and specialized unit platoons for the period December 28- 30, 2005 and calculated an overall compliance rate of 73.2%.
During the quarter ending August 31, 2006, the Monitor again reviewed daily attendance records for District station and specialized unit platoons for the period June 13 – 15, 2006 and calculated an initial compliance rate of approximately 90%. However, the Monitor noted that it required additional information, and elected to withhold a determination of compliance pending additional review.
Current Assessment of Compliance
During the current quarter the Monitor requested and received from the DPD additional information required to complete its assessment of compliance with paragraph U73. In total, the Monitor reviewed 125 district and specialized unit daily attendance records, and determined that for 16 platoons and one specialized unit, the ratio of officers to a supervisor exceeded eight to

89 The Monitor determined that the Eastern District could not demonstrate an understanding of the procedure and that no information was posted informing the public on the procedures for requesting and commenting on proposed policy. 90 Paragraph “pp” of the UOF CJ defines a supervisor as a sworn DPD employee at the rank of sergeant or above and non-sworn employees with oversight responsibility for DPD employees.
39

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 47 of 106 Pg ID 2833

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

one.91 The Monitor could not assess compliance with the incomplete information provided for one district for one platoon. Lastly, for three specialized units, although officers were assigned, their respective supervisors were available on an “on-call” basis only. As a result, the DPD’s overall compliance rate was 83.2% (104 of 125).
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U73.

91 The DPD staffs sworn employees in its districts over three platoons for the periods 12am to 8am, 8am to 4pm and 4pm to 12am, respectively. The DPD also staffs sworn employees at intervals ranging over multiple platoons. The Monitor noted that in some instances the ratio of officers to supervisors exceeded eight to one for a portion of the platoon. In other instances the ratio was exceeded for the entire platoon.
40

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 48 of 106 Pg ID 2834

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

VI. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
This section of the UOF CJ (paragraphs U78-105) requires the DPD to devise a comprehensive risk management plan that will consist of a Risk Management Database, a performance evaluation system and an audit protocol. The plan must also provide a mechanism for the regular and periodic review of all DPD policies, and for the regular occurrence of meetings of DPD management to share information and evaluate patterns of conduct that could potentially increase the DPD’s liability. This section of the UOF CJ also includes requirements in connection with the DPD’s use of video cameras, as well as the DPD’s policy and practices regarding discipline.
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U78, the introductory paragraph to section VI., during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U78 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007, in conjunction with its assessment of paragraph C63, which is the corresponding paragraph of the COC CJ.
A. RISK MANAGEMENT DATABASE
This section comprises paragraphs U79-U90. It provides specific requirements relative to the Risk Management Database, including the development and implementation of a new computerized relational database for maintaining, integrating and retrieving data necessary for the supervision and management of the DPD. While the Risk Management Database is being developed, paragraph U89 requires an interim system to be developed and implemented.
During the quarter ending November 30, 2005 the Monitor concluded that the DPD was in compliance with paragraph U84 and subparagraph U88d, as the DOJ had approved the Review Protocol, and in compliance with paragraph U83 and subparagraph U88b, as the DOJ had approved the Report Protocol.92
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U85, subparagraphs U88e, f and g, and paragraph U89 during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs and subparagraph during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U79-82 and U86-87 and subparagraphs U88a and c. during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor again assessed
92 The DPD will remain in compliance with these provisions until the respective documents are revised. Revisions to the documents will require additional review and approval by the DOJ and trigger additional compliance assessments by the Monitor.
41

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 49 of 106 Pg ID 2835

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the current quarter. The results of our current assessments follow.
Paragraph U79-82, U86-87 – Expansion of Risk Management Database; Risk Management Database Information Requirements; Identifying Information for Officers and Civilians; Data Input Plan; Common Control Number; Information Maintained in Database;
Paragraph U79 requires the DPD to enhance and expand its risk management system to include a new computerized relational database for maintaining, integrating and retrieving data necessary for supervision and management of the DPD. The DPD must ensure that the risk management database it designs or acquires is adequate to evaluate the performance of DPD officers across all ranks, units and shifts; to manage risk and liability; and to promote civil rights and best police practices. The DPD must regularly use this data for such review and monitoring.
Paragraph U80 requires the new risk management database to collect and record the following information:
a. all UOF reports and UOF investigations;
b. all canine deployments;
c. all canine apprehensions;
d. all canine bites;
e. all canisters of chemical spray issued to officers;
f. all injured prisoner reports and injured prisoner investigations;
g. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct” or interfering with a city employee;”
h. all firearms discharge reports and firearms discharge investigations;
i. all incidents in which an officer draws a firearm and acquires a target;
j. all complaints and complaint investigations, entered at the time the complaint is filed and updated to record the finding;
k. all preliminary investigations and investigations of alleged criminal conduct;
l. all criminal proceedings initiated as well as all civil or administrative claims filed with, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the City, or its officers or agents, resulting from DPD operations or the actions of DPD personnel, entered at the time proceedings are initiated and updated to record disposition;
m. all vehicle and foot pursuits and traffic collisions;

42

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 50 of 106 Pg ID 2836

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

n. all reports regarding arrests without probable cause or where the individual was discharged from custody without formal charges being sought;
o. all reports regarding investigatory stops and/or frisks unsupported by reasonable suspicion;
p. all reports regarding interviews, interrogations or conveyances in violation of DPD policy;
q. the time between arrest and arraignment for all arrests;
r. all reports regarding a violation of DPD prompt judicial review policy;
s. all reports regarding a violation of DPD hold policy;
t. all restrictions on phone calls or visitors imposed by officers;
u. all instances in which the DPD is informed by a prosecuting authority that a declination to prosecute any crime was based, in whole or in part, upon concerns about the credibility of a DPD officer or that a motion to suppress evidence was granted on the grounds of a constitutional violation by a DPD officer;
v. all disciplinary action taken against officers;
w. all non-disciplinary corrective action required of officers, excluding administrative counselling records;
x. all awards and commendations received by officers;
y. the assignment, rank, and training history of officers; and
z. firearms qualification information of officers.
Paragraph U81 requires the new risk management database to include, for each incident, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (including name, pension number, badge number, shift and supervisor) and civilian (including race, ethnicity or national origin, sex, and age).
Paragraph U82 requires the DPD to prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a Data Input Plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management database and addressing data storage. The Data Input Plan must detail the specific fields of information to be included and the means for inputting such data; specify the unit responsible for inputting data; the deadlines for inputting data in a timely, accurate and complete manner; specify the historical time periods for which information is to be input and the deadlines for inputting the data in an accurate and timely fashion; and require that the data be maintained in a secure and confidential manner.
Paragraph U86 mandates that where information about a single incident is entered into the risk management database from more than one document, the risk management database must use a

43

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 51 of 106 Pg ID 2837

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

common control number or other equally effective means to link the information from different sources so that the user can cross-reference the information and perform analyses.
Paragraph U87 requires the City to maintain all personally identifiable information about an officer included in the risk management database during the officer’s employment with the DPD and for at least five years after separation. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis must be maintained indefinitely in the risk management database.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U79-82 and U86-87 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in non-compliance with each. The MAS was neither fully developed nor operational.
Current Assessment of Compliance
As reported in the Monitor’s Report for the Quarter Ending May 31, 2006, the DOJ provided the DPD with a letter, dated February 17, 2006, outlining the DOJ’s concerns with the Data Input Plan. As reported in the Monitor’s Report for the Quarter Ending August 31, 2006, the DOJ provided the DPD with verbal conditional approval of the Data Input Plan. During the current quarter, the DOJ submitted a letter on October 18, 2006 stating that although the Data Input Plan does include source documents and case examples of the processes that will be used, it does not provide specifications of the final MAS database. The letter further states that the DOJ views the Data Input Plan as a starting point in the development, but not a solution. Nevertheless, as previously reported, the Data Input Plan has been conditionally approved by the DOJ.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with paragraph U82 and in non-compliance with paragraphs U79-81 and U86-87.
Subparagraphs U88a and c - Schedule for Database Development
Paragraph U88 requires the DPD to develop and implement the new risk management database according to the following schedule:
a. within 90 days of the effective date of the UOF CJ, the DPD must submit the Data Input Plan to the DOJ for review and approval within 30 days, and prior to this, share drafts of the Data Input Plan with the DOJ;
c. by October 31, 2003, the DPD must issue the Request for Proposals.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with subparagraphs U88a and c during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in non-compliance with both subparagraphs. The

44

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 52 of 106 Pg ID 2838

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

DOJ had expressed concerns about the Data Input Plan (subparagraph U88a), which were not resolved by the end of that quarter. The DPD and the DOJ were also participating in ongoing discussions regarding whether the DPD will issue an RFP or whether the DPD will use their internal resources to develop the MAS. Therefore, the DPD was found in non-compliance with U88c.
Current Assessment of Compliance
In regards to subparagraph U88a, as described above, the DOJ provided the DPD with a letter, dated February 17, 2006, outlining the DOJ’s concerns with the Data Input Plan. As reported in the Monitor’s Report for the Quarter Ending August 31, 2006, the DOJ provided the DPD with verbal conditional approval of the Data Input Plan.
In regards to subparagraph U88c, the parties participated in conversations regarding the DPD’s proposal to use personnel from the City of Detroit’s Information Technology Services (ITS) Department to convert the IMAS to the MAS. On October 18, 2006, the DOJ submitted a letter to the DPD outlining the parties’ agreement that the DPD will use the City’s ITS Department to develop the MAS. According to the letter, the DPD is to comply with paragraph U88f93 by November 18, 2007 and U88g by April 18, 2008.94 The letter also identified several remaining concerns that the DOJ has about the conversion. In order to monitor the progress, the Parties and the Monitor will meet on a monthly basis to discuss the development. As of the end of the quarter, the City and the DPD have not yet signed the letter from the DOJ.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with subparagraph U88a and is withholding a determination of compliance with subparagraph U88c pending the parties’ ongoing discussions.
B. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM
This section comprises one paragraph, paragraph U91, which requires the DPD to ensure that performance evaluations for all DPD employees occur at least annually and include consideration of civil rights integrity, adherence to federal constitutional amendments and civil rights statutes and for supervisors, the identification of at-risk behavior in subordinates.
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U91 during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U91 during the quarter ending August 31, 2007.

93 Subparagraph U88f requires the DPD to have a beta version of the MAS ready for testing by June 30, 2005. The DOJ’s letter allows the DPD until November 18, 2007 to have the beta version ready. 94 Subparagraph U88g requires the DPD to have the MAS operational and fully implemented by December 31, 2005. This agreement moves this date to April 18, 2008.
45

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 53 of 106 Pg ID 2839

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

C. OVERSIGHT
This subsection of the UOF CJ (paragraphs U92-99) requires the DPD to establish an internal audit process, to perform annual95 audits of all precincts and specialized units on eight areas of policing,96 to perform periodic random reviews of scout car camera videotapes and video recording equipment, and to meet regularly with local prosecutors to identify any issues in officer, shift or unit performance. Each of these oversight provisions requires the DPD to examine a number of issues, but a common theme among them all is the requirement to assess and report on the appropriateness of the police activity being examined.
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U93 during the quarter ending November 30, 2005; with paragraphs U92 and U94-98 during the quarter ending August 31, 2006; and with paragraph U99 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess compliance with paragraph U96 during the quarter ending November 30, 2007 and with paragraph U98 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007. The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U92-95, U97 and U99 during the current quarter. The results of our current assessments follow.
Paragraph U92 – Audit Protocol
Paragraph U92 requires the DPD to develop an Audit Protocol to be used by all personnel when conducting audits. The Audit Protocol must establish a regular and fixed schedule for all audits required by the UOF CJ97 to ensure the audits occur with sufficient frequency and cover all DPD units and Commands.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U92 during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor completed its review of the 2006/2007 Audit Protocol submitted by the DPD on July 29, 2006 and found its content sufficiently covered all requisite topics;98 however, the Monitor did not receive documentation supporting the dissemination and

95 On October 4, 2004, in response to a Joint Motion from the parties, the Court amended the audit schedule in the UOF CJ by requiring the DPD’s UOF CJ audits to be completed annually by August 31, 2004, and every year thereafter. 96 Including UOF investigations; prisoner injuries; allegations of misconduct; arrests; stops and frisks; witness identification and questioning; custodial detention practices, and complaint investigations. 97 This Audit Protocol must also address the audits required by the COC CJ (paragraphs C65-72). 98 The Audit Protocol should at a minimum address the audit schedule, the standards for conducting and reviewing such audits, sufficient instruction on the content and review process for the DPD’s audit reports, and adequate articulation of the competencies and training requirements for the DPD’s auditors.
46

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 54 of 106 Pg ID 2840

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

implementation of the 2006/07 Audit Protocol as of the end of that quarter. As a result, the Monitor withheld a determination of the DPD’s compliance with the paragraph.
Current Assessment of Compliance
During the current quarter, in response to the Monitor’s request, the DPD submitted documentation supporting the dissemination and implementation of the 2006/07 Audit Protocol, including the current listing of all DPD personnel who are currently involved in conducting DPD audits; documentation supporting the receipt and signatures of Annual Confidentiality Declarations for all listed personnel; and, documentation supporting the attendance at internal training in connection with the 2006/07 Audit Protocol. The Monitor reviewed this documentation and determined that it adequately addresses the requirements of this paragraph.
Based on the foregoing, as well as the Monitor’s findings expressed last quarter, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with paragraph U92.
Paragraph U93 – Audit Reporting Requirements
Paragraph U93 requires the DPD to issue a written report on the results of each UOF CJ audit to the Chief of Police and to all precincts or specialized unit commanders. The UOF CJ requires such audit reports to be completed by August 31, 2004, and annually thereafter. These reports must include an examination of consistency throughout the DPD. The commander of each precinct and specialized unit must review all audit reports regarding employees under his or her Command and, if appropriate, take disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U93 during the quarter ending November 30, 2005, at which time the Monitor found the DPD in non-compliance. The Monitor had not received documentation evidencing the transmittal of audit reports to the Chief of Police and appropriate COs, or any documentation evidencing any corrective action taken in connection with the audits.
Current Assessment of Compliance
On August 31, 2006, the DPD submitted to the Monitor two audit reports required by the UOF CJ: the Allegations of Misconduct Investigations Audit, required by subparagraph U94c, and the OCI Audit of External Complaints, required by paragraph U97. Upon receiving these audit reports, the Monitor requested documentation to support their transmittal to the appropriate COs,

47

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 55 of 106 Pg ID 2841

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

and any related corrective actions taken.99 The Monitor has not received any documentation evidencing such transmittal or describing any related corrective actions taken during the current quarter. As mentioned in previous quarterly reports, the DPD has indicated that it intends to implement the Corrective Action Needed (CAN) reporting system to document and track all pertinent information relative to the corrective actions taken by each CO in connection with DPD audit findings; however, this system was not implemented as of the end of the current quarter, and no alternative process was established to document and track actions taken in connection with the audits.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U93.
Paragraph U94 – Audits of UOF, Prisoner Injuries and Misconduct Investigations
Paragraph U94 requires the DPD to conduct regularly scheduled annual audits of a) UOF investigations, b) prisoner injury investigations, and c) investigations into allegations of misconduct. Such audits must cover all precincts and specialized units. These audits were due by August 31, 2004, and annually thereafter.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with subparagraphs U94a and b during the quarter ending August 31, 2006, finding the DPD in non-compliance with each. The audits required by these subparagraphs have not been submitted since the inception of the UOF CJ.
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with subparagraph U94c during the quarter ending November 30, 2005, finding the DPD in non-compliance due to qualitative deficiencies in its Allegations of Misconduct Investigations Audit submitted on August 31, 2005. On August 31, 2006, the DPD submitted its next Allegations of Misconduct Investigations Audit.
Current Assessment of Compliance
U94a and b – UOF and Prisoner Injuries Investigations Audits
As of the end of the current quarter, the DPD had not submitted a Use of Force Investigations Audit (required by subparagraph U94a) or a Prisoner Injury Investigations Audit (required by subparagraph U94b).

99 The Monitor also has a standing document request for all documentation related to the audits, including transmittal and follow-up correspondence.
48

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 56 of 106 Pg ID 2842

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with subparagraphs U94a-b.100
U94c – Allegations of Misconduct Investigations Audit
During the current quarter, the Monitor completed its review of the Allegations of Misconduct Audit report submitted by the DPD’s AT on August 31, 2006,and the AT’s audit work plan and audit fieldwork documents, including audit matrices, supporting documents and a randomly selected sample of 14 underlying investigations.101
The Monitor’s findings, which were discussed with the DPD’s AT, are highlighted below:
• The audit report was submitted by the required due date of August 31, 2006.
• This audit report was one of the AT’s better written reports to date – it was more comprehensible than previous reports issued. However, certain issues were not appropriately addressed as discussed in further detail below, and further improvements could be made based on the “Report Writing TA” provided by the Monitor in late November 2006.
• The audit reviewed a sample of closed investigations from September 1, 2005 through February 28, 2006, which was 7-12 months prior to the submission of the audit report.102 This caused the audit report to be stale, and not all of the factors preventing the AT from reviewing a more recent sample were addressed in the audit report. The Monitor understands that some of the factors preventing the AT from reviewing a more recent sample are not within the AT’s control; however, these factors must be addressed by the DPD so that future audits can assess a more recent sample of misconduct investigations.103
• The audit report appropriately addressed the DPD’s inability to track misconduct investigations within the Commands, thereby causing the audit population to be incomplete. Although similar problems existed regarding the tracking of IA investigations, the DPD’s AT failed to make similar conclusions regarding the completeness of IA’s population of misconduct investigations.

100 The Monitor will continue to find the DPD in non-compliance with the requirement to conduct these audits until such time as the required audits have been submitted. When these audits are submitted, the Monitor will evaluate their quality. 101 The Monitor’s sample size was 54 investigations, which was determined using a one tailed test with an error rate of +/- 4% and a 95% confidence interval. After reviewing 14 investigations, the Monitor discontinued its review due to an early determination of non-compliance. 102 An appropriate sample would have comprised incidents that closed within approximately 6 months of audit submission date (i.e. incidents closed after February 28, 2006 for the audit submitted on August 31, 2006). 103 It is the Monitor’s understanding that the factors beyond the AT’s control include the DPD’s failure to implement prior audit recommendations regarding the tracking of investigations (e.g., creation of an electronic database); poor record keeping; and untimely responses to data requests made by the AT.
49

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 57 of 106 Pg ID 2843

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

• This audit did not evaluate the timeliness of any open complaint investigations.104
• This audit did not evaluate whether or not the investigation had captured the officer’s and subject’s actions correctly; instead, it only tested whether or not the investigation had evaluated the officer’s and subject’s actions.
• Paragraph U33 requires that reviewing supervisors “identify” deficiencies and take corrective action when an investigator fails to conduct or review investigations appropriately. The AT incorrectly concluded N/A (for “Not Applicable”) when there was no documentation confirming that deficiencies were identified or corrective action was taken, even though deficiencies were present within the investigation or corrective action should have been documented. Instead, the AT should have concluded that the DPD was non-compliant with the requirements of paragraph U33.
• The AT incorrectly concluded N/A when there was no documentation justifying the extension of the investigations beyond 60 days as required by paragraph U32h, even though only one IA investigation was closed within 60 days.105 Instead, the AT should have concluded that extension documentation was required but not present.
• Although the audit report contained valid recommendations, in many cases the recommendations did not adequately address the “heart of the issue.” For example, no recommendations were made to address inadequate supervisory oversight and corrective action relating to deficient investigations.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with subparagraph U94c.
Paragraph U95 – Audits of Probable Cause, Stops and Frisks and Witness Identification and Questioning Documentation
Paragraph U95 requires the DPD to conduct regularly scheduled annual audits of a) arrest practices, b) stops and frisks, and c) witness identification and questioning documentation. Such audits must cover all precincts and specialized units and must include an evaluation of the scope, duration, content, and voluntariness, if appropriate, of the police interaction. The arrest practices audit must also include a comparison of the number of arrests to requests for warrants and number of arrests for which warrants were sought to judicial findings of probable cause. These audits were due by August 31, 2004, and annually thereafter.

104 The Monitor agrees that open complaint investigations do not need to be reviewed for quality. 105 The AT appropriately concluded that the investigations did not comply with the requirement to close within 60 days.
50

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 58 of 106 Pg ID 2844

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with subparagraphs U95a and U95c during the quarter ending November 30, 2005, finding the DPD in non-compliance with each, since neither of these audits were submitted as of the end of that quarter. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with subparagraphs U95a and U95c during the quarter ending November 30, 2007.
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with subparagraph U95b during the quarter ending May 31, 2005, finding the DPD in non-compliance due to deficiencies related to timeliness, sampling, scope, and reporting in its Investigatory Stop and Frisk Audit submitted on February 18, 2005. On August 31, 2006, the DPD submitted its next audit of this topic.
Current Assessment of Compliance
Subparagraph U95b – Investigatory Stop and Frisk Practices Audit
During the current quarter, the Monitor completed its review of the Investigatory Stop and Frisk Practices Audit report submitted by the DPD’s AT on August 31, 2006, and the AT’s audit work plan and audit fieldwork documents, including audit matrices, supporting documents and a randomly selected sample of 52 stops and 40 frisks.106
The Monitor’s findings, which have been discussed with the DPD’s AT, are highlighted below:
• The audit report was submitted on a timely basis by the date it was due, and within six months of the stops and frisks evaluated in this audit.
• The samples for this audit were appropriately selected from all stops and frisks documented in Activity Logs and Daily Reports over a one-week period, February 19-25, 2006, and comprised a random sample of 111107 stops and the entire population of 68 frisks.
• The scope of the audit adequately addressed all relevant sections of the UOF CJ, however the audit report failed to address the low number of frisks reported during the period reviewed.108 This is cause for concern and suggests potential problems with officer safety, training, a lack of knowledge of the requirements related to reporting frisks, and/or a failure by officers to document frisks that are in fact being conducted. The AT should have reported on this significant issue and highlighted it for follow-up by DPD management.

106 The Monitor’s sample size was determined using a one-tailed test with an error rate of +/- 4% and a 95% confidence interval. The Monitor reviewed the entire sample of both stops and frisks. 107 The AT tested a minimum number of two stops for each stratum. 108 The number of frisks reported averages approximately 1.6 frisks in each District per 24-hour period.
51

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 59 of 106 Pg ID 2845

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

• Although the Monitor identified minor errors within the AT’s matrix responses, these errors did not impact the compliance rates reported by the DPD’s AT. With the exception of paragraph U44, the Monitor concurs with the AT’s conclusions that the DPD was less than 95% compliant with all relevant UOF CJ sections regarding investigatory stops and frisks.109 The Monitor also concurs with the recommendations contained in the audit report.
• Although better written than prior reports, future reports of this nature should be simplified and better organized based on the “Report Writing TA” recently provided by the Monitor.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with subparagraph U95b.
Paragraph U97 – Audits of OCI Audits of External Complaints and Investigations
Paragraph U97 requires the Chief Investigator (CI) of the OCI to designate an individual or entity to conduct annual audits that examine external complaints and complaint investigations, and to review all audit reports regarding officers under OCI command and take appropriate disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U97 during the quarter ending November 30, 2005, finding the DPD in non-compliance as a result of deficiencies in the AT’s External Complaint and Complaint Investigation Audit related to the reporting of its sampling processes, testing, and compliance calculations, as well as its interpretation of the related results.
On August 31, 2006, the DPD submitted its External Complaint and Complaint Investigation Audit as required by paragraph U97.
Current Assessment of Compliance
During the current quarter, the Monitor completed its review of the External Complaint and Complaint Investigation Audit report submitted to the Monitor on August 31, 2006, and the AT’s audit work plan and audit fieldwork documents, including audit matrices, supporting documents and a randomly selected sample of 12 underlying investigations.110
The Monitor’s findings, which have been discussed with the DPD’s AT, are highlighted below:

109 The AT found the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U44. The Monitor considers paragraph U44 to be a policy-only paragraph, with implementation covered under paragraph U45. As a result, the Monitor has determined that the DPD is in compliance with paragraph U44. 110 The Monitor’s sample size was 14 external complaint investigations, which was determined using a one-tailed test with an error rate of +/- 10% and a 95% confidence interval. After reviewing 12 of investigations, the Monitor discontinued its review due to an early determination of non-compliance.
52

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 60 of 106 Pg ID 2846

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

• The Monitor was not able to assess the completeness of the population as the DPD did not provide the requested documentation necessary to validate whether all complaints were tracked as required by paragraph U61. Notwithstanding this, the Monitor commends the AT for identifying 39 complaints that were not forwarded to the OCI and investigated.
• This audit did not evaluate the timeliness of any open complaint investigations.111
• In its audit work plan, the AT indicated that it would evaluate the DPD inspection team’s reports required by paragraphs U62, U63, U64, U67e and f and U68. While the AT reported that it evaluated the inspections, it failed to report the results of the evaluation and whether the inspections were quality inspections that met the requirements of the UOF CJ, and failed to make recommendations for those inspections that did not.
• The AT reviewed all complaints from the period October 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006 to determine if they related to incidents in holding cells. While the Monitor understands the AT did this to demonstrate the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs C58 and C59, it is not a UOF CJ requirement to audit all holding cell complaints. The time required for this review, along with other concerns,112 caused this audit to be stale.
• Paragraph U33 requires that reviewing supervisors “identify” deficiencies and take corrective action when an investigator fails to conduct or review investigations appropriately. In its evaluation of this requirement, the AT incorrectly concluded N/A when there was no documentation confirming that deficiencies were identified, even though deficiencies were present within the investigation.113 Instead, the AT should have concluded that the DPD was non-compliant with paragraph U33, as the AT identified deficiencies that the investigators/supervisors failed to identify.
• The AT failed to correctly report if there was documentation to justify a valid extension as required by paragraph U32; instead, the AT focused on whether a valid reason was provided for the extension rather than first assessing if there was a documented reason for the extension. As a result, for 60 of 64 investigations that took over 45 days to complete,114 the AT recorded “N/A” rather than “No” when no extension documentation was available.115

111 The Monitor agrees that open complaint investigations do not need to be reviewed for quality. 112 These concerns include time required for manual review of information that could be maintained in a database, untimely responses to the AT’s data requests, AT starting with a six month rather than a three month sample period, and the length of the audit report, which required substantial review time. 113 The AT identified 11 of 15 investigations with no taped interviews of officers, and 3 investigations in which officers’ statements were not taken on a timely basis. The AT also identified 14 of 15 investigations in which the complainant was not notified of the status of the investigation, and 14 of 15 investigations that were not completed within 60 days. Corrective action should have been taken in connection with these deficiencies. 114 The AT appropriately identified an inconsistency between paragraph U67, which requires investigations to be completed within 60 days, and the DPD’s Citizen Complaints Policy (Directive 102.6-2), which requires investigations to be completed within 45 days. Notwithstanding this inconsistency, the AT appropriately used 45 days as the basis for its evaluations relating to paragraph U32. The Monitor understands that the City of Detroit’s
53

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 61 of 106 Pg ID 2847

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

• The AT failed to appropriately evaluate the evidence for 4 of the 12 complaint investigations tested by the Monitor, finding the investigations in compliance or reporting “N/A” for certain of the objectives tested; instead, the AT should have found such investigations in noncompliance, or at least concluded “UTD” (unable to determine).116
• OCI personnel confirmed that they ultimately received a copy of the August 2005117 audit report as required by paragraph U97, however the DPD’s AT did not evaluate whether the OCI took non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action against officers under the OCI’s command in connection with instances of non-compliance identified in that audit.
• For four objectives, the AT appropriately limited its sample size due to the extent of noncompliance noted. However, in the detailed findings for some areas tested, the AT incorrectly reported “(100%) performance achieved”118 without addressing the impact of the sample size limitation.
• AT staff indicated that they analyzed their findings to determine if there were any patterns between officers, supervisors, divisions, or units that are not meeting the UOF CJ requirements, as required by paragraph U97. However, the AT did not provide any information in its report regarding the results of such analyses.
• Although the audit report presented the audit findings for each objective, based on the “Report Writing TA” recently provided by the Monitor, future reports of this nature should present the findings in a manner that would enable the DPD and OCI to assess key problems and take action as needed.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds this audit in non-compliance with paragraph U97.

Charter requires that OCI investigations be completed in 45 days (although the UOF CJ requires completion in 60 days). 115 While the AT’s conclusion was N/A, the AT appropriately recommended that written extension requests should be made when an investigation takes more than 45 days. 116 For one investigation, the AT reported N/A regarding a canvas of the scene (subparagraph U28a), even though the investigator did not document why a canvas of the scene was not performed. For another investigation, the AT concluded the site and time of the interview was convenient to the complainant (paragraph U29), even though this question was not asked by the investigator during the taped interview and the interview was interrupted by the complainant’s colleagues at work. For two investigations, the AT concluded there were no leading questions and no group interviews (subparagraphs U29c and U30a), even though no video or audio tapes of the interviews were taken. 117 The OCI also confirmed receipt of the August 2006 audit report. 118 The limited sample sizes were insufficient to enable the AT to conclude 100% compliance, as the sample sizes did not meet the requirement of a +/- 4% error rate with a 95% confidence interval.
54

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 62 of 106 Pg ID 2848

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Recommendations
• The Monitor recommends that the AT use simple, direct questions as often as possible in its audit matrices, rather than questions containing a negative or questions that have multiple parts.
• The Monitor recommends that for future audits the AT initially select its sample from at most a three-month period. If the AT determines that the sample selected is not large enough, it could then extend the sample.
Paragraph U99 – Regular Meetings with Prosecutors
Paragraph U99 requires the DPD to ensure regular meetings with local prosecutors to identify issues in officer, shift or unit performance.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U99 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in compliance. The DPD and the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office (WCPO) continued to meet quarterly to identify and discuss issues relevant to the requirements of this paragraph.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD and the WCPO continue to meet quarterly to identify issues in officer, shift or unit performance. During this quarter, the meeting was held on November 15, 2006. The Monitor attended the meeting and observed that the WCPO and DPD discussed pertinent issues and there was an active exchange of information and agreement to follow up on the issues that were identified.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with paragraph U99.
D. USE OF VIDEO CAMERAS
This section comprises paragraphs U100-102. It requires the DPD to develop a policy on the use of video cameras that provides a systematic approach for activation, recording, review and preservation of video cameras and tapes. Additionally, the DPD is required to repair and replace all non-functioning video equipment. Other paragraphs in the UOF CJ and COC CJ that require periodic random reviews of videotapes and periodic random surveys of recording equipment are U98 and C64, which are also discussed in this report.
Consistent procedures throughout the DPD in this area will facilitate the availability of information for investigative purposes and will assist in the identification of at-risk behavior and

55

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 63 of 106 Pg ID 2849

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

violations of police procedure. These policies will also serve to protect DPD officers by providing an accurate record of encounters with citizens.
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U100-102 during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U100-102 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.
E. DISCIPLINE
This section comprises paragraphs U103-105. It requires the DPD to eliminate the current backlog of disciplinary cases and to establish guidelines and create a scheduling process that will prevent backlogs from developing in the future. In order to provide guidelines for uniformity in discipline, the DPD must create a matrix that establishes a presumptive range of discipline for each type of rule violation.
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U103-105 during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U103-105 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.

56

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 64 of 106 Pg ID 2850

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

VII. TRAINING
This section of the UOF CJ (paragraphs U106-123) directs the DPD to coordinate and review all UOF and A&D training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and DPD policy. Significantly, the DPD must provide annual training for all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors in a number of areas including UOF, arrests and other police-citizen interactions and custodial detention. Furthermore, the DPD must develop a firearms protocol and provide supervisory, investigator and field training. The Department must also select and train trainers, evaluate all training, conduct needs assessments, and create and maintain individual training records for all officers. The UOF CJ provides specific requirements for review and reporting on these issues to the Monitor and the DOJ.
A. OVERSIGHT AND DEVELOPMENT
This section comprises paragraphs U106 -114. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the current quarter. The results of our current assessments follow.
Paragraph U106 – Coordination of Training
Paragraph U106 requires the DPD to coordinate and review all UOF and A&D training to ensure quality, consistency and compliance with applicable law and DPD policy. The DPD must conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually, and produce a report of such reviews to the Monitor and the DOJ.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U106 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in non-compliance. The DPD described various processes, including the establishment of a Training Committee, that, once operational, will assist the DPD in effectively implementing the requirements of this paragraph. However, the Monitor did not receive any reports of reviews required by this paragraph, and lesson plans that had been previously submitted by the DPD did not include any documentation evidencing the review and approval required by the paragraph.
Current Assessment of Compliance
With regard to the paragraph’s initial requirement regarding the coordination and review of all UOF and A&D training, the DPD submitted three lesson plans on August 31, 2006. The
57

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 65 of 106 Pg ID 2851

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Monitor has not received any documentation that these lesson plans were reviewed consistent with the requirements of this paragraph.
The DPD previously submitted documents identified as semi-annual reviews and refers to that submission in their Thirteenth Quarter Status Report. However, as previously reported in the Quarter ending May 31, 2006, the semi-annual review documents previously submitted by the DPD consisted of a listing of lesson plan objectives and did not contain the reviews required by this paragraph. As of the end of the current quarter, the Monitor has not received any additional semi-annual reviews of lesson plans from the DPD.
According to the DPD’s Thirteenth Quarter Status Report, the Training Committee, met in June 2006 and will meet again during the quarter ending February 28, 2007. The Monitor has not received any additional information regarding actions or recommendations by this committee.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U106.
Paragraph U107 – Michigan Law Enforcement Officers Training Council Standards
Paragraph U107 requires the DPD, consistent with Michigan law and the Michigan Law Enforcement Officers Training Council standards, to:
a. ensure the quality of all UOF and Arrest and Detention training;
b. develop UOF and Arrest and Detection training curricula;
c. select and train DPD officer trainers;
d. develop, implement, approve and oversee all training and curricula;
e. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and
f. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that training governing UOF and Arrest and Detention are responsive to the knowledge, skills and abilities of the officers being trained.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U107 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in non-compliance. The DPD indicated that the review and approval process designed to address paragraph U106 requirement is sufficient to address the requirements of this paragraph. However, the DPD’s response did not adequately document or demonstrate its compliance with the type of management approach that is required by paragraph U107.

58

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 66 of 106 Pg ID 2852

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Current Assessment of Compliance
In its Thirteenth Quarter Report, the DPD again has stated that the requirements of this paragraph are being met by the DPD’s response to paragraph U106. Although the Training Committee formed under paragraph U106 may carry out some of the requirements of this paragraph, the Monitor does not believe that the DPD’s response under U106 thus far adequately demonstrates its compliance with the type of management approach that is required by paragraph U107.
The Monitor requested and received from the Michigan Department of State Police (MSP) a list of DPD officers who have completed an Instructor Development training program. This program is one of several such training courses that are recognized for its instructional content and methods. According to MSP records, only three members of the DPD have completed this program since October 3, 2003. According to the DPD, an effort is currently being made to survey departmental members to identify all personnel who have been trained in curriculum design, lesson plan development, and instructional delivery.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U107.
Paragraph U108 – Individual Training Records
Paragraph U108 requires the DPD to create and maintain individual training records for all officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training completed on or after the effective date of the UOF CJ.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U108 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in non-compliance. Although some recording of current training had been entered into the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) Information Tracking Network (MITN), the DPD plans to use the MAS to address the requirements of this paragraph.119 Because the MAS was not yet fully developed or operational, the DPD was not yet maintaining individual training records for all officers, documenting the date and topic of all pre-service and in-service training.
Current Assessment of Compliance
According to the DPD, they have continued to enter training records into MITN as an interim method for tracking DPD training records for sworn personnel. However, all of the training records required by this paragraph have not been entered into MITN. The DPD plans to use its

119 Paragraphs U79-U88, and U90 pertain to the MAS. These paragraphs are evaluated under the Management and Supervision section of this report.
59

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 67 of 106 Pg ID 2853

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

MAS in order to maintain training records. However, as reported in previous quarters, the DPD has not fully implemented the MAS as an operational component for tracking and documenting individual training records for all officers.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U108.
Paragraph U109 – Approved Lesson Plans / Scenario-Based Training
Paragraph U109 requires the DPD to ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors and that instructors engage students in meaningful dialogue regarding particular scenarios, preferably taken from actual incidents involving DPD officers, with the goal of educating students regarding the legal and tactical issues raised by the scenarios.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U109 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in non-compliance. The Monitor provided TA to the DPD related to adequate lesson plan development during that quarter. However, the DPD had neither submitted revised lesson plans nor had it notified the Monitor of specific training dates that would enable the Monitor to further assess compliance with the requirements of the paragraph.
Current Assessment of Compliance
On August 31, 2006, the Monitor received from the DPD three lesson plans: Use of Force, Supervisory Leadership & Accountability, and Firearms Tactical Training and Qualification. On November 8, 2006, the Monitor submitted memorandum outlining concerns about the Supervisory Leadership & Accountability, and Firearms Tactical Training and Qualification lesson plans. The Monitor is encouraged by the DPD’s efforts to follow recommendations that were offered in TA previously provided.120
In order to facilitate the process of obtaining approval for lesson plans, the Monitor met with OCR on November 22, 2006 in an effort to further assist the DPD curriculum developers in lesson plan content, structure, and general curriculum design. The Monitor and the OCR also specifically discussed the Monitor’s comments on the Supervisory, Leadership and Accountability lesson plan. The Monitor will continue to assist the DPD in resolving these issues and reiterates the importance of following best practices regarding a standardized format, structure, subject matter content, and additional requirements of the UOF CJ.

120 Based on the consistent deficiencies noted during the Monitor’s review of many of the lesson plans submitted by the DPD, and the shortfalls observed by the Monitor in actual training delivered, the Monitor provided TA to the DPD related to adequate lesson plan development on May 4, 2006.
60

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 68 of 106 Pg ID 2854

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Until the lesson plans are approved and then delivered by instructors (who are selected pursuant to U107), the Monitor will not be able to assess the requirements of this paragraph. During the current quarter, the Monitor submitted a document request asking for the dates of all upcoming CJ-related training.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U109.
Paragraph U110 – Civil Lawsuits
Paragraph U110 requires the DPD to meet with the City Law Department on a quarterly basis concerning the conclusion of civil lawsuits alleging officer misconduct. Information gleaned from this process must be distributed to DPD risk management and training staff.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U110 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in compliance. The DPD held the quarterly meeting with the City Law Department, which the Monitor attended. On May 29, 2006, the DPD issued its Risk Management Newsletter which contains information discussed at the meeting. The DPD also made the newsletter available on the Department’s Intranet.
Current Assessment of Compliance
On November 21, 2006, the DPD held its quarterly meeting with the City Law Department. The Monitor attended this meeting and observed that information regarding police shootings and trends in lawsuit payouts was discussed. On November 30, 2006, the DPD issued its Risk Management Newsletter, which contains the information discussed at the meeting, to risk management, training and other DPD staff.
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in compliance with paragraph U110.
Paragraph U111 – Distribution and Explanation of the UOF CJ
Paragraph U111 requires the City and the DPD to distribute and explain the UOF CJ to all DPD and all relevant City employees. The City and the DPD must provide initial training on the UOF CJ to all City and DPD employees whose job responsibilities are affected by it within 120 days of each provision's implementation. Thereafter, the DPD must provide training on the policies contained in the UOF CJ during in-service training.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U111 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in non-compliance. The DPD had not provided the Monitor

61

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 69 of 106 Pg ID 2855

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

with information indicating that non-DPD City employees other than managers from the Neighborhood City Halls had received copies and an explanation of the UOF CJ.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The Monitor still has not been provided with documentation indicating that non-DPD City employees other than managers from Neighborhood City Halls have received copies and an explanation of the UOF CJ. In addition to the name of the employee and other information, the documentation must identify which City agency the employee is from.121
The paragraph also requires that initial training be conducted within 120 days of the implementation of each provision and, thereafter, in-service training be given on the policies contained in the UOF CJ. Although numerous policies have been in effect in excess of 120 days, for the majority of the policies the DPD has not yet implemented these requirements.
The DPD has indicated that there are plans to train the entire department on all UOF CJ related policies by use of an E-Learning training platform. According to the DPD, the E-Learning platform is in development. The DPD indicates in its Thirteenth Quarterly Status Report that it anticipates having an update on the progress of this online learning tool during the next quarter.122 Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U111.
B. USE OF FORCE TRAINING
This section comprises paragraph U112 only. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the current quarter. The results of our current assessment follow.
Paragraph U112 – Annual UOF Training
Paragraph U112 requires the DPD to provide all DPD recruits, officers, and supervisors with annual UOF training. Such training must include and address the following topics:
a. the DPD's UOF continuum; proper UOF; decision making; and the DPD's UOF reporting requirements;

121 The DPD’s Thirteenth Quarterly Status Report indicated that training was provided for non-DPD City employees at the end of the quarter, on November 28 and 29, 2006. The Monitor does not have any additional information about what this training consisted of or who was present. 122 The DPD’s Thirteenth Quarterly Status Report states that the DPD is working with Michigan State University to provide online learning to DPD employees.
62

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 70 of 106 Pg ID 2856

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

b. the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including recent legal developments;
c. examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper UOF decision making, including the use of deadly force;
d. the circumstances in which officers may draw, display, or point a firearm, emphasizing: officers should not draw their firearms unless they reasonably believe there is a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or another person; the danger of engaging or pursuing a subject with a firearm drawn; and that officers are generally not justified in drawing their firearms when pursuing a subject suspected of committing only a misdemeanor;
e. the proper use of all intermediate force weapons;
f. threat assessment, alternative and de-escalation techniques that allow officers to effect arrests without using force and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units or even letting a subject temporarily evade arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation, even when the UOF would be legally justified;
g. interacting with people with mental illnesses, including instruction by mental health practitioners and an emphasis on de-escalation strategies;
h. factors to consider in initiating or continuing a pursuit;
i. the proper duration of a burst of chemical spray, the distance from which it should be applied, and emphasize that officers must aim chemical spray only at the target's face and upper torso; and
j. consideration of the safety of civilians in the vicinity before engaging in police action.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U112 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in non-compliance. The Monitor reviewed various lesson plans submitted by the DPD in response to this paragraph and submitted memoranda detailing various deficiencies identified during it review of certain lesson plans.123 The lesson plans contained various qualitative shortfalls, which were described in the memoranda, and the majority of the lesson plans did not address all of the requirements of the paragraphs for which they were submitted.

123 The memoranda covered the following lesson plans: Chemical Spray, Confinement of Material Witness, Firearms Marksmanship Training and Qualification, Firearms Tactical Training and Qualification Supervisor Report Writing, and Prisoner Detention Officer Training, and Foot Pursuit.
63

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 71 of 106 Pg ID 2857

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Current Assessment of Compliance
On August 31, 2006, the Monitor received the Use of Force lesson plan from the DPD in response to this paragraph. The Monitor suspended its review of the lesson plan in order to evaluate the RedMan training course. It was also the Monitor’s understanding that the current Use of Force lesson plan would be revised. Upon further inquiry the Monitor learned that the DPD requested an assessment of the Use of Force lesson plan that had been submitted (even though it will be revised). The Monitor has reviewed the lesson plan and some of the key points of the assessment are as follows: the lesson plan did not fully address the relevant issues contained in the various U112 subparagraphs listed therein; and in many cases, the lesson plan merely recited Consent Judgment language without any further explanation or context. This lesson plan showed considerable improvement from others that have been submitted; however, it seemed disjointed at times and lacking sufficient depth in the content specific to uses of force. Nevertheless, the Monitor is encouraged with the effort set forth in developing this specific lesson plan. From all indications, the curriculum developer is attempting to apply many of the techniques that have been discussed. The Monitor will provide its written assessment to the DPD during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.
On November 13, 2006, the Monitor attended Intermediate Use of Force Train-the-Trainer session offered by NorthCentral Technical College. The training was designed primarily around the use of “Redman” training gear, employing defensive tactics, chemical aerosol, and PR-24 baton. The training session was attended by over thirty participants from various DPD Districts, units and sections for the sole purpose of training them as trainers in intermediate UOF techniques. No standardized lesson plan was provided as requested, though the manual used during the training session could serve as the basic foundation for developing appropriate materials needed in a lesson plan.124
Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U112.
C. FIREARMS TRAINING
This section comprises paragraph U113 only. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the current quarter. The results of our current assessment follow.

124 Due to the lack of documentation pertaining to the DPD’s instructor selection process, the Monitor cannot verify whether those in attendance are qualified as instructors. The Monitor remains concerned about the DPD protocols for selecting and evaluating instructors.
64

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 72 of 106 Pg ID 2858

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Paragraph U113 – Firearms Training Protocol
Paragraph U113 requires the DPD to develop a protocol regarding firearms training that:
a. ensures that all officers and supervisors complete the bi-annual firearms training and qualification;
b. incorporates professional night training, stress training (i.e., training in using a firearm after undergoing physical exertion) and proper UOF decision making training in the bi-annual inservice training program, with the goal of adequately preparing officers for real life situations;
c. ensures that firearms instructors critically observe students and provide corrective instruction regarding deficient firearms techniques and failure to utilize safe gun handling procedures at all times; and
d. incorporates evaluation criteria to determine satisfactory completion of recruit and in-service firearms training, including: maintains finger off trigger unless justified and ready to fire; maintains proper hold of firearm and proper stance; and uses proper UOF decision making.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U113 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in non-compliance. The Monitor reviewed lesson plans entitled Marksmanship Training and Qualification and Tactical Training and Qualification and attended firearms training and qualification process. The Monitor identified a number of deficiencies that were communicated to the DPD via a formal memorandum.
Current Assessment of Compliance
As described in the Current Assessments of Compliance for paragraphs U109 and U112, on August 31, 2006, the Monitor received the Firearms Tactical Training and Qualification lesson plan from the DPD. On November 8, 2006, the Monitor provided feedback on the lesson plan with a written memorandum. The lesson plan had structural deficiencies and did not fully address key areas of paragraph U113. For example, although the lesson plan calls for bi-annual qualifications for DPD staff, including patrol officers and supervisors as required by paragraph U113, the lesson plan itself fails to identify the process for remediation in the event a member fails to qualify.
Additionally, the lesson plan did not provide adequate information on and/or address certain issues including the establishment of evaluation criteria for professional night training, stress training, and proper UOF decision-making relating to firearms use. The lesson plan also does not provide specific criteria that allow instructors to evaluate and provide corrective instruction regarding the safe handling of firearms and proper fundamentals of firearms operation by each participant as required by subsection c of this paragraph.

65

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 73 of 106 Pg ID 2859

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U113.
D. ARREST AND POLICE-CITIZEN INTERACTION TRAINING
This section comprises paragraph U114 only. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending May 31, 2006. The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the current quarter. The results of our current assessment follow.
Paragraph U114 – Annual Arrest and Police-Citizen Interaction Training
Paragraph U114 requires the DPD to provide all DPD recruits, officers and supervisors with annual training on arrests and other police-citizen interactions. Such training must include and address the following topics:
a. the DPD arrest, investigatory stop and frisk and witness identification and questioning policies;
b. the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements, including: advising officers that the “possibility” that an individual committed a crime does not rise to the level of probable cause; advising officers that the duration and scope of the police-citizen interaction determines whether an arrest occurred, not the officer's subjective, intent or belief that he or she effected an arrest; and advising officers that every detention is a seizure, every seizure requires reasonable suspicion or probable cause and there is no legally authorized seizure apart from a “Terry stop” and an arrest; and
c. examples of scenarios faced by DPD officers and interactive exercises that illustrate proper police-community interactions, including scenarios which distinguish an investigatory stop from an arrest by the scope and duration of the police interaction; between probable cause, reasonable suspicion and mere speculation; and voluntary consent from mere acquiescence to police authority.
Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U114 during the quarter ending May 31, 2006, finding the DPD in non-compliance. The DPD had not re-submitted revised lesson plans in response to this paragraph as of the end of that quarter.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD has indicated that it intends to incorporate the provisions of this paragraph into the Witness Identification and Questioning lesson plan. As of the end of the current quarter, the DPD had not yet submitted a lesson plan in response to this paragraph.

66

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 74 of 106 Pg ID 2860

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Based on the foregoing, the Monitor finds the DPD in non-compliance with paragraph U114.
E. CUSTODIAL DETENTION TRAINING
This section comprises paragraphs U115-117. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U115-117 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.
F. SUPERVISORY TRAINING
This section comprises paragraphs U118-120. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U118-120 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.
G. INVESTIGATOR TRAINING
This section comprises paragraphs U121-122. The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with these paragraphs during the quarter ending August 31, 2006. The Monitor is scheduled to again assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs U121-122 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.
H. FIELD TRAINING
This section comprises paragraph U123 only. The Monitor was scheduled to assess the DPD’s compliance with this paragraph during the quarter ending August 31, 2006, but did not complete its evaluation as of the end of that quarter. The Monitor will evaluate the DPD’s implementation of the Protocol and assess the DPD’s compliance with paragraph U123 during the quarter ending February 28, 2007.

67

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 75 of 106 Pg ID 2861

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

VIII. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
Paragraph U139 is the only paragraph in this section of the UOF CJ for which the Monitor will be assessing compliance. This paragraph requires the DPD to reopen for further investigation any investigation the Monitor determines to be incomplete, subject to certain restrictions. The Monitor had elected to defer assessing this paragraph until the DPD had additional time to implement its investigative policies;125 however, after consideration of comments from the City and DPD, the Monitor will begin to assess this paragraph during the quarter ending February 28, 2007. This process will begin by the submission of a protocol that will set up a mechanism for the Monitor to review investigations at a stage where they could be subject to reopening,126 which has not previously occurred.

125 For an example of issues concerning implementation, see Current Assessments of Compliance for paragraphs U37-38 herein, where the DPD is not yet investigating all critical firearm discharges as required by this Consent Judgment. 126 See paragraph U139 for the specific requirements for reopening an investigation.
68

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 76 of 106 Pg ID 2862

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

SECTION THREE: COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS - THE CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CONSENT JUDGMENT
This section of the report contains the Monitor’s compliance assessments of the COC CJ paragraphs scheduled for review during the quarter ending November 30, 2006.
As described in previous quarterly reports, the organization of the COC CJ paragraphs vary, in that some paragraphs have separate but related “policy”-required paragraphs within the COC CJ,127 while others do not.128 These varying formats impact the way in which the Monitor assesses compliance with each paragraph. Specifically, the Monitor’s compliance assessments of paragraphs that do not have a separate policy-related paragraph include reviews for written guidance or instruction129 in order to ensure that the required procedures are mandated by the DPD and appropriate DPD personnel have received the necessary direction to carry out the requirements of the COC CJ.
I. FIRE SAFETY POLICIES
This section of the COC CJ comprises paragraphs C14-22. It requires the DPD to develop, implement, and provide training on specific fire safety policies and procedures and develop and implement a comprehensive fire safety program in all DPD facilities that maintain holding cells.
The Monitor found the DPD in compliance with paragraph C22 during the quarter ending August 31, 2005, as the Monitor confirmed that all Kane Fiber Ceiling Tiles had been removed from DPD buildings containing holding cells.130 The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs C14-21 during the quarter ending February 28 2006, finding the DPD in compliance with paragraph C20 and in non-compliance with paragraphs C14-19 and C21of this section.
The Monitor again assessed the DPD’s compliance with paragraphs C14-21 during the current quarter. The results of our current assessments follow.

127 See, for example, paragraph C39 – Cleanliness of Cells and paragraph C40 – Cleaning Policy. 128 See, for example, paragraph C45 - Access to Toilets and Potable Water. 129 As described in the Introduction to the Methodologies, this is the Policy Component of compliance. 130 The DPD will remain in compliance with paragraph C22 unless it begins using buildings that contain Kane Fiber Ceiling Tiles to detain prisoners.
69

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 77 of 106 Pg ID 2863

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Paragraphs C14-C19 – Life Safety Code Compliance; Detection, Suppression and Evacuation Programs; Fire Safety Program Development; Fire Safety Program Implementation; Interim Fire Safety Measures; and Testing of Fire Safety Equipment
Paragraph C14 requires the DPD to ensure that all holding cells, and buildings that contain them, meet and maintain compliance with the current Life Safety Code (LSC) within one year of the effective date of the COC CJ. As part of this effort, the City of Detroit shall ensure that the Detroit Fire Department (DFD) conducts regular and periodic inspections to evaluate whether the conditions in DPD holding cells, and buildings that contain them, are in compliance with the Life Safety Code.
Paragraph C15 requires the DPD to develop and implement a comprehensive fire detection, suppression and evacuation program131 for all holding cells, and the buildings that contain them, in accordance with the requirements of the Life Safety Code and in consultation with the DFD.
Paragraph C16 requires the DPD to develop the fire safety program in consultation with, and receive written approval by, the DFD. As part of the overall program, the DFD must evaluate the need for, and if necessary, the DPD must install fire rated separations, smoke detection systems, smoke control systems, sprinkler systems and/or emergency exits for holding cells and buildings that contain them. The approved plan must be submitted for review and approval of the DOJ within three months of the effective date of the COC CJ.
Paragraph C17 requires the DPD to implement the fire safety program within one year of the effective date of the UOF CJ (July 18, 2004). The approved program must be reviewed and approved in writing by the DFD, at a minimum of once per year and prior to any revisions.
Paragraph C18 requires the DPD to take immediate interim fire safety measures for all buildings that maintain holding cells including ensuring proper alarm activation, emergency reporting by prisoners, and automated back-up systems for life safety equipment (i.e. emergency lighting, signage, fire alarms and smoke detection systems). In addition, the interim measures must reduce the spread of smoke and fire via the stairs, garages, hazardous rooms and exposed pipes.
Paragraph C19 requires the DPD to ensure that fire safety equipment is routinely tested, inspected and maintained in all precincts that maintain holding cells. This equipment includes such items as sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, manual fire extinguishers, emergency lighting and exit signs, and self-contained breathing apparatus.

131 Within the COC CJ and in the Monitor’s report, the Comprehensive Fire Detection, Suppression and Evacuation Program is also referred to as the “Fire Safety Program” (paragraph C16).
70

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 78 of 106 Pg ID 2864

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Background
The Monitor last assessed the DPD’s and City’s compliance with paragraphs C14-C19 during the quarter ending February 28, 2006, finding the DPD in non-compliance with each. The DPD had indicated to the Monitor that no changes had been made to DPD buildings or the status of the DPD’s compliance with the Life Safety Code since the Monitor’s previous assessment. The City was considering whether to retrofit the existing buildings, wait until the construction of a new regional detention facility, or and/utilize the Wayne County Sheriff’s jail facilities to house felony detainees. Additionally, the DPD had not yet submitted a comprehensive FSP for all buildings that maintain holding cells, and it had yet to develop a consistent method for ensuring that all fire safety equipment contained within these facilities was routinely inspected, tested and maintained.
On March 15, 2006, the DPD resubmitted a FSP to the DOJ for review and approval. On May 23, 2006, the DOJ granted approval of the DPD’s FSP.
Current Assessment of Compliance
The DPD’s Holding Cell Compliance Committee (HCCC) and AT submitted the Fire Safety Programs Audit required by subparagraph C66b by the required due date of July 31, 2006. This audit covered the requirements of paragraphs C14-18 and the DPD’s FSP. The Monitor reviewed the audit report, work plan, and audit working papers. Although the Monitor identified qualitative deficiencies within the audit and found the audit in non-compliance with the applicable Consent Judgment requirement (subparagraph C66b),132 the Monitor determined that it was able to rely upon most of the audit’s findings with respect to paragraphs C14-19.133
The audit included compliance assessments of the specified requirements included within paragraphs C14-19 and the related DPD policies.134 The HCCC/AT, along with the DFD Fire Marshal, conducted inspections of all buildings containing holding cells during their annual (regular and periodic) Life Safety Code inspections, required by paragraph C14. The HCCC/AT confirmed that the DPD has not yet made all of the required Life Safety Code alterations to the existing buildings with holding cells.

132 Please refer the Current Assessment of Compliance for subparagraph C66b for further details regarding the Monitor’s assessment of this audit. 133 As described in section IV. Methodologies in the Introduction section of this report, if the Monitor determines that an audit is not compliant with the applicable audit requirements of the Consent Judgments, the Monitor may still rely on some or all of the audit’s findings if it is determined that the specific findings are reliable. 134 The audit did not include a sampling of smoke detectors and/or sprinklers as no qualified (certified) experts were available to assist the AT during the conduct of the audit, nor did it include a review of a sampling of fire safety equipment testing and maintenance records as no records have yet been developed.
71

2:03-cv-72258-AC-DRG Doc # 227-2 Filed 01/17/07 Pg 79 of 106 Pg ID 2865

Office of the Independent Monitor of the Detroit Police Department

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR FOR THE QUARTER ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006
ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2007

Paragraph C14 – Life Safety Code Compliance
The DPD’s audit determined that the DPD did not meet all of the requirements of paragraph C14. The following information is summarized from the audit’s findings:
• The DFD Fire Marshal conducted its regular and periodic (annual) Life Safety Code inspections of all DPD buildings containing holding cells, as required.
• None of the DPD buildings containing holding cells comply with all of the Life Safety Code requirements.
• In accordance with the Life Safety Code and confirmed by the DFD Fire Marshal, the Southwestern District is the only DPD building containing holding cells that must have sprinklers.
Paragraph C15 – Comprehensive Fire Detection, Suppression and Evacuation Program
The DPD’s audit determined that the DPD did not meet all of the requirements of paragraph C15. The following information is summarized from the audit’s findings:
• The DPD has developed but has not yet fully implemented the Comprehensive Fire Detection, Suppression and Evacuation Program (Fire Safety Program), as evidenced by the DPD’s non-compliance with paragraphs C16-19 below.
Paragraph C16 – Development of the Fire Safety Program
• On May 23, 
This is a case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice to remedy an alleged pattern or practice of unconstitutional misconduct by the Detroit Police Department, including the excessive use of force, false arrest, improper warrantless searches and failure to protect detainees. It was filed in 2003, simultaneously with a consent decree in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The District Court adopted the decree, and monitoring has continued since. The consent judgments were terminated on August 25, 2014 after a finding of substantial compliance.